Residents press Lee County Commission for transparency, challenge curbside contract during solid-waste hearing

A public hearing on Lee County's updated 10-year solid waste management plan drew sharp criticism from residents on Jan. 26, with several people accusing the county of favoring a single curbside contractor and asking the commission for more transparency about contracts and costs.

Eric Sanderson, environmental practice leader at 3 Notch Group, presented an overview of the plan and said it was developed to meet Alabama's legal requirements and to guide county decisions about waste generation, recycling, facility needs and projected volumes over a decade. "A solid waste management plan is a comprehensive planning document that outlines how a county will reduce, manage and dispose of its solid waste over a 10-year planning period," Sanderson said, describing the state review and public-comment steps required before final approval.

During the public-comment period, multiple residents challenged the county's recent curbside arrangements. Lance Farrar said he compiled a five-year timeline he said shows a forced "Meridian"/"Arrow" monopoly imposed on residents and asked for more time and documentation. "I seek to increase the transparency of this solid waste management plan," Farrar told commissioners, and requested placement on a future agenda to present his foldered evidence.

Harold Whatley called the proposed 10-year plan "basic" and said it did not explain how recurring fees and costs would be controlled. "It's not telling us where we're going," he said, pressing for a more detailed strategy and questioning continued taxpayer burdens related to billing and tipping fees.

Peter Berg said he had previously asked for a copy of the curbside contract and was told it lacked competitive bid information and specific terms. "How can you have a contract without terms in it?" Berg asked, urging the commission to disclose what residents will be charged and to explain the procurement process that led to the current service model.

John Sophocles renewed earlier allegations about wrongful dumping and the county's handling of the dumpster program, saying that past commissioners and contract choices had harmed residents. He urged a return to multiple competitive providers and questioned an $8.5 million figure he said had been spent in support of the curbside arrangement.

County staff told commissioners they had received public comments during the public review and that those comments would be considered and incorporated as appropriate. Mr. McDonnell (staff) asked the chair to open the public hearing but said the commission would not take formal action tonight.

The commission opened the public comment period, heard the remarks and did not vote on the solid waste management plan at the meeting. The plan will proceed through the county's evaluation of public comments and the state review process before the commission considers final approval.