|
|
|
|
Supes re-think trashing disposal service |
|
|
Wednesday, 01 August 2007 |
 Trash is trash, regardless of which end of the county it comes from. It actually costs the county about the same amount of money to run dumps and haul trash in all parts of the county, a financial fact that tempered the debate about ?free?county trash service in Southern Inyo. File photo By Jon Klusmire
Register Staff
Upon closer inspection, it appears no Inyo County resident's trash gets a free ride to the dump.
It costs about the same amount of money to "subsidize" dump operations throughout the county, regardless if those residents have to pay a gate fee to dump at the dump.
That bit of financial information put a whole new light on the debate over what had been considered the county providing “free” trash-hauling service to the small desert towns in south and southeast Inyo County.
Instead of pondering the cost of $200,000 a “problem” created by the county for trash hauling in those areas, the new financial calculations showed there was only about a $24,000 cost difference between dump and trash operations in one end of the county as opposed to the other.
After looking at the new numbers, several supervisors seemed inclined to drop the two controversial trash options that had been previously discussed. Those options included finding some way to get more money for trash services from Southeast Inyo residents who were allegedly getting “free” trash removal, or to just stop providing county trash removal and force those residents to pay a commercial trash hauler to tote away their garbage.
At the very least, the new financial breakdown took the urgency out of the debate with regard to finding a solution before adopting the 2007-08 budget.
“Are we chasing pennies here?” asked Second District Supervisor Susan Cash during just the most recent of several debates and discussions about the trash situation in towns from Darwin south to Tecopa and Shoshone. Noting that instead of working on a “$200,000 issue,” the supervisors were actually trying to find just $24,000 in additional trash funds, Cash asked another question: “Is this where we want to spend our time and effort?”
The supervisors decided to put a little more time and effort into the South County trash scene. The county will be contacting the Bureau of Land Management and any other potential trash “partners” in the region to determine if those governmental or private entities would be willing to pitch in and help cover some of the county’strash costs.
The supervisors will also meet with residents about the trash issue on Oct. 4, in Stovepipe Wells at 5 p.m.
By then, Chuck Hamilton, deputy county administrator in charge of the Solid Waste Department, should confirm or deny many residents’ statements that BLM wants to help keep county dumpsters in Tecopa and Shoshone. That would allow BLM to avoid installing dumpsters on nearby BLM lands, such as Dumont Dunes.
“We don’t need bins (dumpsters) from BLM, we need money,” noted Hamilton.
But the county needs less money than it had thought to put south county residents on equal footing with their north-county neighbors when it comes to county dump services.
Hamilton provided a break-down of county costs, per capita, for waste management services in each part of the county.
That breakdown showed that the county spends about $208,500 a year for trash hauling and transfer stations for the approximately 2,000 residents of the South County region (from Darwin and Keeler south).
Thus, the county’s trash costs are about $103 for each resident in the area.
In the north county area, the county spends about $1.7 million to keep the dumps open for the nearly 16,000 residents living from Lone Pine to Bishop.
That puts the per capita cost at $106, which is more than what the county pays to provide free transfer stations, dumpsters in towns and to haul trash in the South County region, on a per capita basis.
However, the North County folks pay gate fees and other charges at local dumps. Those fees, though, only generate about $450,000 a year, which knocks the per capita cost down to $91 a year.
The per-person cost comparison put the trash debate in a new perspective.
Cash pointed out there was a $12 difference, per person, between the cost of county trash services in the north and south. Multiply that by the 2,000 folks in the south, and she arrived at the $24,000 difference in the cost of solid waste service between the two areas of the county.
Looking at the comparison, Cash noted the difference “was not a big, burning issue for the Solid Waste Department” for the 2007-08 budget. Overall, “we’ve got a lot of other issues” with the upcoming budget that are more costly and could impact county services, she noted.
Cash also questioned if the county was getting close to spending about $24,000 just talking about the Southern Inyo trash situation. She noted that Fifth District Supervisor Richard Cervantes had held several meetings with his constituents, and county staff had devoted quite a bit of time to the question before, during and after it was discussed at a supervisors’ meeting. Add in the cost to get the entire board and staff to Stovepipe Wells for a meeting and an overnight stay to talk about it even more, and the trash debate itself was getting pricey.
Also looking pricey were the alternatives that would allow residents to pay a little something for county trash service.
Cervantes added, once again, that most “South County folks are adamantly opposed” to the county removing their dumpsters and closing un-manned waste transfer stations.
However, several residents said they wouldn’t mind paying something for trash service.
A community or area could form a Community Service District to collect a trash fee, or add trash-fee collections to the tasks of an existing CDS. Either way, a vote would be required.
Cervantes noted that the current trash operation is pretty cost-effective and environmentally sound, since the trash from residents and visitors gets picked up instead of ending up being blown across the desert.
A state Environmental Impact Report might have to precede any move to remove the free trash service, according to several residents and Cervantes, which would just increase the price of a “solution” to the trash question.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 10 September 2007 )
|
|
|
|
