Macon County weighs $10.5 million financing to extend landfill life as transfer option draws higher operating costs
Loading...
Summary
After a detailed review of bids and hauling quotes, county staff recommended seeking Local Government Commission approval for up to $10.5 million in financing to build a larger landfill cell while pursuing a hybrid approach that could include transfer options and grant funding.
Macon County commissioners on Nov. 13 heard a detailed presentation on the future of the county’s solid-waste program and voted to seek Local Government Commission (LGC) approval to pursue financing not to exceed $10.5 million for a 10‑year maturity to construct Phase 3 landfill cells.
Why it matters: County solid-waste staff and consultants laid out three paths — build a new landfill cell, build a transfer station and ship waste out of county, or explore incineration — and said each has distinct cost, operational and regulatory trade-offs that affect rates, environmental monitoring and long‑term capacity.
Presentation and recommendation: Solid waste director Jamie Picoult summarized recent bids and operating estimates, saying the county received multiple bids on Nov. 6 and “we received bids for the smaller cell 2 a and then the larger cell, 2.” Staff noted a prior construction estimate of about $10.3 million for the full project; the lowest full‑site alternate bid came in at roughly $8.4 million while the smaller cell bid totaled about $4.6 million. Per‑ton hauling and disposal quotes for shipping waste out of county ranged from about $30 to $69 per ton depending on route and disposal site.
Manager/finance summary and board action: County manager recommended a “hybrid” approach but urged the board to approve a findings resolution to submit to the LGC so the project could be considered at the LGC’s Dec. 2 meeting and, if approved, returned to the board for final action. The manager said, in part, the recommendation was to seek approval “to ask the local government commission to see if they would approve option 2, which is up to the 10 and a half million dollars for a 10 year maturity.” Commissioners moved and approved a motion to authorize finance staff to pursue that findings resolution; the roll-call vote was 5–0.
Costs, operations and environmental monitoring: Staff contrasted a 10‑year debt service scenario with operating costs for a transfer station. Building the larger cell carries higher debt-service and additional environmental responsibilities — including eight additional groundwater monitoring wells and ongoing PFAS testing — while a transfer model reduces the county’s capital exposure but raises per‑ton hauling and disposal expenses. Staff also flagged post‑closure funding requirements (estimated millions) and DEQ permit constraints for new technologies such as incineration given proximity to Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Next steps and caveats: Approving the findings resolution does not obligate the county to a contractor; it simply lets the county apply to the LGC for financing authorization and preserves timing for construction if the board chooses to proceed. Staff recommended Davenport develop a 10‑ to 20‑year business plan and pursue available DEQ grant funding that could offset capital costs. The county will return to the board with finalized bid tab reviews and financing terms before any construction contract is awarded.
Quote: “We received bids for the smaller cell 2 a and then the larger cell, 2,” Picoult told commissioners during the presentation.
What to watch: The board’s decision to pursue LGC approval clears a path to move forward quickly if financing is favorable, but commissioners said they expect Davenport’s business‑plan analysis and final bid reviews before awarding contracts or changing fees.
