EARLIER: City-county trash deal: Details to come

-A A +A

Magistrates, council members review options for curbside pickup

By Lisa King

An hour-long joint workshop by city and county officials Wednesday night to discuss the aspect of the two governments working together on the issue of curbside pickup ended up with a both sides hopeful that could happen.

Magistrate Tony Carriss, chair of the Shelby County Fiscal Court’s Legislative Committee, led the discussion at the Stratton Center, attended by members of the Shelbyville City Council, Mayor Tom Hardesty, the legislative commission and two members of the 109 Board, the entity that is responsible for solid waste disposal for the county.

Six members of the public also attended to hear the discussion.

Carriss  proposed to council members that a committee be organized to explore the issue of the city and county banding together on the curbside pickup issue.

“There are so many details to work out,” he said.

Hardesty said the he did not want to make a commitment to that right away but that the council would take that request under serious consideration.

“It’s a lot to take in at once,” he said.

At the meeting, Carriss distributed a handout outlining six possible options for curbside pickup plans, that included different variations of plans with the two governments working together on plans, aided by an interlocal agreement, to each entity providing its own plan separately, but at the same time, doing so in conjunction with what the other was providing.

Sound complicated?

Not exactly, but the issue has evolved considerably since Rusty Newton, chair of the 109 Board, began his county-wide public hearing tour in February to publicize the 109 Board’s proposal for a new solid waste facility.

He wanted public input on the topic, he said, and what came out of those meetings was an overwhelming interest by the public in the possibility of getting curbside pickup.

Carriss told the group Wednesday night that he understood that the 109 Board, who had said it would wait to see that the city and county could accomplish together before acting on its proposal, was anxious to get the curbside trash pickup issue resolved but that he thought that consideration was not the primary concern.

“I know the 109 Board wants to close Waddy, but in my opinion, it’s more important to get a plan worked out than to hurry and shut Waddy down,” he said.

The hurry-up offensive on the issue emerged because of recent plans announced by the 109 Board to build a new, $2.5 million facility on Windhurst Way in Shelbyville.

The board purchased 25 acres there last year for $655,000 and has spent $130,000 developing plans for the new complex, which would replace the Convenience Center in Waddy and the Recycling Center on 7th Street. Use of the facility may require a 3-to-5-cent usage fee for disposal of household trash.


Suggested options

§       Option 1: City bids out their garbage and can possibility get a rate of $10 for 95-gallon container and $2 for a 95-gallon container for recycling. County can do the same for a rate of $12 for a 95-gallon container and $2 for a recycling container.

§       Option 2: City and county can bid together and get a rate of $9.50 and $2 for the city and $11.50 and $2 for the county. This option saves 14,000 households at 50 cents per month or $84,000 annually.

§       Option 3: City and county bid together with interlocal agreement directing the 109 Board to manage the garbage for the city and county instead of a monthly billing, with the rate of the 109 Board going from 3.5 cents per $100 to 10 cents per 100.

§       Option 4: Should the city want this as a revenue stream, the city can bid the city and county together as a package with the difference between the city and county going to the city funds. Approximately $2 per month times 4,300 households or 8,400 per month or $100,800 annually. All customers would pay the same rate.

§       Option 5: Should the city pass an ordinance requiring mandatory garbage pickup without an inter-local agreement with the county, the 109 Board facilities plan would be downsized and garbage service at the new facility would be free to county residents.

§       Option 6: The city and county would do their own plan independently of one another.