The Gilchrist County Board of County Commissioners postponed its vote on a new solid waste transfer facility site Monday night.
It did, however, rule out one of the sites it had been considering.
Discussion about the new site began at 6 p.m. and lasted over two hours, including a 45-minute presentation by engineer John Locklear and public comments.
Locklear said the current facility in Bell is neither efficient nor cost effective. He said the 30 years for which the currently facility has been in operation is a long time for a transfer facility to be used, and the county would likely have to pay a lot in maintenance to safely use the facility for 10 more years.
Locklear explained the difference between a landfill and a transfer station.
He said a transfer facility cannot keep waste on site for more than 48 hours. He said the floor of the facility must be cleaned and the water, that now includes waste and is called leachate, is drained through grates in the floor into a tank to be shipped off.
Locklear said the current facility has received compliments from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and all inspections in the last five years have been “excellent.”
Locklear said transfer facilities must operate in a way that controls odors, and that FDEP has a way of measuring odors to ensure a facility is operating properly.
Locklear said the currently facility receives 40-45 customers a day and uses approximately six roll-off trucks per day. He said the facility sends out six semis per week, or about one per day.
Gilchrist County transfers around 570 tons of waster per month, Locklear said.
Locklear said because the facilities do not create any discharge, a groundwater study would not be required for a new facility.
Locklear said the current site lacks the space to expand as much as will likely be need.
He said the old landfill directly to the west of the current site was not feasible because the ground is not stable. Locklear said the ground could be stabilized, but that would be expensive, likely $15 million before construction could be started.
Locklear said the current animal control site presents a similar challenge as the current site with its lack of space. It would also be costly to move animal control.
Locklear said the next steps after selecting a location were purchasing the property, making any necessary zoning changes, a geotechnical investigation, an environmental evaluation, designing the facility, permitting, requesting and receiving bids and, finally constructing the facility before it becomes operational.
Locklear said this process would likely take three years to complete. County Attorney David Lang said the option to purchase includes that the sale of the property would be contingent on passing the geotechnical investigation and environmental evaluation.
The county reviewed 66 qualified property sales and found no clear evidence of a consistent, measurable reduction of property values.
Commissioner Bill Martin said he spoke to residents who live near the current transfer station property. He said they told him they do not have any problems with the transfer station.
Martin said at one point, the residents said the road had more trash than other roads, but when they brought it up, that issue was fixed.
Commissioners then listened to questions and comments from the members of the public that had attended the meeting. Attendance was so high that several people listened in the vestibule and through a speaker outside the meeting chamber.
The site on SW 10th Street had been withdrawn before the meeting, so discussion was between the property on 340 and the property on 232.
Residents that lived near both sites said they were concerned about traffic and said that traffic, including semi-truck traffic, was already heavy near both of those properties.
Residents concerned about or against the 340 site said the intersection with 47 was already busy with several businesses there, and the curve the proposed property is on means there are a lot of blind driveways in the area.
Residents concerned about or against the 232 site said the nearby dairy creates traffic with large trucks and tractors entering the highway, a hill creates blind entrances onto 232 and birds that a solid waste facility might attract could interfere with the airfield neighboring the proposed property. The Federal Aviation Administration solid waste facilities be five to six miles from runways to reduce the risk of bird strikes.
Martin said the semis from the current facility already pass by the proposed 340 site as they take the waste to Union County, so it would not add more semi traffic to the area.
Members of the public countered that more personal vehicles would come to the area to drop off trash, with some stating that loose trash from residents bringing their waste in would be bad for Ginnie Springs, both visually and environmentally.
One resident said he made a public records request regarding the facilities, including discussions from county employees and commissioners. He said the documents he received were far short of what he should have received, specifically regarding electronic communications by commissioners.
He said he received only one text message thread from Commissioner Sharon Langford and handful of emails along with some site plans despite asking for all correspondence, including emails and texts since Jan. 1 of this year regarding the 232 site.
Supreme Court precedent says that this kind of communication falls under public record whether the device is a personal cell phone or a county-issued one.
Jennifer McConnell, an Alachua County resident, said she owns property in Gilchrist County that could possibly hold a transfer station and that her brother, Joshua Moore, had spoken to a Commissioner Tommy Langford “five or six weeks ago” regarding the property.
McConnell said her property was at the intersection of 340 and 47 across from the Dollar General. She said it is over 20 acres.
She said a county commissioner, in a “public place,” told people that if Joshua Moore had anything to do with the property, it would not be considered.
Commissioner Kenrick Thomas said he was the one who said that.
McConnell said if she was one of the residents that lived near one of the proposed locations, she would argue against it, but if the county had to have it, it needs to pick a place.
Lang asked if McConnell had sent anything in to the county to bring the property up for consideration.
McConnell said she emailed Bobby Crosby on Friday, but Crosby resigned the same day.
Lang said he saw McConnell’s email for the first time Monday.
McConnell said she did not know if it was the best property for a transfer station, adding it has no buffer.
She said she thinks everyone should know how decisions were made.
The commissioners decided to delay the decision until the Aug. 17 meeting.
Commissioner Sharon Langford moved to eliminate the property on 232 from consideration.
Martin seconded the motion.
Commissioners voted, 3-1, to eliminate the 232 property from consideration.
Thomas abstained from voting due to a conflict of interest with the 340 location.
Commissioner Tommy Langford was the sole “no” vote, saying he wanted to be able to consider all options when the board voted on the 17th.
This will be a 6 p.m. time certain at the Aug. 17 meeting.
Earlier in the meeting, commissioners set the dates for their tentative and final budget hearings, as well as the millage rate at which it will start.
The tentative budget hearing will be Thursday, Sept. 10, and the final budget hearing will be Monday, Sept. 21.
Commissioners set the proposed millage rate at 8.5 mills.