Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crook County weighs overhaul of Republic Services franchise agreement amid service and fee concerns
Summary
County staff briefed commissioners on options to update the Republic Services franchise agreement for the Paulina transfer station and the county’s broader solid‑waste franchise code, including codifying a recycling credit‑back program, ensuring service to remote roads, adding performance standards and the option to issue an RFP to create competition.
County staff and the solid‑waste director on Wednesday outlined options to revise Crook County’s solid‑waste franchise structure and a separate transfer‑station agreement currently held by Republic Services.
The presentation described three pathways: (1) a limited revision of the separate Paulina/Polina transfer‑station agreement to correct out‑of‑date provisions; (2) a more thorough refresh that would amend county code and establish a clearer franchise ordinance while leaving a separate, detailed contract to spell out performance and customer‑service standards; and (3) a full competitive rebid via an RFP to invite other haulers, which commissioners were told could increase bargaining power but requires significant lead time because of existing contract timing provisions.
Staff and commissioners identified specific issues to resolve in any new agreement: incorporating the county’s UGB (urban growth boundary) recycling requirement; codifying a previously discussed "credit back" program so it would not disappear if a staff contact changed; addressing Republic Services’ refusal to continue using smaller vehicles to serve narrow or remote roads (which some residents previously serviced by a different provider could still be able to access); and clarifying maintenance and weighing responsibilities at the county scale house/transfer facility. Tim Brownell was identified as the county solid‑waste director who would receive reporting under an updated approach.
Staff explained that neighboring jurisdictions (Deschutes County and the City of Prineville) were renegotiating their own contracts and that Crook County could use their updated language as a model. Commissioners discussed the trade‑offs of pursuing an immediate, limited update to an individual transfer‑station agreement versus committing to a long‑term ordinance rewrite and separate contract with stronger enforcement mechanisms. Several commissioners expressed support for moving toward written, enforceable performance standards and for asking the city whether it would participate in joint negotiations.
No final contract amendment was approved at Wednesday’s meeting; commissioners requested staff to continue negotiating, refine proposed language (including the credit‑back program and service expectations for remote roads), and return with draft agreement language and an implementation plan. Staff highlighted that adopting the Deschutes County model could require enforcement resources and ongoing compliance monitoring.
