Beaufort County commissioners reviewed detailed plans and cost estimates for two new convenience/collection “mega” sites during a regular meeting, with county staff and consultant Vance Moore outlining design features, soil-test findings and financing options.

Moore, the technical presenter, walked commissioners through site layouts for a south‑side facility on Stilly Station Road and a north‑side site on North Boyd Road, explaining customer circulation, a wet pond intended for stormwater control and on‑site fill, and a multi‑material facility for items such as televisions and paint that are not suited to roll‑off containers. He said test pits more than 10 feet deep did not encounter groundwater but did reveal a 2‑foot organic mat at the surface that must be removed, increasing earthwork quantities and costs.

Why it matters: Moore said excavation and backfill are among the largest line items in the bid‑tab estimate. “Excavation and back earthwork … is a big item,” he told the board, and the new geotechnical findings increase the scope of material that must be removed and replaced before building pads, retaining walls and service lanes.

The central cost choice for the board is capacity and scope. Moore described two purchase scenarios: build a site that is structurally capable of supporting 12 container bays but only make eight stalls operational on day one, or build an eight‑stall site only. He presented a range of line‑item estimates showing a 12‑capable but not fully fitted site at about $2.8 million per convenience site versus about $2.5 million for an eight‑stall site — roughly a $400,000 premium for the flexibility to expand later. Moore said an earlier, more complete premium concept without storm‑debris features tallied about $3.9 million for a single site.

Commissioners and attendees debated trade‑offs. One commissioner urged building “first class” with canopies and lighting so residents can use the sites safely during shorter winter days; another said efficient vehicle flow might allow eight stalls to suffice. Moore recommended bidding with alternates for premium items so the board can choose upgrades after contractor pricing is returned.

Operations and materials: Staff said each mega site would likely require about three on‑site employees if run by a contractor and that equipment such as front‑end loaders would be needed to manage yard waste. The plan includes an on‑site yard‑waste pad intended for grinding material; commissioners and staff warned that contamination (plastic bags, grass clippings) affects the quality and potential reuse of mulch or compost.

Financing: County finance staff told the board $852,727 in ARPA funds remains available and that recent changes to a separate SCADA replacement project could free about $500,000 more, bringing ARPA‑available funds to roughly $1.3 million. Staff said a premium two‑site approach could total about $11 million. They outlined fund balances including a solid waste fund balance of about $1.1 million and a facility capital reserve of $5,719,023 (audited general fund balance cited as $28,133,806 as of 06/30/2025). As an option, staff recommended an internal loan split between the general fund and the facility reserve and presented a 30‑year, 4% illustration to spread debt service; that scenario produced an estimated impact described in the meeting as “about $29 a year” on the annual fee.

No formal vote: Commissioners asked that staff prepare bid documents with alternates and evaluate financing consequences; the meeting closed with no formal motion or vote on the project.

Next steps: Staff said they will solicit contractor bids with alternates, return cost comparisons when bids are in, and present funding scenarios once final bid numbers are available.