County staff propose converting high‑use collection sites to compactors, bring some landfill work in‑house

County staff on Tuesday presented a multi‑year road map to change how the county manages its collection sites and the back of the landfill, proposing new compactors at high‑use drop‑off locations, purchase of heavy equipment to operate the landfill in‑house, and placing the projects into the county’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for phased funding.

Assistant County Administrator for Operations Stephanie Straub told the board the county currently relies heavily on third‑party vendors to manage the landfill’s open cells and to collect single‑stream recycling. Straub said that, under the FY24 budget snapshot staff showed the board, collection‑site services run just over $1 million, landfill services about $1.6 million and recycling roughly $280,000, and that about 66% of the total budget currently goes to contractors. "We think we can reduce that by taking some of these services back in house," Straub said, describing potential savings in daily operations, leachate management and recycling disposal.

Why it matters: staff estimate that converting selected sites to compactors and bringing some landfill operations in‑house would cut fleet miles and vendor fees. Using one site example, Straub said a conversion could reduce driving at that site from roughly 2,700 miles a year to about 387 miles annually for roll‑off service, and that the county estimates "an overall fleet savings of 17,200 road miles a year and almost a 30% reduced workload for staff." Straub also said the county has already realized a near‑term saving by hauling leachate in‑house after George Madison built a custom tanker and pump for about $42,000 total; the county previously spent about $120,000 a year on contractor hauling.

What staff proposed: for the collection network, Straub proposed a five‑year CIP program to install six recycling compactors and four trash compactors at sites where site layout and volumes justify them, while maintaining some open‑top recycling boxes in town centers where needed. Staff estimated a capital cost of about $686,000 for those compactor installations (Straub cited unit figures of ~ $50,000 per compactor plus about $20,000 per site for concrete and electric, noting site variability). For the landfill back‑of‑house, staff reviewed equipment already included in CIP planning—excavators, compactors, loaders and a tarp system—and explained the financing assumptions built into the plan (60 months at roughly 5.5% interest in staff’s planning example).

Costs and savings: Straub presented a financial summary in which staff projected additional annual operating expenses of about $332,000 if the county assumes back‑of‑landfill operations and a roughly $612,000 annual debt payment to retire a $3.3 million package over five years. Against a current contracted cost base staff cited of about $1.2 million a year, Straub calculated an operating saving of roughly $868,000 and a net position after capital debt service of about $256,000 per year using the assumptions shown to the board.

Concerns raised: board members and residents pressed staff on several operational questions. Multiple speakers noted that compactors can produce liquid runoff and said site drainage and traffic flow need careful engineering; one resident said she prefers open‑top containers because they make it easier to load many bags and avoid waiting for a compactor cycle, adding that compactors can be messy and odorous. Straub acknowledged the public preference but emphasized staff view compactors as safer for employees because compactors reduce the need for staff to enter and clean open containers.

Next steps and board direction: Straub said staff would work with finance to layer the projects into the CIP over several years, prioritize procurement of long‑lead landfill equipment first, pilot compactor installations at high‑volume sites such as Barbersville and Lake Of The Woods in later years, and return with refined project costs and funding sources during the CIP process. The board verbally signaled consensus to allow staff to proceed with planning and CIP insertion; no formal roll‑call vote was recorded.

Implementation details to watch: staff flagged several items to refine in follow‑up work—site‑specific engineering for drainage and traffic flow, final capital vs. lease procurement analyses, the timeline to phase site installations, and confirmation of exact budget figures and funding sources during the CIP process.

The meeting record shows staff will return to the board with CIP project entries, cost breakdowns and funding options during the formal CIP development cycle.