Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gila County staff to seek bids to finish Russell Gulch ‘Cell 3’; County estimates about 10 years of capacity
Summary
The Gila County Board authorized advertisement of an RFP to finish Russell Gulch landfill Cell 3B, closing a gap left when Cell 3A was built as a half-cell. County staff said Cell 3B would complete the originally permitted footprint and estimated roughly 10–12 years of remaining capacity at current tonnage levels.
The Gila County Board of Supervisors authorized staff to advertise a request for proposals to complete Russell Gulch landfill Cell 3B, a move staff said will finish the footprint that was split years ago when Cell 3A was built only partially.
County presenter Christine told the board the RFP (advertisement number 11032025) will ask proposers for separate cost lines: to dismantle or demolish a metal building that must be removed for the expansion and to construct the Cell 3B work. “We are going to be asking the proposers to look at either dismantling the building, which potentially could then be repackaged and either sold or donated or potentially demolished,” Christine said.
Aaron, county operations staff, described why the county had to return to the board: when Cell 3A opened the county discovered it had effectively built “half a cell, not a full cell,” leaving remaining capacity short of the originally permitted footprint. Aaron said staff and engineers estimate, based on current tonnage reports, the county can conservatively expect approximately 10 to 12 years of capacity in Cell 3 once Cell 3B is completed — he recommended starting long-term planning now to avoid an emergency in the future.
The county budgeted $2,000,000 from the landfill enterprise fund for Cell 3B construction and said reserves are available if bids exceed that amount. Board members cautioned that Cell 3A’s final cost had far exceeded earlier estimates and that enterprise fund capacity could be strained; the transcript notes earlier planning had assumed a lower construction cost and that Cell 3A’s ultimate cost was significantly higher than initial projections.
Staff told supervisors the RFP will allow the county to evaluate options for the building (sale, donation or demolition) and select a construction approach based on proposers’ cost proposals. The motion to authorize advertisement of the RFP was recorded in the meeting transcript; the motion text and RFP number were captured on the record (RFP #11032025). The transcript does not capture an explicit roll-call vote for that motion in the captured segments.
The board also directed staff to begin gathering maps and to consider broader long-term landfill options — including whether to pursue another permitted site or how a transfer station might change operations — so that planning rather than emergency action governs decisions a decade from now.
What’s next: staff will advertise RFP #11032025, evaluate bids, and return recommendations and cost details to the board for award and any budget adjustments.
