Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recycling Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spencer County Fiscal Court votes down authorization to accept recycling grant agreement
Summary
After reviewing a county recycling-cost study showing multi-year shortfalls, the court voted 3–3 and declined to authorize Judge Riley to sign the recycling grant agreement; members cited operating losses and low commodity prices.
Get email alerts on the Recycling Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Spencer County Fiscal Court considered an awarded recycling grant and financial data on the county recycling center at its June 21 special meeting and declined to accept the grant terms by roll-call vote.
Esquire J. Moody presented a recycling-center cost study included in the meeting materials and said the operation was running a substantial shortfall. "The cost of recycle center is running at almost a $88,000.00 loss as of this year," Esquire J. Moody said, handing out the two-page study. The attached figures in the materials showed for FY2019 recycling income of $11,613.33 against partial recycling expenses totaling $92,302.11 (a net shortfall of $80,688.78) and FY2018 income of $37,231.68 against partial expenses of $81,372.93 (a net shortfall of $44,141.25).
Judge Executive John Riley said the county had applied for and been awarded the recycling grant but that the prior meeting’s motion should have been to accept the grant terms. Riley asked the court to authorize him to sign the agreement. He also discussed outreach to neighboring jurisdictions and vendors, noting he and a colleague visited Anderson County and Lawrenceburg and met with Republic Services and Rumpke as possible partners to expand or restructure recycling services.
On the roll call to authorize Riley to sign the grant agreement the votes were recorded as: Esquire Beaverson — No; John Riley — Yes; Esquire Travis — Yes; Esquire J. Moody — No; Esquire Brewer — Yes; Esquire M. Moody — No. The motion failed (three yes, three no). The court instructed staff to consider alternative delivery models, including countywide pickup arrangements used by nearby counties.
Why this matters: the county’s recycling operation showed material operating shortfalls in the documents provided, and the court declined to bind the county to grant terms until it can evaluate service models or partner arrangements.
