By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

It sounded good to Columbus County Commissioners.

A couple hundred thousand in cash and another $125,000 in gate credits from Waste Management won the favor of six of seven commissioners Monday Dec. 17.

The agreement to sell the three-sided metal building located at the closed New Hope landfill comes just weeks after the county was told they didn’t own the building.

At that time the county was told it could either renew a five-year transfer station agreement with Waste Management or buy the building for the company’s $325,000 book value.

Waste Management had something different to say Monday.

Error on value

Greg Peverall, of Waste Management, told the board an error had occurred in the calculation of the building’s book value and it was actually only worth about $171,000 and that his company in the “spirit of trust and good faith” had a new offer.

That offer was to pay the county $325,000 for the building with $200,000 being in cash and the rest in gate credits at the transfer station.

Under the plan the county will receive an additional $90,000 over the next five years in gate credits for the land the building sits on and 56 cents per ton for trash moved through the station.

Waste Management will forego the annual consumer price index increase for the next two years for more than $400,000 in savings, Peverall proposed.

Contracts concurrent

The county’s curbside pick-up contract and transfer agreement will both run concurrent for five years. Both will expire on Dec. 31, 2012.

Fuel surcharges will continue.

Peverall wanted a 10-year lease on the building and option to buy the land and scales from the county in five years but the board pushed for the five-year lease.

“At our December 3 meeting we had to buy the building,” Commissioner Bullard said. “Why is it you are asking to buy the building?

“Who owns the building?” Bullard insisted.

“We own the building,” Peverall said.

Sell building

“Mr. Chairman, I personally oppose the selling of the building. I feel like we have a noose around our neck. We only have 30 days to negotiate a contract,” Bullard said of the contract that expires Dec. 31. “I just don’t feel it’s a smart move on the county’s part. I just oppose selling the transfer station.”

Peverall suggested the county would have the option to buy the building back in five years at fair market value but have a 10-year lease on the land.

“They want to lease the land for 10 years with a five-year contract and I oppose that,” Bullard said.

Chairman James Prevatte agreed.

“This is something Mr. Peverall and I discussed and I told him this might be a problem,” Prevatte said.

Commissioner Amon McKenzie appeared frustrated that the two board members who met with Waste Management, Bill Memory and Prevatte, didn’t have a clear-cut recommendation on the proposal.

Prevatte explained that he and Memory met with Peverall a few times but he did not like some details Waste Management wanted in the contract.

“They paid to build the building but it was never put – the building – in their name,” Prevatte said.

No last minute

Prevatte explained that he had asked for the contracts to run concurrently and asked for a one-year notice of the renewal date so that the county will not be caught with renewing a contract at the last minute.

“Other parts are what they have offered,” Prevatte said.

“I think we need to look at the lease on the property. It needs to coincide with the five-year contracts,” Commissioner Ronald Gore said. He said he would like the county to have the option to buy the building back at tax value.

Peverall said if the company was spending $325,000 on the building the sale value in five years should not be the tax value.

“One of the things we discussed was a negotiation of the price,” Memory said. He said the company and the county would both get an appraisal and then negotiate the price.

“Right now they are moving forward. I think they realize they made an error and we have spent a ton of money with them,” Memory said. He pointed out the company had agreed to concurrent contracts.

Good faith

“I think that’s a good faith effort on their part,” Memory said, before adding that he too agreed the lease should also be five years not 10.

“We have a gentleman’s agreement to work out the details in 30 days,” Memory said. “We can’t afford to let 170 tons (of trash) a day build up.”

“I was in the understanding that you two negotiated this and it was my understanding in essence you had agreed to the proposal,” Commissioner Sammie Jacobs said to Memory and Prevatte.

“The committee went there; do you have a proposal?” McKenzie added.

“I don’t have a problem with giving them a lease for five years but I can’t obligate past the five years,” Prevatte said.

“Do we pass up the $200,000 cash they propose to give us?” Jacobs asked.

“I oppose,” Bullard said. “In five years the board will not have the money to buy any building.”

Move on

“We can do either one,” McKenzie said. “I want the recommendation so we can move on.”

“We are leasing the land itself and selling a three sided building for a price that is pretty hefty and would put $200,000 in our coffers,” Memory said.

Memory said he didn’t see what the problem was. “There is already a problem with the floors,” Memory said. “I’ve looked at it.

“This is an opportunity for Columbus County to reduce solid waste fees by 56 cents a ton. Unless we have someone standing outside the door with a better offer, gentleman, I think we had better take some action on it,” Jacobs said.

“They have made some good offers,” Bullard said, but did not back down from his opposition to the sale.

Consider cash

“We should maybe consider the cash payment,” McKenzie said, but questioned if it could be put in a lease, not sale, of the building.

Peverall said he would not be willing to lease the building on those terms.

“Why is the building so important?” Bullard asked Peverall.

“What would you lease the land for?” Prevatte asked.

“I’ve not been prepared to offer any other,” Peverall said.

“Mr. Chairman, are we passing up $200,000?” Jacobs asked. “I thought you had it negotiated.”

“Personally, I think it’s a good offer,” Memory said.

Prevatte asked about extending the negotiations an additional 60 to 90 days.

“We would prefer while we are all here to make it work,” Peverall said.

McKenzie said the county is not displeased with its service from Waste Management. “We feel two parties can agree and we can at least work with them and at least trust them,” McKenzie said.

McKenzie said a recommendation should have been made by the negotiating board members.

“We cannot decide for seven,” Prevatte declared. “I’m telling you there are two points there I don’t agree with.”

Problem here

“I’m beating a dead horse here,” McKenzie said.

Memory said it was a matter of how the proposal was worded.

“We have a problem here, gentlemen –that’s 170 tons a day that’s got to be moved out of county,” Memory said. “We could put money in the bank to reduce the cost of waste collection. We are looking at almost $1 per ton in savings with the five-year lease and extension in five years.

“That’s a lot of money for us,” Memory said. “We could lose the $200,000 and lose the 56 cents gate credit.”

Prevatte pointed out that they had negotiated the lease from $60,000 to $90,000 and no CPI increase in 2009.

Good job

“I think you did a good job. We just need to follow through,” Jacobs said.

Another obstacle in negotiations was a provision that if the county chooses to buy the building back, they need to let Waste Management know two years before the contract expires, or in 2010.

“That lets them know if you are or are not gong to renew the (waste) contract,” Bullard declared.

“I see no problem giving them two years,” Jacobs said.

“In the spirit of moving forward we will make a six-month concession,” Peverall said. The county must notify the company by July 1, 2011.

Peverall explained the permitting process for a transfer station could easily take a year and they would need time to site a new one.

Memory made a motion to accept the proposal with the suggested amendments. His motion was seconded by Commissioner Lynwood Norris. Only Bullard voted “no.”