Early Landfill Closure Expense Document

Posted on by February 25, 2014

I just received this as a .pdf document in an email from Preble County Commissioner Denise Robertson. In this document from Randy Gilbert are expense figures related to closing the Preble County Landfill.  The document shows an expense far above the $12 million mentioned in the video. It is good to see a quick response to addressing the issue. I will add though that now that these figures are out it would not be a surprise to see them challenged. Anyone doing so should provide justification for the difference. I still expect a fight over expansion to use of the full property.

Although considered by many to have wonder drug status and is being consumed by http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/MOTS-10.05.19-coats.pdf buy cheap levitra many millions every day.

Comments

Early Landfill Closure Expense Document — 2 Comments

  1. Neat, Preble County with a population of around 42,000, including 16,000 households and 12,000 families residing in a county boasting of around 17,000 housing units and a population density of 100 people per square mile would have to come up with roughly $28,000,000 buckeroos to close a landfill located on 52 acres.  That's about $1,700 buckeroos per household not to have someplace to dump their trash … you can't dump trash in a "closed dump" … right?

    A couple of questions might pop to mind immediately.  First, why the push to close the landfill immediately?  Second, would a replacement dump be needed with the closure of the current dump, if so, what are the associated costs?  Third, are there facilities operated and maintained by private entities inside or outside of Preble County willing to take trash generated in Preble County, and would the citizens' cost of accepting such services, assuming they exist, be competitive with the costs currently incurred?

    Preble County is a lovely county, why make it a dump if trash can be exported to more appropriate areas … NYC, LA, Washington?

    But on a lighter note: I read something of 52 acres and "drainage slope."  Drainage slope?  Does that mean Preble County might be installing a facility to accommodate sking if the dump is to be closed immediately … the Winter Olympics coming to Preble County … alllright!

     

    • Emmette, I was told by a reporter a couple years ago who researched the topic that Preble County has the most expensive landfill in the state for it's users. Due to "Flow Control" the only users are residents and businesses in Preble County. This was decided about 12 years ago based on an assumption of the dump getting 42,000 tons of trash a year.  That number did not hold to be accurate and fell to 29,000 tons last year. While "Flow Control" also blocks outside trash, the restriction is really not needed as there are no trash haulers in the area that would use Preble County with cheaper alternatives readily available. Preble County residents and businesses not only pay those high tipping fees that scare off trash haulers but also pay again with an assessment on their property taxes. For businesses this is figured by the size of the trash container and how often Rumpke picks it up. The cost can be considerable and it is a cost not faced in adjacent counties.

      The suggestion to close it was based on the expected cheaper alternatives from other trash haulers who would not use Preble County and also the figure of $12 million for closure mention in the video. The idea was that if the assessment stayed on the books for six or seven years the money to close the landfill would be raised. After that the property taxpayer would see a drop in their property tax. A couple flaws are that it may not be legal to collect an assessment without the service and the updated $28 million closure cost. I am sure there are others.

      There will be opposition to the county making use of all the property for a dump. My memory is that some of that acreage was bought to be a buffer around the landfill not as a future mountain of trash.

      The joke of snow sking was also made a dozen years ago and a suggested name was a commissioner at the time. So yes; snow tubing to Lakengren might be a possible tourist draw if that mound gets tall enough. 🙂