Teton County reviews proposed seven-year exclusive hauling contract; commissioners ask parties to refine terms

TETON COUNTY — County leaders spent the meeting evaluating a proposed replacement hauling franchise agreement with the local franchisee, focusing on whether the new deal should restart a seven‑year exclusive term, how rates would adjust for inflation, and what right the county should have to audit records and enforce performance standards.

Daryl Johnson, the county public works director, told commissioners he was seeking two things from the board: “If we wanna consider the contract that's on the table, if we want to wait the extra 2 years and take that time to figure out what we want to do.” Johnson asked the commission to identify a timeline and give staff direction on whether to proceed now or delay.

Molly Nash, executive director of Teton Valley Community Recycling, urged caution and said hauling agreements matter for diversion outcomes: “Hauling contracts have a large effect and can have a large effect on, waste diversion and recycling.” Nash asked that any contract changes be made thoughtfully and backed by study.

The franchisee representative argued the company needs predictability to invest in equipment and service improvements and asked for an early renewal: “I'm asking for an early renewal and early contract extension,” the representative said, noting the current contract includes a remaining two‑year extension and written five‑year options.

Commissioners and staff debated several specific contract provisions:

- Term and exclusivity: Commissioners flagged that signing the proposed agreement would restart a seven‑year term and create an exclusive franchise across curbside and construction/demolition collection. Several said they had not understood the proposal would supersede the existing extension and asked staff and the franchisee to clarify exclusivity limits.

- Rate adjustments and termination safeguards: The draft includes a mechanism tying annual increases to a CPI waste index or a 4% floor. Commissioners discussed capping automatic increases at 4% and requiring county approval for larger increases; the franchisee asked for authority to seek rate relief when unusual cost changes (for example, sharp landfill tipping‑fee increases) make service financially unviable.

- Franchise fee and diversion funding: The contract language references a $10‑per‑ton franchise fee; the franchisee proposed earmarking franchise‑fee revenue for diversion and processing investments, pointing to prior cooperative investments and grants that had supported recycling capacity.

- Audits and proprietary records: The franchisee resisted unfettered county access to customer and financial records and proposed third‑party CPA verification under an NDA to satisfy county auditing needs while protecting proprietary data; commissioners indicated they would accept a limited, verifiable audit approach.

- Operational and emergency provisions: Parties discussed collection times, DOT inspections, and contingency language used when the transfer station has been unavailable (for example, after a fire), including flexibility for alternate disposal sites with county coordination.

Commissioners asked staff and the contractor to reconcile redline differences and return with a revised draft and a clearer redline showing which legacy performance provisions were retained. By the end of the discussion the board directed staff to continue negotiating while maintaining the existing exclusivity for covered contract components until a final proposal is returned for formal approval.

The board did not adopt a final contract at the meeting; commissioners asked for more precise language on unusual‑cost adjustments, termination triggers, audit scope, and the exclusivity boundaries before any signing.