A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

March 29, 2023

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in a special Solid Waste Workshop session on Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 9:00 a.m., at the Tavares Pavilion on the Lake, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Kirby Smith, Chairman; Douglas B. Shields, Vice Chairman; Sean Parks; Leslie Campione; and Josh Blake. Others present were: Jennifer Barker, County Manager; Melanie Marsh, County Attorney; Niki Booth, Executive Office Manager, County Manager’s Office; Kristy Mullane, Chief Financial Officer; and Stephanie Cash, Deputy Clerk.

welcome

Commr. Smith welcomed everyone to the March 29, 2023 Solid Waste Workshop, and he hoped that some issues could be revealed and processes could be streamlined.

Commr. Blake gave the Invocation and then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

solid waste introduction

Ms. Jennifer Barker, County Manager, recalled that several months prior, the Board had requested that the solid waste system be reviewed and that better ways of doing business, such as efficiencies and cost savings for the community, be explored. She related that each Commissioner had various ideas to explore and potential options to research, noting that there were consultants in attendance to discuss the pros and cons of each idea. She remarked that staff was looking for some general direction to either work on a strategic plan or to not change anything at all, according to the discretion of the Board.

solid waste presentation

Ms. Mary Hamilton, Operations Director for the Public Works Department, introduced Mr. Mitch Kessler, President of Kessler Consulting Inc., noting that he had 39 years of solid waste experience and had a law degree; additionally, he had worked on projects across the country and was a national expert. She then introduced Mr. Sam Levin, President of S2Li Inc., and said that he had worked with Lake County since 2013 on solid waste contracts, furthermore, he was an expert on landfills.

Mr. Levin commented that S2Li Inc. worked with designs, and that Kessler Consulting Inc. did studies, which was why they worked well together. He mentioned that he would speak later in the presentation, and that Mr. Kessler would give most of the presentation because most of the questions had to do with his area of expertise.

Mr. Kessler remarked that his objective was to give some background on the industry, such as what was happening nationally and statewide, to assist the County in making decisions, and that he would also answer any other questions the Board might have. He stated that Lake County’s objectives included improving solid waste collection and recycling as well as reducing and managing costs. He relayed that he would discuss some national industry trends to set a framework for what Lake County was trying to accomplish, including the following: residual coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) impacts; supply chain issues; rising prices; manufacturing delays; truck and equipment costs; labor shortages; fuel issues; and inflation. He mentioned that another interest was in recycling, and he displayed a graph showing the average market value of one ton of recyclables when sold in the marketplace, noting that different companies received different amounts of money, depending on how much they sold and where they sold it. He elaborated that in 2011, it was over $100 per ton, and that in the first part of 2023, it was about $55 per ton. He explained that this represented a blend of paper, glass, metal, and other recyclables, and that the numbers fluctuated based on the composition of the materials, which included contamination, and illustrated the current industry. He commented that statewide trends were the same as national trends with a few differences, such as an increased number of service providers in the state, noting that Lake County had hired two of the newer companies. He commented that the increased competition benefited the County because these companies were trying to enter the marketplace with very competitive prices; however, after a while, competitive pricing eased into regular pricing. He remarked that there were two Florida Statutes that impacted some of the issues in Lake County, Florida Statute 403.70605(3), Displacement of Private Waste Companies, and Florida Statute 171.062(4), Annexation and Exclusive Franchises. He remarked that the industry was experiencing a major price correction, and that contracts which were signed many years ago would require a price correction because of those issues he mentioned earlier, noting that Lake County had experienced price correction requirements recently. He explained that the statute regarding displacement was passed in 2000, and that its objective was to keep local government from displacing private haulers unless they gave three years notice or paid an amount equal to the haulers’ gross receipts for 15 months. He related that it was amended in 2021, stating that local government could not displace a private hauler unless they gave three years notice and paid an amount equal to the haulers’ gross receipts for 18 months. He said that this statute did not apply to a nonrenewal at the end of a contract, actions taken because of health and safety related issues, or actions taken because of a breach in contract by the hauler. He explained that the statute regarding annexation said that if an exclusive franchise was in effect for at least six months prior to an annexation, the hauler had the right to continue to provide services to the annexed area for five years or the remainder of the franchise term, whichever was shorter. He displayed a graph of the cost of service trends for St Lucie, Flagler, and Hillsborough Counties, showing how much rates were increasing in those counties. He mentioned that the comparisons could be misleading because of the differences in the levels of service, such as the number of collection days per week, yard waste service, and bulk waste service. He then displayed a graph showing the increase in solid waste collection contract rates for Orange, Sarasota, and Manatee Counties for 2015 through 2026, and opined that these were rates that Lake County should plan for. He related that this graph showed when these Counties renegotiated with their service providers, that the increase was about 100 percent. He stated that the Board had listed some questions to achieve the goal of improving solid waste services, recycling, and disposal services as well as mitigating rising costs, and that the objective was to find the best means and methods to accomplish these goals. He relayed that one question was regarding the City collection of County residential waste outside service areas, such as interlocal service boundary agreement (ISBA) areas and enclaves, and opined that a City could provide a better quality service for a lower price. He pointed out that it was not a typical trend, and that this was usually established prior to contracting. He commented that the County had started preliminary conversations with the Cities of Clermont, Leesburg, and Tavares, and noted that collection services had to align, such as collection times per week, yard waste collection, and bulk waste collection; additionally, it would require negotiation with the local residents. He relayed his understanding that the County’s existing service contracts went to 2029, and that changes would have to be negotiated with those companies, opining that there could be potential contract issues. He then remarked that another question was regarding residents in rural areas opting out of collection and solid waste assessments, and that the issues included service quality in rural areas and paying solid waste assessments. He explained that people who only lived in that area for a few months per year still had to pay the solid waste assessment, and that most jurisdictions did not differentiate, noting that people without children still had to pay a school tax. He mentioned that these issues occurred more in small rural counties, which Lake County was not, and that it was unusual for residents to opt out of paying the solid waste assessment. He related that some considerations included negotiating existing service contracts for loss of service areas and loss of income as well as residents paying solid waste assessments to subsidize those who did not. He said that another consideration was where to dispose of the waste for those residents who opted out, and that convenience centers would need to be expanded. He added that this could result in some residents depending on neighbors, relatives, or other businesses for services, and that there was a possibility of illegal disposal; therefore, he suggested working to correct the service in the rural areas as the County had contracted.

Commr. Parks inquired if the Florida Statute regarding displacement applied to this situation.

Mr. Kessler replied that if residents opted out, the contract would need to be negotiated, and that the displacement statute would not apply if both parties agreed; however, if the contractor did not want to give up those accounts, then they could claim displacement. He then relayed that another question was about eliminating curbside recycling, and that according to the chart shown earlier, prices had increased because the companies who processed those recyclables were not receiving revenue for it; additionally, the cost of processing it was increasing. He remarked that an issue with recycling was high contamination, which occurred when residents put items into their recycling bins that should not be there, and that another issue was the cost. He commented that the trend was to brace for market fluctuations and address contamination. He relayed that one consideration for eliminating curbside recycling was customer dissatisfaction, opining that recycling could be very important to some businesses and residents. He noted that some counties had waste-to-energy plants, which state statute allowed to count towards recycling rates.

Commr. Parks questioned if Counties who had made this decision had done any surveys.

Mr. Kessler replied that some Counties simply placed the item on a meeting agenda and approved the motion to eliminate recycling, and that others had a more comprehensive process, which included education, surveys, workshops, and feedback before making a decision.

Commr. Campione asked if the County received credit for those Cities within the county that used waste-to-energy plants.

Mr. Kessler answered that if the County reported it, then they would receive credit for it because it was in the county. He said that another consideration for eliminating curbside recycling was the issue of disposing about 20,000 tons of recyclables at a cost of $430,000, and that there would need to be an expansion of convenience centers with more staff; additionally, it would reduce the frequency of recycling. He questioned if the net savings from a reduction in collection fees would be worth the potential cost of convenience center expansion and disposal of recyclables, and said that there would have to be further discussion and evaluation of the cost and the wishes of the residents and businesses; furthermore, there would need to be negotiations with the haulers to change the contracts. He relayed his understanding that only 60 percent of what was being collected was being recovered, and that the rest was contamination.

Commr. Shields commented that in some areas there were separate bins for different recyclables, and opined that the County could limit recyclables to a few items and have separate bins for them.

Mr. Kessler recalled that there use to be separate bins with separate materials picked up at the curb, and that they were eventually replaced by one unified bin, opining that there were not as many plastic bottles then as there were currently. He remarked that since it was all together, it all had to be pulled out and put through recycling processes, and opined that if a convenience center had a dumpster for each different material, it could eliminate much contamination.

Commr. Campione inquired if the contamination rate affected the hauler, and if they had to pay to dispose of it. She also asked if that was included in the $430,000.

Mr. Kessler indicated that the haulers had to pay to dispose of it, and explained that if the disposal fee was $21.59 per ton and there were about 20,000 tons, it would cost an extra $430,000 just for disposal.

Ms. Hamilton commented that the tonnage would have to go to Heart of Florida Landfill, and that if the haulers wanted to do something different, the contract would have to be renegotiated.

Commr. Campione questioned where the recycling facility sent their contaminated materials.

Mr. Kessler explained that the recycling facility could charge more for contaminated recyclables or reject them, and that the cost to dispose of that material rather than recover it went to the haulers. He opined that the County should discuss this with the haulers and prioritize what the County wanted and what the hauler was willing to do.

Commr. Parks opined that if the waste not used in recycling went to Heart of Florida Landfill per the contract, then the cost of $21.59 per ton was a good rate. He asked if the County could negotiate a way to send it somewhere closer if there were high travel costs.

Mr. Kessler relayed his understanding that under the current contract, the service provider was paid the fee to collect, market, and transport recyclables, and that it was their responsibility. He commented that if the County stopped recycling, the service being paid for would have to be negotiated with the contractor, and that if the service was modified, the contract would need to be modified.

Commr. Smith inquired if there was any real data on what was taken to the recycling centers and what was taken to the landfill.

Mr. Kessler replied that if the contract required that the recyclables must be processed, then the haulers would need to honor the contract.

Commr. Campione commented that Lake County did not have many convenience centers, and she asked if other places had more locations where residents could drop off their recycling. She relayed that Lake County convenience centers took everything and were large operations, and she questioned if Mr. Kessler had seen smaller locations for dropping off recycling that were more convenient.

Mr. Kessler replied that every option was available, and that they were in large and small communities using staff run convenience centers, business owned convenience centers, or a combination of both, noting that the goal was to sell relatively clean recyclables.

Mr. Brian Bulthuis, Clermont City Manager, remarked that an issue with having curbside recycling with separate bins for different recyclables was in collection. He related that the trucks used currently were single source trucks with a large arm that picked up the can, and that previous models of trucks had separate bins for different recyclables, opining that one solution presented another issue.

Commr. Shields inquired what the best practices were for decreasing contamination, and if it was worth the effort and the costs.

Mr. Kessler mentioned that there were counties in the State of Florida that still had bin based programs, such as Palm Beach and Alachua Counties, and opined that it worked for them. He stated that if it was a viable program, then it was something that could be evaluated; however, the modes of collection in Lake County had changed.

Commr. Blake remarked that he had seen many articles about pyrolysis plants, and that many businesses and universities were doing research on it. He asked if any local governments were doing this on a small scale to use plastics to produce diesel fuel.

Mr. Kessler replied that this technology had been around for a long time, and that the pollution abatement equipment had been one of the few things that had changed since then; however, he opined that it was not economically viable. He related that there was a small number of small plants experimenting with pyrolysis, and opined that it had not evolved. He commented that there was more of this being done in Europe than in the United States (U.S.) because they did not have as much landfill space; however, as long as the County could dispose of waste at $21.59 per ton, there would not be any kind of plant because they could not process or operate anything for that price. He then stated that another question was regarding County-run collection of all solid waste and recycling streams, and that the issues with this included service quality and increased fees. He relayed that Cities often asked this question, and that some Cities provided their own collection; however, there had been a shift to more privatization in more recent years. He stated that most Counties stayed out of that business for the following reasons: existing contracts and the displacement statute; high start-up costs; and business entry challenges, such as labor, management, and capital. He opined that it could be evaluated and options could be considered, noting that there could be an issue with existing contracts because of the displacement statute.

Commr. Parks inquired if Mr. Kessler had seen models of a service run by a County/City partnership.

Mr. Kessler replied that Miami-Dade County had split services, and explained that the County did the garbage and the private sector did the other commodities, opining that it would be difficult for a County to have their own fleet and operations as well as managing contracts. He opined that it worked for them, and that residents were used to that County service, their drivers, and their routine; additionally, there were other communities that used a split system, such as the Cities of Jacksonville and Tallahassee. He then remarked that another question was regarding County-run collection of yard waste, and that the issue was the quality of the yard waste service. He commented that the trend was atypical in the State of Florida, and that splitting services was rarely cost effective. He relayed his understanding that Lake County was already providing supplemental services to alleviate issues with the private sector, and if the County wanted to take it over, a change would need to be negotiated in the existing service contract. He related that another consideration was enforcement and management of the existing contract. He noted that starting April 1, 2023, there would be a liquidation of damages, and that he did not like this option, opining that if the contractor was willing to do this job and the County was paying for it, then there should be some recourse besides monetary compensation, such as service improvements. He mentioned that supplementing the service did not often happen, and that even though he understood why the County did it, it was not the usual tool. He relayed his understanding that the County had purchased two vehicles.

Ms. Hamilton commented that the County was currently using in-house equipment, and that there were two trucks on order.

Mr. Kessler remarked that another question was about converting to the open market system where the County would pay only for disposal, and that the customer would pay for the service they wanted. He stated that the issues with this included service quality and increased fees, and that most large Counties contracted collection instead of an open market system. He commented that some Counties used the open market system on the commercial side, and that some Counties still had it on the residential side; however, some Counties, such as Indian River County, had a complete open market system. He opined that once there was an open market system, residents and franchises would not want to change, and noted that since existing service contracts went through 2029, the County would have to negotiate with the service providers. He related that another consideration was that the County would have no control over prices and limited control over where the materials flowed. He stated that it would be difficult to revert back once an open market system was started, and that the state statute regarding annexation and exclusive franchises would also apply. He mentioned that community aesthetics was another issue because the cans were not the same, and that there would be more truck traffic, more vehicle miles, and more road maintenance; furthermore, there was a potential for higher costs to residents in less populated areas. He then remarked that another question was regarding terminating existing contracts and going out to bid, and noted that Lake County had some issues attracting people to the market. He said that recent bids had seen substantial rate increases with no guarantee of lower rates or improved service, and that because of existing service contracts in effect through 2029, there could be legal and financial ramifications.

Mr. Levin related that there was a question regarding the use of an existing, 19 acre, phase three landfill in the Town of Astatula, which had not been utilized, and opined that it would not work because of much higher operational costs than the County was currently paying Heart of Florida Landfill.

Ms. Hamilton displayed a graph comparing solid waste assessments with the surrounding counties, and pointed out that Hillsborough, Osceola, and Seminole Counties had recently bid and had incurred higher rates. She added that there would be discussion of some potential increases in the solid waste assessment later in the year.

Commr. Parks asked if it would be possible to have someone locally who was interested in countywide disposal of yard waste to use it for composting as a small revenue source or offsetting some of the County’s costs, which would reduce the waste taken to Heart of Florida Landfill.

Mr. Kessler replied that this was tried in 2006 by the Florida Organics Recycling Center for Excellence who spent $70 million on a facility that worked very well; however, the cost to operate it was $65 per ton, and it was cheaper to shut it down and transfer the material out. He related that the U.S. Composting Council had started a Florida chapter and had merged with the state recycling. He related that there had been tremendous private sector involvement, and that they had built several facilities. He said that there were changes and legislation being worked on for that; however, it was not as good as the County’s existing price of disposal, opining that there would be more options available in the near future.

Commr. Parks commented that they would have to demonstrate that they could improve upon that low disposal rate.

Mr. Kessler relayed his understanding that there was a large demand for compost in the State of Florida.

Commr. Parks related that there were some people locally who had patents on bacteria and processes that could be interesting to discuss.

Mr. Kessler opined that it could be a coming attraction, and noted that there was much agriculture in this county.

Commr. Shields remarked that there had been much burning of debris from the hurricanes and from the clearing of land in the Four Corner area, and that residents had complained about the smoke. He asked if it could be recycled or shredded.

Mr. Kessler opined that it would be a great opportunity in the future to expand the recycling of yard waste, which was an obvious material to keep out of the landfills, noting that it would save on space.

Mr. Brad Russ, Solid Waste Program Manager for the Public Works Department, stated that Lake County yard waste went to a convenience facility, and that it was ground up and hauled out.

Commr. Parks asked if there had been any issues with having too much or not knowing what to do with it, and if it was being turned into a marketable product.

Mr. Russ replied that there was a company that hauled it out after it was ground, and that they composted it.

Commr. Shields inquired what the best practices were for bringing down the percentage of contamination in recyclables, and if doing a campaign to educate the residents would be of benefit to the County.

Mr. Kessler replied that it would, and added that it did not make sense to continue with such a high contamination rate. He related that there was an organization called the Recycling Partnership that had given $26 million in grants around the country in the previous year, and that they helped communities design and implement effective and efficient programs to make recycling work. He explained that it was funded by companies that generated materials, such as the Coca Cola Company, who did not want producer responsibility, noting that there were mandates and legislation that required the recovery of material, and that this was their attempt to address that. He opined that they would be an organization to talk with to help the County decrease the level of contamination, and said that they could provide education material for the community and do composition studies. He opined that the County could stay with recycling and work to decrease the contamination, and that it would help the haulers and the process.

Commr. Parks asked about the waste composition study, and if it was a recommendation, noting that as a policymaker he would want to have that information.

Mr. Kessler opined that a study was essential to the program, for making decisions, and for understanding what the composition of the material was. He elaborated that the Recycling Partnership conducted capture studies to discover how many recyclables were in residents’ garbage and how much garbage was in with the recyclables in order to design an education program, and opined that this would be a critical step if the County wanted to change the program. He questioned what the County would like to see happen next.

Commr. Smith replied that he would like to improve on efficiencies where enclaves of unincorporated homes and city homes were near each other but serviced by different haulers, and he opined that there could be negotiations with the Cities to reduce costs, which could benefit the haulers and the citizens of Lake County. He mentioned that he was interested in constructing a convenience center for recycling and only providing curbside garbage service for the landfill, opining that the residents did not recycle much, and that most of what residents were recycling was going to the landfill. He said that he had received many emails about garbage or recycling cans being missed, and hoped that the issues could be resolved.

Mr. Kessler commented that it made sense to eliminate multiple trucks crossing paths, and that it could be discussed with the haulers for that district. He opined that they did not want to travel an extra distance to retrieve just a few cans, and that there could be room to negotiate and alter the contract to the benefit of the Cities and the County. He remarked that regarding the curbside recycling issue, the following options could be considered: conducting a cost analysis; disposing it; surveying residents; improving recycling by addressing contamination; and negotiating a way to take it out of the contracts.

Commr. Parks opined that the option of working with the Cities was good, and that there may be an opportunity with the City of Clermont in south Lake County. He opined that the County needed more information, such as the associated costs, before making the decision regarding recycling, and that the waste composition was very important in making decisions. He also opined that there were many residents who valued recycling, and hoped that the County could find a balanced approach. He noted that the State of Florida had a recycling goal, and that there were finite resources and renewable resources which could be managed.

Mr. Kessler commented that there could be surveys to obtain that information, and that if the County ceased its curbside recycling, there would have to be negotiations with the haulers to see what that reduction would be; additionally, the County would have to staff appropriately and add convenience centers for residents who wanted to recycle. He opined that the County could fix what was in place currently and continue curbside recycling, and that there could be some changes in contamination and some efficiencies found.

Commr. Parks remarked that the County needed to know the costs to switch the service and to add facilities, and opined that the studies could be paid for out of the current assessment fees.

Mr. Kessler reiterated that there were grants available for studies.

Commr. Shields opined that if the County did not collect recyclables in the Four Corners area, many residents would be upset and want a recycling center in the Four Corners area.

Mr. Kessler noted that there were many items the County wanted to improve, and that the service providers were in attendance and hearing what was being said, opining that they could work with staff to make improvements.

Commr. Campione recalled that one option was to fix the service, and said that this was what she wanted to see happen. She stated that the Board received many unhappy emails from residents, and opined that this was an important issue to them. She opined that there had been progress in rebidding, and that the haulers were committed to providing good service. She commented that she had interacted with some of the drivers in her district, and opined that the County was on a positive trajectory. She opined that if the County could keep working with the haulers and the haulers could keep working on the logistics, it could be fixed. She stated that regarding recycling, the survey was an education tool which could be helpful. She opined that many people did not know that the County had convenience centers, and that they could take trash there that was missed or extra trash. She opined that the County could do some outreach to residents through a survey, and that magnets could be distributed with the locations and hours of the drop off centers, making it more convenient to them and promoting recycling at the convenience center. She mentioned that she had heard from residents that when their recycling was missed, they did not have room in their trash can for it, opining that terminating curbside recycling would cause issues. She opined that there would have to be a transition period, and opined that providing recycling only through convenience centers could potentially work if it was convenient and if people knew where they were. She said that she liked the idea of doing education and outreach to promote the use of the drop off centers for overflow recycling.

Mr. Kessler commented that he had worked with many haulers, and opined that the haulers employed by Lake County had the capability of providing excellent service, noting that they were competent and had been in business for many years. He opined that issues could be fixed if the County was unhappy, and expressed appreciation for the comment that conditions were getting better. He relayed that regarding recycling, many good ideas had been discussed, such as surveys, outreach, studies, elimination, and increased drop offs.

Commr. Parks opined that the service had to be perfect, especially if there was going to be an increase in fees. He opined that regarding awareness and education, the County needed to communicate the issues; otherwise, there would be strife in the community. He also opined that the County could work with the haulers, and that staff could communicate with the residents.

Mr. Bulthuis opined that residents were confused about what items were appropriate for recycling and what was considered contamination, and he asked what made the material contaminated and if it could contaminate other items in the truck.

Mr. Kessler opined that this was a nationwide issue, and that the County could have a program telling residents what was acceptable to recycle. He opined that the issues would stop when the residents and the businesses understood what to put in the recycling bin, and that the County needed to define recyclables and communicate it. He explained that the County was responsible for the inbound material, and that it was influenced by how good the education about recyclables was and how the contamination was managed. He mentioned that an older processing facility would not have the equipment to process glass. He related that there was contamination at the household level, at the collection level, and at the processing level, and that education was necessary to explain what percentage of a half-full jar or a messy pizza box was considered a recyclable.

The Chairman opened the floor for public comment.

Mr. Vance Jochim, a concerned citizen, suggested placing decals on the trash cans explaining what recycling was allowable and what was not, including a link to a website that gave more details.

There being no one else who wished to address the Board regarding this matter, the Chairman closed the floor for public comment.

Commr. Campione mentioned that they previously had decals; however, the decals wore out.

Ms. Barker commented that the County could conduct a survey and outreach regarding recycling, and that a composition study could be done to better understand recycling and to make decisions, which could include eliminating it, keeping it, altering it, or educating the citizens.

Commr. Campione inquired if the Board could review the survey.

Ms. Barker remarked that the Board could review it first.

Commr. Campione opined that staff should review the County website and ensure that it was easy for residents to find basic information about recycling and also about the drop off centers.

Ms. Barker stated that the Office of Communications and the Information Technology Department could work together on placing this information on the website explaining how to recycle and what not to recycle, and that staff could work together with all three haulers to understand what the issues were from their perspective. She relayed that they could create something that could be placed on social media, in a press release, and on the website, opining that this could help immediately. She remarked that the County could discuss servicing the enclaves with the Cities of Clermont, Leesburg, and Tavares as well as the haulers, opining that it could be possible to be more efficient and beneficial by redoing some of the routes.

Commr. Campione opined that enclaves were not as prominent in the unincorporated areas as they were in city areas, and that there could possibly be a trade-off with the Cities depending on where the enclaves were located. She commented that she was interested to learn how many instances there were; however, she did not support making major changes to the contracts, such as taking away large areas already addressed in the agreements, opining that there should be caution.

Commr. Smith opined that it would not be a large change, and that many of the enclaves were small.

Commr. Campione opined that there could be common sense locations.

Commr. Smith opined that the Cities of Clermont, Tavares, and Leesburg saw this happening often.

Commr. Shields mentioned that there could also be conflicts with the number of days per week the residents in these enclaves received services.

Mr. Kessler pointed out that there was a potential of rate reduction if curbside recycling was altered or eliminated, which could impact the County’s decision; additionally, the County may want to try something different regarding the service issues.

Ms. Barker commented that she had attended several meetings with haulers communicating the Board’s concerns and ensuring these issues were resolved, and opined that progress had been made. She related that the County had ordered two trucks to supplement services when residents were missed, and that she wanted to continue to have open communication with the haulers. She remarked that she wanted to focus on all aspects of recycling, such as cost reduction, a composition study, education, and information for the public. She said that routes could be reviewed to see where they crossed into city areas, and opined that the haulers may also want to avoid having to drive through a city area to pick up only a few trash cans, noting that they could be consulted for any concerns regarding the efficiency of the routes into enclaves. She expressed appreciation for those attending the meeting, and said that the information was very helpful.

Commr. Smith expressed appreciation for the consultants and the haulers as well as the general public, and said that the County was seeking to find ways to better the services.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:44 a.m.

_________________________________

kirby smith, chairman

ATTEST:

________________________________

GARY J COONEY, CLERK