Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor proposes nearly 30% rate increase for Dry Creek landfill hauling; commissioners flag RFP option
Summary
Representatives from Roadway Systems told Klamath County officials they plan to raise the current municipal solid-waste rate from about $65.69 per ton to $84.69 per ton (roughly 29%) under the upcoming contract renewal; commissioners suggested issuing a request for proposals to test market rates and expressed concern about budget impacts.
At the Sept. 3 work session, Roadway Systems representatives briefed the Klamath County Board of Commissioners on a proposed rate increase and operational changes tied to the municipal solid-waste contract that expires Dec. 31, 2025.
Roadway Systems told the board it intends to request a rate increase from roughly $65.69 per ton (transportation and disposal included) to $84.69 per ton, a change the company said would be about a 29% increase. Company representatives said the operation hauled just under 51,000 tons to Dry Creek Landfill in 2024 — about 1,800 truckloads — and that the proposed increase reflects inflationary pressures and parity with similar contracts elsewhere. The contractor also discussed planned capital purchases, including new trailers (estimated around $320,000) and a man lift, and said it would be willing to assume operation of the county scale house and attendant services if the board wanted that change.
Commissioners voiced concern about the magnitude of the requested increase and its effect on county finances and ratepayers. One commissioner said the increase would add roughly $1 million to the county budget and urged that the county consider issuing an RFP to ensure the county is getting a competitive price. Roadway Systems said the quoted rate is effectively a "hard line" to bring the contract in line with other similar operations and noted the contract currently applies an 85% consumer-price-index adjustment each year.
Board members asked clarifying questions about contract renewal timing, renewal terms (an offered five-year renewal beginning Jan. 1 following the contract end), the mechanics of taking over the scale house and billing systems, and whether rental costs are included in the contractor’s pricing. Company representatives said they presently do not charge the county rent for the facility and that some operational efficiencies might be achieved by consolidating transfer-station operations under a single operator.
No formal decision was made at the meeting; the presentation was informational and county staff and commissioners indicated they would evaluate options, including an RFP, as part of contract renewal planning.
