County staff outlines costs, footprint for Willis convenience center and compactor options

County solid‑waste staff presented compactor options and site layouts for a proposed convenience center near Willis, laying out equipment costs, site footprint and operational considerations for the Board of Supervisors to consider.

Mark, the county solid‑waste lead, described stationary compactors used at comparator sites, explained that a single stationary compactor with two exchangeable boxes (so one box can be removed and hauled when full) costs roughly $73,000 for the compactor and boxes, and said installation, concrete pad and a single‑phase to three‑phase transformer could add roughly $10,000. He estimated a finished site with grading, access and civil work would bring the total into the mid‑five figures to low‑six figures depending on required earthwork, and that the Willis site likely would need roughly an acre to an acre‑and‑a‑quarter of level area once slopes were cut and access provided.

Staff noted operational details: compactors reduce hauling frequency (each filled compactor box can hold about 11–13 tons after compaction), require an attendant for safety and to prevent prohibited items, and need reliable electrical service (three‑phase preferred for higher compaction pressure). The county discussed options for single‑phase service (lower compaction), the cost to install a transformer to support three‑phase power, and the difference between stationary compactors and traditional open roll‑off boxes. Staff said a typical full commercial compactor installation including pads, electrical and site work could land in the roughly $125,000–$165,000 range depending on grading and access requirements.

Why it matters: supervisors and staff emphasized that convenience‑center location and configuration affect illegal dumping, hauling costs, frequency of transfer to the county transfer station and long‑term operating costs. Several board members said they want convenience centers on or near major thoroughfares where citizens can reliably find service, and they urged staff to keep looking for sites and to return with detailed cost estimates for the Willis parcel and alternative locations.

Discussion versus decision: the Board did not adopt a construction contract. Instead, it directed staff to continue site searches, refine cost estimates for Willis (including grading and transformer costs) and report back. Supervisors emphasized maintaining recycling streams and noted the need to factor camera surveillance, gated hours and attendant staffing into operating plans. Staff also highlighted that existing recycling partners accept many materials and provide monthly revenue for some recyclables.

Ending: The board voted to continue the site evaluation and compactor analysis; staff will return with more detailed, engineer‑level estimates and any suitable alternative parcels for supervisor consideration.