Beaufort County moves to consolidate 10 collection sites into two staffed “mega” sites

Beaufort County commissioners on Monday reviewed a conceptual plan to consolidate the county’s 10 residential solid-waste collection sites into two staffed ‘‘mega’’ sites and authorized the county’s consultant to proceed toward preparing bid documents.

Christina, a county staff presenter, told the board the county currently operates 10 collection sites that accept municipal solid waste, bulky waste, cardboard, yard debris and used motor oil, and that the “majority of the tonnage is collected at only three sites” on the north side of the Pamlico River.

The plan presented by Vance Moore, a consultant with Garrett Moore, calls for two consolidated, manned sites — one serving the north side and one serving the south — with each site designed to accept all materials the county currently collects and to process yard waste on-site to reduce hauling costs. “Phase 1, dealing with conceptual design and partial identification, which we have completed,” Moore said. “Phase 2, property acquisition, which we are currently in our due diligence period, and closing is pending.”

Why it matters: Commissioners were told the county’s annual operating cost for collection and disposal has risen and that the program moved off general fund support in recent years to being supported entirely by an enterprise-funded solid waste collection fee on tax parcels. Five of the county’s 10 existing sites are leased, adding ongoing cost, and much of the waste volume is concentrated at a few sites, which the county said supports consolidation.

Design and operations details: Garrett Moore’s conceptual design recommends each mega site include seven 40-yard containers with four compactors per site (two for MSW/bulky waste, one for commingled recycling and one for cardboard), plus open-top containers for scrap metal and tires and a covered multimaterial building at grade for electronics, white goods and used oil. Presenters described precrossers/pre-crushers to increase per-container weight and reduce hauling frequency; Moore said the design aims to raise average tons per container from “south of 4 tons per container before” to “9 plus tons per container with the pre crusher.”

The presentation addressed traffic flow, customer lanes and a separate service lane for hauler vehicles to reduce interactions between customers and service trucks. The design calls for a 42-inch wall at the customer unloading area to meet safety requirements referenced in the presentation and for covered shelters, site lighting and attendant stations. The consultants recommended concrete for high-wear loading areas, asphalt or crushed stone for other drive lanes, and stormwater ponds with additional treatment capacity because of the site’s role handling potentially hazardous materials.

Property and permitting status: Staff said two parcels were selected that meet the search criteria and that the county is in due diligence on both. Wetlands delineations have been completed and the county is “waiting on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verification of those extents of wetlands,” presenters said. A property survey is in final review with “a little bit of field work remaining” and a closing date was described as scheduled but not yet completed.

Recycling and future flexibility: Commissioners asked about space and flexibility to expand recycling services and to accept emerging materials such as lithium batteries or textiles. Moore and staff said the multimaterial building and the overall site layout are intended to provide flexibility for future programs, but they cautioned that each added service increases operating cost. Presenters said compactors for commingled recyclables and segregated cardboard were included in the concept and that the design allows for future addition of compactors.

Operations, equipment and contracts: County staff said the management contract with the current operator includes equipment ownership and personnel; the county does not plan to purchase and own collection equipment under the current contract structure. Presenters recommended bid documents include alternates and line-item pricing (concrete vs. asphalt, fencing lengths, etc.) so the board can choose options when receiving bids.

Schedule and next steps: The consultants proposed a timeline that would move the project from final design through permitting and construction if the board authorized the county to proceed. Moore outlined an aggressive internal schedule (roughly 30 days for final design, typical permit durations, 30 days for construction documents and bidding, and about 150 days for construction per site), and cautioned the board that some of those intervals — particularly permitting and bid timing — are often longer than the optimistic estimate. Presenters said bidding strategy (bid both sites together or separately) remains to be decided.

Board direction and vote: After discussion and questions, a motion was made to proceed with final design and prepare a bid package; a friendly amendment added explicit authority for Garrett Moore to proceed through the bid-document stage so the board could review final costs before awarding construction contracts. The board approved the motion and amendment by voice vote; no opposition was recorded and staff said the next formal steps are to finish due diligence on the parcels and finalize the construction drawings and specifications.

What remains unresolved: The county is still awaiting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ wetlands verification, has not finalized surface choices (concrete/asphalt/stone) for every area, and has not decided whether to bid both sites simultaneously or separately. Cost estimates are not yet final; presenters repeatedly noted that added concrete and other options raise initial construction costs but may lower lifecycle maintenance costs.