Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners flag upcoming Waste Management contract and permitted acreage ahead of 2031 expiration
Summary
A commissioner urged the county to prepare for the Waste Management host‑fee agreement expiration and to review contract language and permitted acreage; the mayor and county staff recommended committee-level follow-up and possible legal review.
Commissioner Rocky Preston raised concerns about Benton County’s host‑fee agreements with Waste Management and the landfill’s remaining permitted acreage, urging the county to plan ahead for contract renewal or expansion that may be sought before the existing permits expire.
Preston told the commission the county’s first host‑fee agreement with Waste Management was dated Dec. 22, 1992 and was for 20 years, followed by a 30‑year agreement that began June 1, 2001. He cited a Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation engineering report showing the landfill’s original permitted acreage was 167 acres, with some acres remaining, and said the state’s report indicated about 19 years of remaining life under the current permit profile. He noted the 30‑year contract will expire June 1, 2031 and suggested the county will need to be prepared for any future permit expansions or contract renegotiation.
Preston said county legal and environmental review will be necessary because (he quoted) “page 4 of the active agreement … shows language that protects Waste Management, that makes Waste Management exempt from the Tennessee Jackson law.” He said CTAS (County Technical Assistance Service) advised that any additional permitted acreage sought by Waste Management would require county approval and that the county should secure knowledgeable legal counsel to review existing contract language and to prepare for negotiations.
Mayor and staff responses in the meeting clarified administrative roles: the mayor said he is acting solid waste director currently and that staff were not aware of a formal change to the county’s named solid waste director on an external website. Commissioners suggested the appropriate next step is to discuss the matter in solid‑waste and related committees and to consider engaging an environmental attorney to review contract language and county options before any expansion or renegotiation discussions occur.
No formal motion to change or challenge the current contract was introduced during the meeting; commissioners agreed to raise the issue with the solid waste board and appropriate committees for follow-up work.
