Showing posts with label White Street Landfill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White Street Landfill. Show all posts

Landfill activists weigh in on grocery store

The irony isn’t lost on the residents of Northeast Greensboro attending the Citizens for Economic & Environmental Justice meeting Feb. 27 — while people on this side of town have been courting grocery chains to build a store in their vicinity, rumors are swirling about Trader Joe’s opening a store right near a Harris Teeter and the future site of Whole Foods, and the residents nearby don’t want it.

Neighbors of the Friendly Shopping Center are mobilizing against a rezoning request for a site near the center but not because of the alleged potential for Trader Joe’s, but because they don’t want expanded commercial area in their neighborhood in general. Meanwhile, Northeast residents easily rattle off a list of empty storefronts that could house Trader Joe’s or another grocer in a more accessible location.

“I would like to see Trader Joe’s in a spot that is better for all of Greensboro,” said Tony Davies, who brought up the discussion.

Led by former councilwoman Goldie Wells, CEEJ members decided to send a letter of support to the Friendly Avenue coalition expressing their support for the neighborhood’s right to have a voice in development happening around them. The exact wording of the letter wasn’t determined, though District 1 Councilwoman Diane Bellamy-Small suggested they explicitly say they would welcome a Trader Joe’s in east Greensboro in addition to supporting the residents.

“If they really want to be a good partner to Greensboro there are other very good locations in Greensboro,” said Councilwoman Nancy Hoffmann. Councilwomen Yvonne Johnson, Marikay Abuzuaiter and Hoffmann, who were at the meeting, all said they spoke with the developer for the proposed site.

After 14 years of begging for a grocery store to locate in east Greensboro at different sites like Phillips Avenue, Wells said it might be time to consider a one-day boycott of grocery chains. Wells’ suggestion was met with resounding support from the 50 people in attendance.

“If we shut down with our dollars, there would be some action,” Wells said.

Vendor withdraws bid to operate White Street Landfill

UPDATE: The city announces that the public hearing for the contract has been canceled.

ORIGINAL POST: Gate City Waste Services has notified the city of Greensboro that it is withdrawing a bid to operate the White Street Landfill.

Developing...

Here's a link to the letter from Gate City Waste Services to City Manager Rashad Young: [Document]

Council will have the opportunity to vote tonight to extend a contract with Republic Services to receive the city's solid waste at its Uwharrie Environmental Landfill in Montgomery County from Sept. 30 to to Dec. 31. Approval of the extension would buy the council some time to postpone a long-term decision on solid waste until after the Nov. 8 election.

"I think if we do anything at this point, it would be rushed," Vaughan said. "I think we need to let the next council move on this."

Vaughan said that when the time comes she would like to explore a proposal by Republic Services to save the city an estimated $3.5 million, and look for ways to increase recycling.

The text of the letter, digitally signed by lawyer Daniel R. Moore for David H. Griffin Sr., is after the jump:

Mayor Knight:

I am writing on behalf of Gate City Waste Services (Gate City) to respectfully request that our bid for the referenced services at White Street Landfill be terminated. As a lifelong resident and businessman in this community I had sincerely hoped to do something positive for the White Street Landfill neighborhoods, and the people of Greensboro. Those actions no longer appear possible.

In retrospect it is clear that a very painful process has taken place; one that has affected many of my fellow citizens. It was never our intent to provide anything other than a professional and competitive offering on what we believe to be vital, necessary, and fiscally responsive solid waste management services for the city. I am confident that this was your intent as well. Given the litigation and associated activities surrounding the recent RFP process it is clear that we have no other palatable option.

In closing I would like to request that the city continue to consider our recent offering under the last RFP/proposal to develop a landfill gas-to-energy project at the White Street facility. We are prepared to make the significant capital investment necessary for this project and participate in a revenue/profit sharing structure with the city. As you know, we have also proposed to assume operations at the city's transfer station, and help in development of an alternative disposal technology/method when the time is appropriate. Accordingly, we would request that our proposal, strictly associated with these additional issues, remain valid.

Sincerely,
David H. Griffin Sr.CEO, DH Griffin Companies

Landfill opponents seek to intervene in lawsuit

Greensboro residents opposed to the reopening of the White Street Landfill have filed a motion (link) to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Gate City Waste Services seeking to block Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan from voting on a proposed contract with the company and to compel Councilman Zack Matheny to vote on the same.

Chris Brooks, a staff attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, said the matter will be argued in Guilford County Court tomorrow at 9:30 a.m.


Anticlimax after rumored recusal vote

District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny was playing coy tonight, but apparently wasn't playing ball with District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade.

An expected (link) vote to recuse Greensboro Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan from taking part in a decision to approve a solid waste contract did not materialize during a city council meeting tonight.

Typically, motions that are not on the agenda or added as part of an addendum come up for a vote at the end of the meeting during a segment called "matters to be discussed by the mayor and members of city council." Members discussed 9-11 commemoration activities, emergency response planning and the Greensboro Grasshoppers' winning streak, but no motion was made to recuse Vaughan.

At-large Councilman Danny Thompson and District 4 Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw — two of the four members who have voted to reopen the landfill in the past — indicated after the meeting that they were unaware of any plans to seek Vaughan's recusal.

Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard declined to comment on whether any of the four pro-landfill council members had approached him to ask whether it was legal to recuse another member against her will, but he said he discussed the matter with Steven J. Levitas, a lawyer who represents Gate City Waste Services. The company has been preselected to operate the White Street Landfill.

Pollard said his research into the legality of what he has described as an extraordinary parliamentary procedure "was derived from that conversation."

Gate City Waste Services filed suit against the city, Vaughan and District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny today seeking an injunction to prevent Vaughan from voting and to force Matheny to vote in the selection of the contractor to reopen the landfill.

Just as the meeting was beginning, Pollard and members of council received an e-mail (link) from Chris Brook, a lawyer for landfill opponents, requesting that the vote be delayed. Brook's argument that requiring Matheny to vote on whether Vaughan should be recused "is the equivalent of giving him a vote on Gate City as a vendor" — a company that he is deemed to have a conflict of interest with — might have been read as a shot across the bow.

After a break earlier in the meeting, six members of council reconvened without Thompson, Rakestraw and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade. Rhinoceros Times Editor John Hammer was also outside of chambers.

The six council members began rapidly moving through a motion to allocate funding for "downtown support activities" — an item expected to especially run counter to Wade's fiscally conservative, parochial proclivities. At-large Councilman Robbie Perkins, who was smiling mischievously with District 1 Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small, made a rolling motion with his arms to urge the mayor to call for a vote. Everyone on the dais understood that as the three absent members were not excused their votes would count as yes.

Just then, Thompson, Rakestraw and Wade rejoined the meeting, looking stone-faced. Wade read the item on the screen and said, "I'm against it."

Matheny said he had been approached by a fellow council member, whom he declined the name.

"I was asked, 'What would I do?'" he said.

Asked how he answered, he said cryptically: "You'd have to ask them."

Presumably the reason the motion was not made was because the four did not feel confident that it would pass.

"I was waiting just like you were waiting," Matheny said.

Landfill opponent lawyer: Delay recusal vote

Chris Brook, a lawyer who represents landfill opponents, e-mails interim Greensboro City Attorney Tom Pollard, asking that he delay a vote on whether Vaughan should be recused from a decision to select a contractor to reopen the White Street Landfill until Sept. 20.

Full message after the jump:

I appreciate you taking the time to speak with me this afternoon. In the course of our conversation I understand that there is likely to be a motion made this evening by a council member to take a vote on whether Councilwoman Vaughan should vote on a proposed contract with Gate City to operate Phase III of the White Street Landfill. I also understand from our conversation that you are planning to allow such a vote to go forward and will permit all members of the City Council to participate in this vote. Such a motion is a drastic measure and I write to request you delay such a vote until September 20, 2011, when there has been ample time to review the legality of these decisions.

My first concern is that empowering members of the City Council to potentially overturn your legal determination that Councilwoman Vaughan must participate in a Gate City vote is legally unsupported. My research this afternoon has not yielded any statutory or case law support for City Councilmembers having the authority to conflict out one of their peers. NCGS 160A-75, the statute governing conflicts on elected bodies in our state, makes no such grant of authority.

My second concern is that empowering members of the City Council to vote on conflicting out their peers is unwise public policy. Votes on these issues are likely to be proxies not on whether there is an actual conflict, but instead votes on the underlying issue at stake. In the case of the current controversy, the vote would likely not be about whether Councilwoman Vaughan has a conflict of interest, but instead about Councilpersons’ feelings on the landfill. Further, requiring Councilpersons to vote on conflicting out a peer is not good for the Board’s future ability to work well together. Many Councilpersons voting tonight are likely to serve again with Councilwoman Vaughan in the future. This vote cannot help but have a corrosive impact on Council cohesion, rendering them less effective in their efforts to manage the business of Greensboro’s residents.

My final concern is that requiring Councilman Matheny to vote on whether to excuse Councilwoman Vaughan from voting on Gate City is contrary to prior decisions rendered by the Greensboro City Attorney’s office and places him in an untenable position. It was determined in May 2011 that Councilman Matheny had a conflict with Gate City, a position unchallenged until late last week. Councilman Matheny’s employer has a close business relationship with the principal players behind Gate City. If the City Attorney’s office will not require Councilman Matheny to vote on Gate City as a vendor, then why is he required to vote on whether Councilwoman Vaughan can vote? Given the close vote in this circumstance, requiring Councilman Matheny to vote on Councilwoman Vaughan is the equivalent of giving him a vote on Gate City as a vendor. In both instances, if he votes in a fashion that favors Gate City (or abstains from voting, thereby still producing an positive vote), then the public will view him as his acting based on his employer being close to Gate City. On the other hand, if he votes in a manner detrimental to Gate City, then the public will believe he voted defensively to avoid the appearance of impropriety. He can’t win under these circumstances. Councilman Matheny should not be placed in such an untenable position. The City Attorney’s office has determined he can’t vote on Gate City as vendor; it follows he should not be allowed to vote on anything relating to Gate City.

In light of the drastic measures requested, the apparent lack of statutory support for Councilpersons voting on their peers’ conflicts, the potential policy implications, and the conflicts facing Councilman Matheny should he be forced to vote, I ask you to delay consideration of any motion to excuse Councilwoman Vaughan until September 20. A week delay would allow further research to be done to ensure the correct answer is reached. A week delay would not upset the timing of considering Gate City as a vendor as additional, necessary votes are scheduled for the upcoming September 20th Council meeting. Getting this right now would serve all of the Council in the long-run.

Thank you for discussing this with me this afternoon and considering this request. My apologies on the late hour of this email. Alas, the recent nature of these developments precluded an earlier, more thorough reply.

Gate City sues to block Vaughan from voting on solid waste contract

Gate City Waste Services files a complaint (link) seeking an injunction to affect Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan and District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny's participation in a vote on the selection of the solid waste company to operate the White Street Landfill.

Complaint:

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court declare that: (i) Ms. Vaughan has a “financial interest” within the meaning of NC Gen. Stat. § 160A-75 in the award of the contract and therefore has a conflict of interest and is required to recuse herself from voting and participating in the proceedings related to the award of the contract; and (ii) Mr. Matheny has no “financial interest” within the meaning of NC Gen. Stat. § 160A-75 or any other conflict of interest in the award of the contract and is therefore not excused from voting and participating in the proceedings relating to the award of the contract.


Vaughan told me today that she expects her pro-landfill colleagues on council to take a vote to recuse her from the landfill decision against her will, adding that she believes tonight's vote is tied to the lawsuit filed today because if the vote is successful the city would be enjoined from representing her as a defendant.

Vaughan said that interim City Attorney Tom Pollard has been researching the matter this afternoon and determined that the city council does have the authority to take a vote to recuse the mayor pro tem against her will.

"He thinks it can be done," Vaughan said. "From what I understand, he thinks it's not something that should be done lightly. It's certainly not something done regularly. It should be done only in the most extreme circumstances."

Chris Brook, a staff attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, has been monitoring events today. Brook said Pollard has determined that all members should vote on Vaughan's possible recusal.

A key fulcrum of the vote tonight is likely to be Matheny's role.

"Even though Matheny is conflicted out of voting on Gate City, he could vote to recuse Nancy, which would help Gate City," Brook said. "My understanding from talking to people is that Matheny is saying, 'I don't want to vote'.... If he is deemed okay to vote and he doesn't vote then he would be counted as a yes vote. That strikes me as too cute by half. By default he's voting yes, and then by default he's voting for the company that he claimed to have a conflict with."

UPDATE: "I don’t know if I’ve ever seen it done before, but I do think it’s possible for council to take that action," says Tom Pollard, who served as city attorney for the city of Wilmington from 1983 to 2009.

"It would just be the statutes that apply to a conflict of interest and the council making the decision that the statutes apply to a member of council," Pollard said, explaining the legal basis for his decision.

UPDATE2: Tonight's city council meeting begins at 5:30 p.m.


Law firm's services to city range from landfill to police discrimination

Brooks Pierce law firm and in particular partner George House have their hands in a lot of matters that affect public policy in the city of Greensboro as outside counsel.

From an Aug. 24 letter (link) from George House to interim City Attorney Tom Pollard outlining proposed terms and conditions of the law firm's representation:

We are pleased to provide you with an updated and consolidated engagement letter to continue to serve as legal counsel in assisting the city of Greensboro on various matters. There are four matters on which we are currently representing the city of Greensboro: 1) Assistance in responding to the complaint filed by certain citizens to the proposed reopening of the White Street Landfill and related permitting activities; 2) Assistance in analyzing options to the currently required city wastewater treatment plan and stormwater upgrades; 3) Assistance in defending Councilwoman Trudy Wade in the Alexander litigation; 4) Assistance in addressing miscellaneous environmental matters and questions.


For those who do not follow the minute, blow-by-blow details of who is suing the city of Greensboro day by day, "the Alexander litigation" refers to a pending federal lawsuit by 39 black Greensboro police officers that is currently before US District Judge Thomas D. Schroeder.

On the matter of billing, House explains,

I will be the attorney having primary responsibility for city matters. Our current hourly rates for the attorneys generally assisting me are set forth below, along with the discounted rate we currently offer the city. We rarely discount hourly rates, and these discounts are the largest we give. However, we believe we have a responsibility to assist the community in which we live.


According to the schedule provided in the letter, House is the highest paid employee of Brooks Pierce, with a usual hourly rate of $415 per hour and discounted rate of $300 per hour.

"If this letter accurately sets forth the understanding between the firm and you concerning the terms and conditions of our firm's representation, please show your acceptance by signing the enclosed copy of this letter and returning it to me," House writes.

A contract based on House's engagement letter comes before the Greensboro City Council for approval on Tuesday.

Solid waste vendor proposes to take over gas development at landfill

Gate City Waste Services proposes (link) "four additional solid waste management related services" after being preselected as a solid waste vendor to operate the White Street Landfill by the Greensboro City Council last month.


Pollard: Vaughan should vote on landfill decision

Greensboro interim City Attorney Tom Pollard reaffirms his opinion that Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan should vote in an upcoming decision to contract a private vendor to reopen the White Street Landfill in a letter (link) to a lawyer representing Gate City Waste Services.

Pollard explains his decision to the city council in an e-mail after the jump:

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Several questions were raised about my memorandum of August 22, 2011 to Ms. Vaughan about her participation in the vote to award a contract to Gate City following the public hearing scheduled for September 20. I have reviewed all of the additional information that I have received from council members as well as a letter that I received from Mr. Steven Levitas, the attorney for Gate City. After considering all of this information, I do not see any reason to change my opinion. Attached is a letter to Mr. Levitas that explains my reasoning. The letter only addresses the points made in Mr. Levitas’ letter. Additional concerns have been raised. First, the proposed push and pack operation may affect the methane gas production at the landfill, and Ms. Vaughan’s husband has represented Cone Mills in contract negotiations relating to the use of the methane gas. Second, Waste Industries’ proposal is technically alive and could be considered if the contract with Gate City is not approved.

As to the first concern, I have been advised that the RFP did not address the methane gas production, and the city will continue to maintain the methane gas operation. In addition, the landfill produces more methane gas than Cone Mills uses. There is no clear link between an award of a contract for the push and pack operation and a financial impact on Cone Mills or Ms. Vaughan’s husband.

While I believe that my letter to Mr. Levitas addresses the second concern, the possible future consideration of Waste Industries proposal is not enough to bar Ms. Vaughan from voting on September 20.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thomas C. Pollard
Interim City Attorney
City of Greensboro

Candidate profile: Wayne Abraham


When Wayne Abraham decided to run for city council, he always knew it would be at large. After six and a half years serving on the human relations commission, including two as chair, Abraham has come in contact with issues that are city wide in nature.

Abraham has been involved in a number of community-oriented projects since moving to Greensboro in 1977, including the Triad Health Project. A graduate of UNCG, he is currently the majority owner and executive director of Personal Care Inc., a home health care company that serves residents throughout the Triad.

To Abraham, running for city council seemed like a natural next step.

“I’ve been committed, since the mid 80s, to making Greensboro a better place,” he said at the outset of our conversation at the Green Bean. “For me this was one more way I could serve our community and make it better.”

Particularly after his tenure on the human relations commission, which works closely with council but is often tasked with following the council’s directives, Abraham decided he could have more impact as one of the policy makers rather than just working on implementation.

Like most challengers this election cycle, Abraham often found himself differing with the council about how to move forward. As a commissioner he was able to find ways to work through this, but feels it’s time to make more significant changes.

“I disagreed with their vision of what Greensboro should be like,” he said. “I don’t think they’re looking long term. They created the controversy we’re living with.”

In particular, Abraham takes issue with the council pushing issues like the landfill that citizens aren’t clamoring for action on. He also expressed concern that talented and capable city staff have resigned, saying some were leaving because they couldn’t handle the current council.

As a candidate, Abraham’s primary objective is economic development, and he’s not short on ideas for how to create it. Two key approaches that he said would be relatively simple would entail enacting the city’s sustainability plan, which he said has not been implemented, and initiating a buy local campaign. The sustainability plan offers a variety of proposals that could increase investment, including incentivizing green building techniques.

During the current council’s tenure, Abraham said funding to the Greensboro Partnership was cut by 10 percent, a move he sees as detrimental to attracting businesses.

When asked how he would balance increased funding for certain projects with the city’s budget, Abraham said, “I would have to hear what the city manager has to say about areas where we could save.”

Consulting the experts was a recurring theme in his explanation for how he would approach being a councilmember, whether it be listening to planners about the proposed increase in bus fares or consulting the human relations commission.

Many residents have publicly expressed that they will only vote for candidates who oppose reopening Phase III of the White Street Landfill, and Abraham spoke at length about his opposition to the proposal as well as the way the process has been carried out.

“I don’t understand why they’ve done anything they’ve done,” he said in response to a question about why he thought Gate City Waste Services was preliminarily selected over other companies bidding to run the landfill.

In general, city council members have showed a lack of respect for residents who have raised concerns with them, particularly about the landfill but around other issues too. Abraham said it takes courage to speak at a council meeting, and that not only should those residents’ input be respected, but also valued. To that end, he supports moving the speakers from the floor portion of the regular meetings back to the beginning in correspondence with what it appears most residents want.

Many residents have stated that council members and candidates only show up in their neighborhoods during election time, and while he said he wouldn’t have time to be at everything he was invited to, Abraham said that as a council member he would do his best to be out in the neighborhoods and attending what meetings he could.

“This is a very serious responsibility and I am going to take it seriously,” he said. “I owe them that much.”

Through greater community engagement, Abraham said people would start to see it more as their government and not as someone else’s.

Our conversation focused mostly around economic development and the landfill because Abraham explained that those are the two main issues people tell him they are concerned about. After talking to more people, however, Abraham said he will outline more of his positions on different issues.

Abraham serves as the 6th congressional district chairman for the Democratic Party, giving him connections to state legislators that he said he could leverage to help advocated for Greensboro in Raleigh.

When he’s not busy with work or service, Abraham can be found throughout the city, walking in the city’s parks with his partner, working out at the Central YMCA three times a week or attending church at St. Mary’s House.

And when he’s not reading something political, Abraham enjoys reading science fiction. He can’t remember the exact name of the book he’s reading now, maybe it’s Dance with Dragons, but he knows George R. R. Martin is the author.

When asked about his favorite restaurants in town, he names a few Italian places and Phoenix Asian Cuisine, but said his real love is chocolate.

“I love going to Maxie B’s,” he said. “That’s my weakness.”

At this point the campaign’s website is up, voteabraham.com, and he has a core team of six people as well as around 15 volunteers. Voters can get a better sense of his positions as outlined on Facebook, where Abraham said he tries to write updates at least every Friday and where people can contact him with questions or comments.

Brother, can you spare $12.50?

Greensboro property owners: Are you willing to pony up $12.50 per year to keep the White Street Landfill closed?

That's how much the city manager's office estimates that a homeowner could save on their taxes assuming their house is assessed at $100,000 of valuation, based on the "push and pack" option to reopen the landfill that was approved by council last week.

The tax rate reduction that could be realized is 1.25 cents.

Staff ran the numbers in response to a question posed by Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan at yesterday's briefing session.

That said, no promise has been made that the savings realized from reopening the landfill will be realized. To the contrary, at-large Councilman Danny Thompson has been talking up the idea of plowing the savings from reopening the landfill into a solid waste enterprise fund to purchase an equity stake in a future regional landfill.

Ed Cone has also explored that idea.


Discussions about regional solid waste option begin

Robbie Perkins (back to camera) discusses his interest in pursuing a regional solid waste solution with fellow city council members (l-r) Mary Rakestraw, Trudy Wade and Dianne Bellamy-Small.

Prompted by a recent development allowing Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan to have a vote in the city of Greensboro’s contentious solid waste process, Councilman Robbie Perkins sought in vain to get the city to open up talks with Randolph County to explore the possibility of sending the city’s solid waste to a planned regional landfill there.

Perkins said he asked Mayor Bill Knight to put the proposal on the agenda for a briefing meeting this afternoon at city hall, and the mayor refused, saying the timing was “premature.” So Perkins raised his proposal during the half-hour segment at the beginning of the meeting set aside for members of the public to address council.

But the topic came up at the end of the briefing anyway. After brief and unremarkable presentations from Downtown Greensboro Inc. and an executive search firm contracted to help the city council find a new city attorney, members held a candid and sometimes contentious discussion about solid waste options and Vaughan’s role in the process. Knight declared the briefing over, stated that people could speak whenever they felt like it and left before the discussion was through.

“Since the city attorney ruled that Ms. Vaughan is back in the mix in terms of voting on the contract, it seems like the dynamic in this discussion has changed,” Perkins said. “And so I thought it would be appropriate for the council to at least take a look at the Randolph County option, not in terms of us buying a piece of their landfill but just having the manager discuss with them what type of contract could be worked out with them and what type of tipping fee they would charge.”

County officials estimate that the landfill will be open in 18 months to two years.

Councilwoman Trudy Wade, who made the motion at last weeks’ meeting to reopen Phase III of the White Street Landfill and initiate contract negotiations with Gate City Waste Services, dismissed Perkins’ proposal.

“I just think we might be jumping the gun on going long range at this point when we’ve just chosen someone to do something at the landfill,” Wade said. “I just think we should see if this company that we’re supposedly going to contract with has a long-term plan for us or has anything they might add to the discussion before we as a city jump out…. So I think it’s only fair if you’re going to negotiate a contract [to] see if the vendor you’ve chosen had any thoughts along those lines. And I think we owe it to them.”

Both Perkins and Councilman Danny Thompson have expressed interest in a long-term, regional solution to the city’s solid waste challenges, but Perkins leans toward having the city be a customer while Thompson has recently suggested temporarily reopening the White Street Landfill and plowing the funds into a solid waste enterprise fund that could be used to buy an equity stake in a future regional landfill.

“It would seem to me that if we were going to negotiate with Randolph on the front end and be their money source for that new expansion of the landfill and we had the opportunity to direct as much waste as we produce to their facility, then you could negotiate very, very favorable terms,” Perkins said. “Just like an anchor tenant does with a shopping center, they always get the best deal. And we would be Randolph County’s anchor tenant for their landfill. And we could get one heck of a deal.”

Thompson parried, “I’m not certain that the potential of an equity partnership is not out of the realm.”

City staff and its consultant, HDR Engineering, have estimated that the city could save about $1 million on hauling were the city to divert waste from its current destination in Montgomery County to Randolph County.

“Have you talked to anybody in Randolph about that?” Perkins asked.

“I’ve talked to entities,” Thompson responded.

Perkins: “Who have you talked to?”

Thompson: “I can’t say.”

Perkins: “You can’t say. Well, I’ve talked to the chairman of the Randolph County Commission and he said he would prefer tip fees versus the other and the reason he gave was that it would be hard enough to expand that landfill without interjecting Greensboro as an owner. And that was this morning at about 11 o’clock.”

Thompson: “I would expect him to say that.”

Perkins: “So why are you trying to pursue something that they don’t want? Because you haven’t talked to anybody.”

Thompson: “No, I have.”

Perkins: “Okay, but you won’t reveal who you talked to.”

Thompson: “Okay, there you go.”

Vaughan, Perkins and Councilwoman challenged the conservative faction that has been maneuvering the city to reopen the landfill to allow the city to bid against private vendors to operate the landfill. The two sides argued on whether staff has produced those numbers to council already.

“I remember an IFYI where we documented the current costs where we provided an assumption about different tonnage levels,” City Manager Rashad Young said, “but we’ve not done an analysis on the current RFP respondents to that question.”

Thompson indicated the numbers aren't particularly significant one way or the other.

“They’re either going to do it for free or it’s going to be $1 million or $2 million,” he said.

“You don’t know that,” Perkins said. “I don’t know that. How do you know that?”

Thompson said, “We’ve already got bids on the table for $1 million and $2 million. They can either be below that – for free – or they can be at that price or higher.”

Perkins said, “Why would the city of Greensboro not be able to bid cheaper than anybody and therefore save us more money than anybody without having to make a profit on their work out there?”

Wade and Knight expressed as an article of faith that private companies can save more money than city staff an.

“We all know private industry is more efficient and does it better, because the city is going to pay you whether you’re good or you’re not good or whatever,” Wade said. “Now, I’m going to say that when you work in private industry, if you’re not producing at a certain amount you’re not going to be there very long.”

“We are trying to stop the bleeding that’s been going on,” Knight said. He added, “Private industry can do a better job, in my opinion.”

Early in the freewheeling discussion, council members discussed the ramifications of Vaughan having a vote in the landfill issue going forward.

Wade indicated that Vaughan’s husband, Don, is involved with the landfill in regards to methane reserves. The city gives methane from the landfill to Cone Mills as an economic development incentive.

“I don’t know how she’s voting on the landfill at all,” Wade said.

Vaughan responded, “That’s a totally separate issue.”

“If you want to pull Waste Industries in just to deny me my ability [to vote],” she added, “then I think that’s pretty transparent on why you’re going to do that.”

Wade responded, “If you vote against Gate City, we’re going to have a very serious problem picking anyone but Waste Industries because that would be the only way you couldn’t vote on it and you know what the vote is right now. And we’ve all seen what you’ve put [1, 2] on YES! Weekly blog.”

Vaughan has indicated in recent interviews that the city should honor a “pact” made with residents when the council voted to close the landfill about 10 years ago, and has suggested that the council hold separate votes on whether to reopen the landfill and which company to award a contract to.

“You do not know that I would support Waste Industries,” she said.

Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard said some council members have approached him about whether Vaughan should be allowed to vote, and that he plans to review information they provide him.

“It’s going to take me awhile to get through it,” he said.

Wade requested that as long as Pollard was looking into whether Vaughan has a conflict of interest, he should also investigate whether Perkins has a conflict of interest. A commercial real estate broker at Perkins’ company represents properties for DH Griffin, a Greensboro salvage company whose executives are involved with the newly formed Gate City Waste Services.

“The only reason for this pushback is you’re just hell-bent on reopening the landfill,” Perkins charged. “That’s what you want to do no matter what. Now, if you’re really looking for a solution that’s going to benefit this community, you’ve got to look in Randolph County. You can’t not look in Randolph County.”

“I don’t think anybody said they didn’t look in Randolph County,” Wade replied. “We’ve looked at technology and lot of other things, Robbie. Unless you’re just hell-bent on not opening the landfill.”

“I am hell-bent on not opening the landfill,” Perkins agreed.

“I want to be sure we’re looking at all our options,” Wade said. “And I realize we’ve lost $55 million from 2002 to now by not using the resource we’ve had.”

POSTSCRIPT: Vaughan says after the discussion Thompson produced a memo written by acting City Attorney Tom Carruthers in July that he purportedly indicates she should not participate in any ongoing solid waste deliberations. Vaughan says that if interim City Attorney Tom Pollard rescinds his opinion allowing her to vote on the matter, she will consider seeking outside counsel.

"There’s been some discussion that I’m trying to throw the vote to Waste Industries," Vaughan adds, "but I think it’ s pretty clear that I don’t want the landfill open at all."

Vaughan can vote on landfill contract with Gate City

Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan will be allowed to vote on a contract award to Gate City Waste Services to operate Phase III of the White Street Landfill.

Vaughan had previously been recused from voting on solid waste because her husband, Don Vaughan, performs legal work for Waste Industries, one of the proposers. Last Tuesday, council voted by a narrow majority to initiate contract negotiations with another proposer, Gate City Waste Services.

Pollard wrote in a letter yesterday,

You have inquired about your voting status on the award of the contract to Gate City Waste Services LLC when this contract is considered following the public hearing on September 20, 2011. I have reviewed the action of the city council to date, the prior opinions on conflicts of interest relating to this matter, the relevant state law, city charter provisions and city policies. Under GS 160A-75, there is a strong public policy of requiring members to vote unless a member has a financial interest in an outcome whether beneficial or detrimental. In my opinion, there is no basis to excuse you from voting on the contract award to Gate City.


The Aug. 16 vote to initiate contract negotiations fell 4-3, with Mayor Bill Knight, at-large Councilman Danny Thompson, District 4 Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade in the majority. Knight, Thompson, Rakestraw and Wade have consistently voted in favor of reopening the landfill. Vaughan and District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny have been recused from voting on the landfill, Vaughan because of her conflict of interest on Waste Industries and Matheny because of a financial interest in Gate City Waste Services.

Pollard wrote to Vaughan in his opinion: "You have advised me that your connection to an unsuccessful proposer will not affect your judgment about what action on the contract is in the best interest of the city."

Vaughan voted in 2001 to close the landfill to household waste.

“When it was closed to municipal solid waste, I think we made a pact with the neighborhood,” she said, “and they should have been able to expect that would be respected.”

With Matheny recused because of his relationship with Gate City Waste Services, eight members of council will be allowed to vote at the Sept. 20 hearing. If the vote were to be tied 4 to 4, the motion would fail, and Gate City would not be selected as the contractor.

After that?

"It would be then up to the council to make a decision as to how proceed," Pollard said. "They could perhaps go to another proposer and go to the public hearing process again. There are probably other things they could consider."

If Waste Industries were to be reconsidered, Pollard confirmed that Vaughan would be conflicted out again.

"Maybe the council should have a straight up or down vote — vendors aside — on whether to reopen the landfill," Vaughan said in an interview today. "This council has never had a vote on should we reopen the landfill.

"The regional solution has not been thoroughly explored," Vaughan added. "It certainly is gaining more feasibility. And to not explore it is poor judgment. I went on record 10 years ago that a regional landfill was the solution. Now we have a regional landfill on the verge of reopening [in Randolph County], and we’re not in discussions with them. They are interested in Greensboro, which is the most important factor."

Mike Barber: Landfill opponent

Chris Brook, staff attorney at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice who is representing residents opposed to reopening the White Street Landfill, says he received an unsolicited phone call today from the Wyndham Championship.

The caller was Mike Barber, a former Greensboro City Council member who proposed researching possible cost savings from reopening the landfill back in 2008. The council is preparing to vote to select a private company to operate the landfill as we speak.

"He urged me to tell you that you do not support what you are doing tonight," Brook told the council.

Brook told me during recess that Barber told him he opposes the action to reopen a limited portion of the landfill partly because it's divisive, but also "because there's an opportunity to save money that doesn't involve reopening the landfill. He encourage council to look at the alternatives writ large, but he specifically noted that there was a proposal that would keep the landfill closed and save $3.5 million."

I've got a call into Barber and hope to speak with him soon.


Live feed of city council discussion of landfill

YES! Weekly is providing live coverage by Twitter (link) of tonight's Greensboro City Council meeting, including a hearing on the White Street Landfill and vote to select a vendor to operate a limit portion of the landfill.


City receives proposals to operate White Street Landfill

The city of Greensboro has received proposals (link) from seven companies in response to a request for proposals, or RFPs, to reopen the White Street Landfill on a limited basis. Among them are Gate City Waste Services and Raleigh-based Waste Industries, which were finalists in a previous RFP that was abandoned after a judge ruled that the city cannot open un-permitted sections of the landfill without holding a public hearing, researching the socio-economic makeup of the area and considering alternatives.

Advanced Disposal, a Florida company that was eliminated from consideration in the last round of bids, and Republic Services, which currently accepts the city’s household waste at its landfill in Montgomery County, also submitted proposals. Other companies angling for the contract include Triangle Grading and Paving of Burlington, Tennessee-based Santek Environmental, and A-1 Sandrock of Greensboro.

The president of A-1 Sandrock is Councilwoman Trudy Wade’s cousin.

Interim City Attorney Tom Pollard wrote in an e-mail to Wade on Monday:

You have asked if this relationship prohibits you from voting on the possible award of a contract for the landfill operation. You have advised me that you have no financial interest in A-1, and that this relationship will not affect your decision in the matter. In my opinion you are not prohibited from voting on a possible contract award, and you do not meet the statutory standards for being excused from voting.


Pollard distinguished between spousal relationships, which factors in Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan’s recusal, and more distant familial relationships:

You have no financial interest direct or indirect in A-1. Even those provisions of law or policy that address family relationships in defining a conflict do not apply in this situation. GS 14-234 defines direct benefit only in relation to a spouse’s interest in a contract. In addition, the city’s conflict of interest policy discusses a financial or other interest by an officer or “any member of him immediate family.


The new RFP sets a schedule to initiate a contract by Oct. 18 — which falls exactly three weeks before voters go to the polls to elect a new council.

“In the RFP submission responses today, Republic Services has outlined a plan that could save the city over $3.5 million annually in its solid waste disposal costs without reopening the Whites Street Landfill,” said Chris Brook, a staff attorney with the Southern Coalition for Social Justice who is representing landfill opponents free of charge. “This would represent a win-win for the whole Greensboro community, safeguarding both the city’s residents and its budget.”

Republic Services, which currently holds a contract to dispose of the city’s solid waste at its landfill in Montgomery County, submitted a Statement of No Response.

From a letter written by Republic Services of North Carolina Vice President Drew Isenhour last week:

From our perspective, the city is choosing a short-term solution for a long-range project. If the city moves forward with reopening White Street they will deplete the city’s asset in 5 plus years and have no guarantee that the landfill can be expanded for future use. With airspace capacities eroding in North Carolina and the ability to site new landfills is cost prohibitive the existing airspace value of the White Street landfill exponentially increases year after year. Exploiting this asset depletes the city’s airspace and limits the options for a sustainable long-range solution. In view of both economic and political considerations the city could choose to make modifications to current operations and provide the city approximately $3.5 million annual savings without having to proceed with the controversy and litigation required to open the White Street landfill.

Human relations commission to weigh in on landfill

Greensboro Human Relations Commissioner Marikay Abuzuaiter spoke at Laughlin Memorial United Methodist Church last night.

The Greensboro Human Relations Commission will submit a resolution related to the White Street Landfill tomorrow ahead of a city council vote to seek a private company to operate a permitted portion of the landfill. This will be the third request for proposals for solid waste issued by the city in as many years.

“I think we’ve turned the corner on this,” Commissioner Michael Roberto said, speaking at a community meeting at Laughlin Memorial United Methodist Church in northeast Greensboro last night. “There may be people who have doubts, but I think the political will here, the moral rectitude of this fight has made the difference here. The fact that they have pulled out this RFP is an act of desperation.”

Roberto and fellow commissioner Marikay Abuzuaiter said they expect their chair, Abdel Nuriddin, to make the presentation.

“When we read that resolution tomorrow night – when Dr. Nuriddin reads that resolution – here is a human relations commission saying to the city council: No, you can’t do this,” Roberto said.

“Commissioner Roberto and I fought long and hard for this,” said Abuzuaiter, who was one of a number of candidates for city council at the meeting. “It took six months. There were many, many times when he and I got thrown under the bus.”

After the meeting, Abuzuaiter said it had been difficult to get a resolution before council, but declined to discuss its contents.

Several speakers urged people to go to the polls to vote out four members of council that have pursued reopening the landfill: Mayor Bill Knight, at-large Councilman Danny Thompson, District 4 Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade. The primary takes place in October.

“We are nonpartisan, but if we don’t see a change in the four people that we have on council right now, we’re going to continue to see the same thing in 2011, 2012 and 2013,” said James Burroughs III, the executive director of Democracy at Home, a voter mobilization group. “And as a reminder, we had some of the highest turnout in 2008. We thought maybe we’d reached the mark with the election of our first African-American president. But then, in 2009, Yvonne Johnson lost by a little more than 900 votes – our first black mayor.”

Ralph Johnson, a member of Concerned Citizens of Northeast Greensboro, said Thompson should be held accountable for pushing to reopen the landfill after stating that he was not interested in doing so during his 2009 campaign.

Speakers expressed astonishment at the notion that council members have received significant encouragement from constituents to reopen the landfill.

“The citizens are opposed to it across racial lines, across generational lines,” said John Rich, who lives in Rakestraw’s district. “Everybody knows that if we want to move forward in race relations, this is not the way to do it. If you want to put a big dump within a major beltway, it’s just outrageous. You talk about the economics of it – I know a little bit about economics. I’ve worked in finance for 35 years, and I can tell you when you are able to grow your tax base, that exceeds what it costs to put gas in trucks to take the waste elsewhere.”

City of Greensboro to issue new solid waste RFP

The Greensboro City Council is directing staff to issue a new request for proposals to solicit private vendors to operate Phase III of the White Street Landfill.

The council came out of closed session to take the vote during a special meeting to discuss a lawsuit filed against the city by northeast Greensboro residents who oppose the reopening of the landfill. The council also voted to set aside an old request for proposals, or RFP. This will be the third one issued.

The lawsuit against the city cites state law requiring cities to hold a public hearing before permitting a new landfill, and to consider alternative sites and socio-economic data. The city had begun negotiations with two solid waste companies to operate the landfill for at least 15 years when the lawsuit was filed. The city ran into trouble because the currently permitted portion of the landfill is expected to fill to capacity in two to six years. Contracting with a company to operate the landfill for 15 years would necessarily involve obtaining permits to operate additional phases.

The new RFP also calls for accepting only 140,000 tons per year, which is the amount collected by city forces. The previous RFP would have had the landfill accepting 240,000 tons.

City Manager Rashad Young said he plans to bring the new RFP back to council for approval in two weeks.

Finalizing a contract before the next council is seated in early December, when a new majority might elect to keep the landfill closed, would be ambitious.

The RFP that was set aside today provided for a period of four months and three weeks between the date of it was issued and when council was supposed to approve the contract. By that measure, the council might approve a contract by late November -- just under the wire.


Ruling indefinitely delays reopening of White Street Landfill

A ruling today by Guilford County Superior Court Judge Richard W. Stone enjoins the city of Greensboro from entering into a contract with Gate City Waste Services, Waste Industries or any other provider to construct additional phases of the White Street Landfill until a lawsuit is resolved that was filed by landfill opponents.

The ruling can be read here. (Click on this link.)

Plaintiffs contend that to enter into a contract with any solid waste company to reopen the landfill the city must first hold a public hearing, and consider socio-economic data and alternative sites, on the basis that the currently permitted portion of the landfill is expected to fill to capacity in the next two to six years. The city's Request For Proposals calls for a 15-year contract; any successful bidder would have to obtain additional permitting to continue operating the landfill through the life of the contract.

Supporting the plaintiffs’ key contention, Stone ruled that as a matter of law

Phases II and III of the White Street Landfill are “existing sanitary landfills” as defined by North Carolina General Statute § 160A-325 [and] that Phases IV and V of the White Street Landfill are “new sanitary landfills” as defined by North Carolina General Statute § 160A-325.


A spokesman for Waste Industries has previously argued that the statute did not apply to plans to reopen and expand the White Street Landfill.

The decision of a narrow majority of the council to reopen the landfill has mobilized electoral opposition and an effort to unseat elected officials who favor returning the landfill to service. Part of the acknowledged strategy of landfill opponents is to tie the matter up in litigation until a new council can be seated in December that reverses the political decision to reopen the landfill.

Press release from plaintiffs after the jump:

Judge Enjoins Greensboro City Council From Expanding White Street Landfill

Second Superior Court Judge Finds for Plaintiffs

GREENSBORO, NC – Judge Richard W. Stone granted plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction this morning, halting the Greensboro City Council’s efforts to expand the White Street Landfill. The order enjoins the city council “from adopting any solid waste management plan that selects or approves a ‘new sanitary landfill’ site… in the White Street Landfill… until the Court has entered a final judgment in this case.”

This is the second Superior Court Judge, after Judge Patrice Hinnant’s June 3 order, to find for the plaintiffs in holding that the Greensboro City Council has not met its statutory obligations.

"The statute was there, all the Greensboro City Council had to do was look at the statute," said Goldie Wells, a leader with the Citizens for Environmental and Economic Justice. "I’m happy our voices are finally being heard."

While the City Council planned to sign a 15- to 30-year contract with Gate City Waste Services or Waste Industries by June 21, 2011, it now cannot adopt such a plan at least until the trial in this case concludes, according to the order. A 15- to 30-year contract would have required the construction of two new phases (Phases IV and V) of the White Street Landfill. These expansions obligate the City Council to consider other sites, hold a public hearing and consider socioeconomic and demographic data under North Carolina General Statute 160A-325. Prior to this order, the Greensboro City Council had not yet fulfilled these obligations despite a letter from SCSJ reminding it of its legal obligations and repeated requests from the community.

The case, which is entitled Jacqueline Neal Ferguson, Roosevelt Ferguson, Betty Crite, Marlina Scales, Lottie Neal, Citizens for Economic and Environmental Justice, and League of Women Voters Piedmont Triad v. Greensboro City Council, features both residents directly impacted by the landfill expanding and residents throughout Greensboro. All Plaintiffs are represented by SCSJ. The case will now proceed to a trial.

YES! Weekly Preview -- June 15


YES! Weekly Editor Brian Clarey gives us a colorful rundown of what may be our dirtiest issue to date!

Oh yeah, and Happy Father's Day to all whom have filled the role. The YES! Weekly staff salutes you!