CLEARFIELD –The Clearfield County Solid Waste Authority (CCSWA) is operating on its last monies and is currently in need of a new income stream for its recycling and waste reduction programs, reported Bill Mackereth of the CCSWA at Tuesday’s workshop meeting of the Clearfield County Commissioners.
Mackereth said the CCSWA has a “real need,” which it’s expressed to the county before. He said its board members have reviewed the delegation agreement between the CCSWA and the county. More specifically, he pointed out Article II, Section 2.1, which reads that the CCSWA shall cooperate with and accept additional duties upon the county’s request for enforcement of the county’s recycling and waste reduction programs.
“We’ve made great strides in trying to get our programs to sustainability,” he said.
He said in the current CCSWA budget, its recycling drop-off, permanent site and electronics event programs are all OK. He said its general administration is also OK, except that it will not receive its $27,500 donation from Veolia Greentree until next year. As a result, he said the CCSWA’s current-year deficit is actually $69,000.
According to Mackereth, the majority of the deficit falls upon its enforcement program. He said the CCSWA cannot commit an enforcement officer under the delegation agreement without first identifying funding sources to sustain the program.
In 2005, he said the CCSWA lost income that it’d received from an administration fee. This February, he said the CCSWA cashed its last CD, and it’s now operating on its last monies. He said the delegation agreement asks for 10 years of enforcement. However, he said the CCSWA could provide it for a maximum of three years.
“We’ll be out of money before that even,” said Mackereth.
He said since the enforcement officer is a county employee who helps with enforcing the county’s solid waste management plan, the CCSWA wanted the commissioners to consider funding its annual deficit of approximately $43,000. He said the CCSWA has a total income of just more than $83,000 and gives 90 percent of it back to the county, which leaves them with very little for operating expenses.
“It would be a major step for sustaining our enforcement program that’s an important component to the county’s solid waste plan,” said Mackereth. He said the county has Act 13 and capital funding, but from where it chose to help is a decision that lies with the county.
He said the CCSWA has 41 participating municipalities, and he’s not sure what they’ll do once the CCSWA is out of funding.
Don Shaw of the CCSWA gave some background into its funding problems. He was appointed to the CCSWA board in February of 2004, at which point they had already implemented the enforcement program. He said in 2005, the CCSWA lost $100,000 when its administration fee was taken away. Shaw said that funding loss has probably increased every year since then. In 2005, he said Lycoming County appealed the administration fee decision, and that was denied. He wanted to see the commissioners join forces with others around the state to revitalize the administration fee program.
According to Shaw, people don’t realize they’re paying a fee every time their garbage is collected. He said this funding used to be returned to the county solid waste authorities but is now being kept by the landfill operators.
“We don’t know what they’re doing with it, but the people are paying for it,” said Shaw. “We’re paying for a service that we’re not getting. That money needs to come back to where it’s supposed to go, and that’s to keep us operating.”
He said prior to his appointment, the CCSWA had a lot of funding. However, because it’s not getting the administration fee, it cannot afford the enforcement officer and the expenses it’s been reimbursing to the county. He said the county’s back roads, forests and streams will turn into garbage dumps if there isn’t anyone to enforce the recycling and waste reduction programs.
“If we lose our enforcement officer due to lack of funding, it’ll be the equivalent of adding three tractor-trailer loads of garbage into the county annually,” said Lyle Millard of the CCSWA. “That’s a lot, and it’s going to build and build.”
County Solicitor Kim Kesner said in 2005, the Supreme Court validated a county’s ability to impose an administration fee. He said that challenge was brought by the waste industry on a technical basis, while the statutes didn’t expressly authorize the counties imposing of the fee.
He said the legislature could have very quickly remedied the situation. However, he said it’s been very inactive and gutless with regard to it. He said when any entity loses a funding stream and those who have power to do something don’t, it then wrongly puts pressure elsewhere. He said the waste industry should bear the expense of supporting these programs rather than the general funds of counties.
Kesner said in its requests for proposals for its solid waste management plan, Clearfield County asked the waste industry to help with its funding shortfall. He said Veolia Greentree came forward; however, he said the county is now facing an appeal by Waste Management, an unsuccessful bidder who didn’t really offer anything to the county so far as help with the funding shortfall.
Instead like the waste industry in 2005, he said Waste Management challenged the county’s plan, which has resulted in an extraordinary expense to defend. He said if Waste Management would be successful, the county would lose the $27,500 donation from Veolia Greentree.
“The legislature could choose to do something to benefit every recycling program in the commonwealth but has chosen not to do it,” said Kesner.
Commissioner Joan Robinson-McMillen said the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP) sends its top priorities each year to the legislature for consideration. She said every year the administration fee is among those top priorities, as every county is in the same predicament.
She said without an enforcement program, Clearfield County would become an easy area for illegal dumping to occur due to it being a large and rural area. She and Commissioner Mark B. McCracken said they have been thinking “outside the box” and looking at every angle to figure out ways to keep the enforcement program going.
Commissioner John A. Sobel said the legislature implemented the Act 13 fee to help municipalities pay for the negative impacts and issues that had arisen due to the gas industry. He thought perhaps it could implement something similar with the waste industry for a long-term solution. In the short-term, he said the commissioners are actively looking for an income stream for the CCSWA. Sobel said they’ve been discussing one possibility, and he wasn’t at liberty to provide any further details.
