Pike County Fiscal Court adopts updated solid-waste ordinance, debates private landfill petitions and cost trade-offs

Pike County Fiscal Court adopted a revised solid-waste ordinance at its Dec. 18 meeting and spent substantial time debating whether to make it easier for private companies to petition to site a landfill in the county.

The ordinance was read by title and described by the county judge as a cleanup to conform county procedure to current Kentucky law. The judge moved to adopt the amended ordinance; Commissioner Atkins seconded and the motion passed on a unanimous roll-call vote of commissioners present.

Why it matters: Court members framed the change as procedural — setting application steps and fees — but multiple speakers said the practical effect could be to open an avenue for private disposal facilities that might reduce costs for residents or avoid a multi-million-dollar expansion of the county landfill. The judge said the county faces a decision about whether to expand its current landfill — citing cost estimates in the neighborhood of $14–$15 million — and argued outside investment could allow lower household garbage fees.

The judge summarized the ordinance’s scope, saying, “It doesn’t do anything else. It just sets the procedure out and the fee that would have to be paid if somebody applies.” A commissioner asking for clarification put the policy plainly: “So basically…this is just allowing another company to petition our county for a landfill. Correct?” The judge confirmed that this ordinance sets the process rather than approving any specific project.

Speakers also discussed operational and fiscal estimates in the event the county must haul waste to the nearest alternative landfill. The judge noted the county currently handles roughly 58,000 tons of solid waste a year and illustrated the potential cost impacts using a hypothetical $50 per ton charge at a neighboring facility.

Several commissioners emphasized the potential for job creation if private industrial projects locate in Pike County and described the ordinance as a way to “cut through bureaucracy” to make the county more business-friendly. Supporters said allowing petitions creates options to compare costs and avoid forcing a large capital expansion of the county’s existing landfill.

Court action: The court adopted the amended solid-waste ordinance by roll call. Commissioners who participated in the vote were recorded as voting yes. The court also discussed next steps: any private petition would be subject to the application process set by the ordinance, and any specific landfill proposal would return for review and permitting (including state-level permitting processes noted by officials).

The judge and commissioners requested county staff and counsel to track any applications that may arise and to prepare the procedural materials and fee schedules that the ordinance contemplates. If a company applies, the court made clear further review, public notice, and state permitting would follow.

What’s next: The ordinance is in effect as adopted; any company that files under the new procedure will be evaluated under the newly adopted application steps and fee schedule. The court did not approve any individual landfill project at the meeting.