Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sullivan County commissioners decline DEP Consent Order tied to revised Solid Waste Management Plan

Sullivan County Commissioners · June 2, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board twice declined motions to authorize or approve a Consent Order and Agreement for submittal of a revised Solid Waste Management Plan, citing concerns about timelines and the county’s inability to bind 13 municipalities; both motions failed 3–0.

On June 2 the Sullivan County Commissioners voted down two related items tied to a revised county Solid Waste Management Plan and a proposed Consent Order and Agreement involving the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Northern Tier Solid Waste Authority (NTSWA).

Commissioner Darlene Fenton moved to approve Resolution 2026‑11, which would have given the commissioners authority to sign a Consent Order and Agreement for submittal of a revised plan; Commissioner Brian Hoffman seconded. Commissioners expressed concern that the timelines in the agreement could be impractical and that the agreement included a requirement that the county commit to all 13 municipalities approving the revised plan — a commitment beyond the county’s authority. The motion failed 3–0.

Commissioner Hoffman then moved to approve the Consent Order and Agreement between DEP and the Sullivan County Board of Commissioners for submittal of the revised Solid Waste Management Plan; Commissioner Fenton seconded. For the same reasons — timing and the county’s lack of authority to obligate all municipalities — the motion again failed 3–0.

Why this matters: A consent order with DEP could impose firm deadlines and obligations on the county’s solid‑waste planning process. Commissioners signaled that they could not accept terms that require municipal approvals the county cannot unilaterally guarantee, and they rejected the proposed path to meet DEP’s requests at this meeting.