Committee splits on incinerator closure; sends the RRF decision to full council after long‑haul, cost and truck impacts discussed

The Transportation and Environment Committee on April 20 engaged in an extended review of the County Executive’s FY27 proposal to close the resource recovery facility (RRF) mid‑year and transition to long‑haul trucking for waste disposal.

Chair Glass opened the RRF discussion by reiterating the stakes: public health, environmental justice and financial impacts. "I personally am committed to closing the incinerator and the nearly, you know, 600,000 tons of waste, that is burned there," Chair Glass said, citing recent reports of dioxin and furan exceedances that have reinforced concern about the facility’s emissions.

DEP Director Jennifer Macedonia told the committee the department has conducted analyses of sustainability, social justice and cost implications and that closing the RRF would allow the county to avoid some short‑term capital investments negotiated with the operator. She described the operational sequencing: the county would finalize long‑haul contract negotiations, sign a long‑haul agreement, then give the RRF operator the contractually required six‑month notice to close the facility.

Key fiscal figures staff presented include the following: the executive’s closure assumption moves to six months of RRF operation and six months of long‑haul costs, adding a long‑haul contract cost line of about $43.9 million for half a year under the FY27 recommendation; removing many FY27 short‑term capital expenditures tied to keeping the RRF operational (previously about $17 million assumed for FY27 within a larger multi‑year $66–67 million package); and a decommissioning estimate of $7.2 million total (budgeted as $3.6M in FY27 and $3.6M in FY28).

DEP and procurement staff also flagged operational details and vendor risk: the long‑haul RFP includes a diesel price adjustment clause and the bids were priced when diesel averaged about $3.50/gallon; staff said current diesel prices are materially higher, which could affect long‑haul costs and contract negotiations. Willie Wehner, recycling and resource management chief, told the committee the net truck increase under a long‑haul scenario would be roughly 40 trucks per day on top of an existing ~2,000 daily transfer‑station movements.

Councilors pressed staff on timing tradeoffs: delaying a closure decision increases capital and maintenance costs (because negotiated short‑term capital work would continue), while an earlier decision would allow staff to lock in the long‑haul contract and start the six‑month closure clock. Staff warned that reissuing RFPs or letting bids expire would add lead time of months and could change costs.

Outcome: Councilor Malo moved that the committee not issue a committee recommendation on the RRF/long‑haul item and instead send the decision to full council; the motion was seconded and the committee recorded that no committee recommendation would be made. Chair Glass and multiple members emphasized that while many support closure in principle, the ultimate decision rests with all 11 council members and the full council merits a full deliberation.

Ending: The committee advanced other budget items and asked DEP, OMB and procurement staff to supply schedules, cost tables and an updated truck/traffic impact analysis for the full council debate; the RRF closure question will proceed to full council without a committee recommendation.