The Bid Committee of the Williamsburg County Council is scheduled to meet next week to interview prospective companies interested in hauling the county’s solid waste, a decision that could not come soon enough for some local activists.
Williamsburg County Supervisor Stanley S. Pasley announced at a county council meeting last week that the committee would hear proposals from Waste Management and Republic waste services on Aug. 10 beginning at 9a.m.
The announcement was the first mention of the county’s solid waste collection plans in some time, following a hotly debated issue that came to a head in 2009, eventually leading to the council voting to close the county’s landfill in Salters.
When last discussed, the landfill in Salters was scheduled to totally close by spring 2011. That closure date was not discussed at the council meeting last week.
A local movement was also instrumental in stopping the possible forming of a “mega dump” in Nesmith that would have brought solid waste from All over the East Coast to Williamsburg County for disposal.
The council’s recent lack of action on the matter has not gone unnoticed by regional environmental groups. Nancy Cave, Director of the North Coast office of the Coastal Conservation League, issued a letter addressing the topic before the council’s intention to begin the bidding process was announced last week.
Cave—who was involved with several local residents, including the Concerned Citizens of Williamsburg County group in spearheading efforts regarding solid waste disposal— said council needed to make a decision soon.
“…it’s August and council still hasn’t voted on what to do with the County’s solid waste,” Cave said in the letter, discussing meetings held earlier this year where council deliberated over what waste disposal options would best suite the county’s situation. “What is council waiting for; what makes this decision so difficult?”
Cave questioned whether or not council was still considering bringing a mega dump to the county and threatened legal action if efforts to do so were discovered.
“If Council members think they can bring another mega dump to the county and make money on out-of-state trash they are wrong,” Cave said. “Such action will end up in court…”
Cave said the council should “vote now and resolve the county’s solid waste disposal at least for the near term,” calling for members to “forget the politics and deal-making” and “bring an end to the County’s trash wars.”
The announcement from council last week only mentioned hearing bids on hauling solid waste out of county.
The council approved a request for proposal (RFP) in April that it said would lead to the taking of bids and determining costs for disposal of the county’s solid waste, part of the process Pasley said it would address Aug. 10.
Doug Bryant, director of The Bryant Co., a health and environmental consulting firm, briefed council in April on the contents of the RFP he drew up with the input of the county attorney and the supervisor’s office, saying council would need to come to an arrangement for disposal options no later than May 30.
Bryant pointed out in April that the RFP included a “rejection or cancelation clause” that would allow council the option of reconsidering its decision to begin the process set forth by the RFP.
The only stipulation for rejection, he said, was that the process would start over again with another two-week advertising period for the project being observed, according to county regulations.
The project was scheduled for posting by April 12 for consideration of vendors, which will have until May 3 to submit bids, allowing less than a month to answer any questions that might be asked by potential bidders.
Under the RFP Bryant presented, the maximum contract agreement accepted by the county would be from Jan. 1, 2011 through March 1, 2016 — just over a five-year period — allowing time for parties to adjust to the change in services closing the landfill would bring.
The bids would follow regular county channels, Bryant said, appearing before the bid committee for recommendation before appearing for approval for the entire council.
The details of the bidding process were not discussed at the council’s meeting last week.
by John Sweeney
