Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 22, 1993 TAG: 9307220446
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-2 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: STEVE KARK CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: PEARISBURG LENGTH: Long
Recent meetings between residents and both town and county officials indicate that trash disposal is quickly becoming the most difficult and divisive problem in years.
And unlike the hot weather, the county's problem with trash disposal won't go away. It's here to stay, said county Supervisor George Hedrick, and solving the problem won't be easy.
In their efforts thus far, the supervisors discovered that coming up with a disposal plan acceptable to all is difficult, maybe impossible.
As Supervisor Ted Timberlake has said, "In the 14 years I've been on the board, this is the worst thing we've had to deal with and we need to keep cool heads."
Cool heads, though, were not obvious at a public hearing earlier this week. Indeed, of the several hundred county residents packed into Giles High School's auditorium, most appeared to vigorously oppose the plan.
Additionally, officials from the county's five incorporated towns have voiced their opposition as well. They already have met three times in the last few weeks to discuss their objections and to consolidate their opposition to the supervisors' proposed plan.
The most significant factor in this plan is the imminent closing of the county's only landfill in October. Unable to dig another because of poor geological conditions, the supervisors have been forced to seek an alternate location for trash disposal.
After considering the five best alternate proposals, the supervisors have started discussions with General Refuse Service of Mercer County, W.Va. Under terms of the preliminary arrangement, the company would provide curbside collection, both to town and rural residents and businesses, and dump it at the Mercer county landfill.
Sloan Smith, a representative of the company, told town and county officials last week that the company already provides a similar service to two other counties and has met with few problems.
Furthermore, she said, the company intends to hire at least 10 people from the county to do the work. Only the supervisor of the operation will be brought in to live in Giles County.
At this time, the company has estimated the charge for the service at $13.75 per month for residential pick-up, depending on locally motivated recycling, and a variable charge for business according to the amount of trash.
Three towns - Pearisburg, Narrows and Rich Creek - have rejected the plan, giving this business rate as a primary reason.
Narrows Town Manager Rob Mercure has estimated that businesses in the town collectively pay $640 a month for trash pick-up. Under the proposed plan, however, the cost for the same service would be $5,072 a month, he said.
Narrows Mayor Don Richardson said the town has estimated what it might cost the town to go alone and dispose of its trash. The cost comes out to be less than a fourth of what the county proposes, he said.
At this week's public hearing, county businessmen echoed Mercure's concerns. Ed Gilbert of Rich Creek said that under the plan his cost for trash pick-up would go from $5 to $70 a month. Another said he figured his costs would rise 1,500 percent.
Other parts of the proposed plan also drew criticism. One of these is the county's plan to remove the green dumpster boxes throughout the county.
The county has estimated that at least 20 percent of the trash deposited in the boxes comes from out-of-county residents, so to lower costs they should be removed.
Several residents opposed this plan, and their disapproval was echoed in scattered voices of protest raised throughout the auditorium.
Several, including Jim Connell of Eggleston, warned that if the green boxes were removed roadside dumping would increase.
J.C. Dehart of Ripplemead reminded the supervisors of the situation in the county several years ago, before the green boxes were placed.
"There was garbage along the road everywhere," he said.
Others were concerned about the cost of the residential service.
"People cannot afford this," Roger Reynolds told the supervisors. He pointed toward the supervisors and, his voice rising in anger, told them, "it's no burden on you to pay this, but it is for some of the people here."
Reminded by supervisors' Chairman Herbert "Hub" Brown that he had gone over his alloted speaking time, Reynolds continued, criticizing Brown for not allowing enough time.
When Brown motioned that he be removed, Reynolds directed his remarks to the audience: "This is the way the county works; they're going to get the law on me."
One resident cautioned that the supervisors needed to listen carefully to the complaints they were hearing.
"A man gets my attention anytime he puts his hand in my pocket and keeps it there," he said. "You've got my attention, now I hope I've got yours."
The supervisors said they would reconsider the plan, but they thought that their hands were tied by new federal and state laws which place tighter restrictions on trash disposal.
Supervisor George Hedrick said that, regrettably, these new laws will inevitably cause the price of disposal to continue to rise. And Supervisor Bobby Compton said that the dumping policies at the current landfill had been among the most liberal in the state and he felt the new rates were in line with rates he's looked into.
Finally, Supervisor Larry J. Williams, who with Hedrick has put in a lot of time developing the plan, underscored the supervisors' willingness to accept help in its final preparation. "If you've got a better idea, I'd be tickled to hear it," he said.
by CNB