Public Comment

The Chairperson announced the public comment period and Ms. Kathy Goss of Darwin informed the Board that she was taping today’s meeting and offered to provide a copy of the tape if the Board wanted it.

Integrated Waste/ South County Operations

Mr. Chuck Hamilton, Deputy County Administrator, provided a brief review of the history of the southeastern County solid waste operations, including what led up to tonight’s meeting, as well as the recommendations concerning proposed alternatives to the current operations. Mr. Hamilton noted for the record that the Board has taken no action to discontinue service. The Chairperson reiterated that the Board was not proposing to make changes to the southeastern portion of the County’s solid waste operations at the present time. He qualified that the Board has directed Staff to conduct a program analysis of the County’s Solid Waste Program, and once that is completed the Board of Supervisors will consider implementing countywide changes as may be required in order to meet continuing ongoing federal and State regulations and mandates. The Board heard comment from and discussed with members of the audience the solid waste program, including but not limited to the following:

(a) concerns with the proposed alternatives, which would have required the residents to either self-haul or pay for curbside service;

(b) the cost of the alternatives on the local residents and their impact on those who cannot afford to pay for the services;

(c) the impact to the environment as a result of people illegally dumping their waste;

(d) the impact of BLM not providing for the trash generated from the Dumont Dunes which ultimately ends up in Inyo County dumpsters or is illegally dumped in the countryside;

(e) the desire by the local residents to pay their fair share of the solid waste operations costs;

(f) that residents feel free trash service in the area is a mitigation measure for a perceived lack of other County services;

(g) that residents would be willing to pay a parcel tax to help pay for services;

(h) that residents in the area would support a sales tax increase, suggesting that the Board move forward with a ballot measure;

(i) that at least one resident would not like the parcel tax to be enforced through the County placing a lien on property if the tax is not paid;

(j) that illegal dumping is an on-going problem on public lands, especially in the southeastern portion of the County;

(k) that curbside service would be unsuccessful in the region because of the rugged and undeveloped terrain, as well as the winds and local wildlife that would wreack havoc on trash bins;

(l) the possibility of private citizen participation in an enhanced recycling program to help defer the volume of waste that must be disposed, even if it costs more money;

(m) the need for the County to invest in a recycling operation in the region;

(n) the possibility of fencing the current dumpster locations and allowing the local residents to volunteer for clean-up duty;

(o) the inability of the impoverished citizens of the area to pay for trash services;

(p) the use of the County’s PILT funding to continue providing free trash hauling services in the area, instead of funding costs to the County’s General Fund;

(q) the viability and willingness of the local communities to form CSD’s and/or to have established CSD’s provide the trash hauling services;

(r) the longevity of the existing landfills; and

(s) the impact increased illegal dumping would have on the tourist economy.

The Board responded to various suggestions throughout the conversation by reiterating and reviewing those services which are provided to the citizens; noting that the current service is not provided as mitigation for the perceived lack of service; that whatever solution the Board determines is acceptable, the State and federally mandated capital improvements at the landfills must be addressed; and the recognition by the Board that if alternative funding is not identified for the State and federal mandated requirements the General Fund could have to absorb the costs, which would require a reduction and/or elimination of other General Fund services throughout the County. The Board received a detailed presentation by Jennifer Verrieck, which provided her interpretation of the County’s budget and how it is used to provide services to the southeastern portion of the County. Supervisors Cash and Brown provided further clarification and information on Ms. Verrieck’s analysis, noting inaccuracies in some of her suppositions. The Board concluded this portion of the discussion and agreed to accept ideas from those in the audience who had volunteered to develop alternatives for the Board’s consideration in future discussions on the Solid Waste Operations in Inyo County, including the southeastern portion of the County.

Integ. Waste/ Gov. Agencies Partnerships

The Chairperson recognized Mr. Gumm of the BLM Ridgecrest Office who provided additional information and further clarification on the BLM’s solid waste collection activities in the area. He informed the Board and the members of the audience that his Director has allocated $10,000 in this year’s budget to Inyo County to help keep the current County solid waste activities in the area operational. He also suggested that the County pursue further discussions with the other governmental entities to see if they too would be willing to provide funds to the County to help sustain the current operations. Mr. Gumm also briefly described the kinds of dumping which occurs on public lands in the area and his Office’s cleanup efforts.

Adjournment

The Chairperson and the individual Board Members thanked those in attendance for their input and willingness to participate in tonight’s discussions. The Chairperson adjourned the special meeting at 7:00 p.m.