The Virginian-Pilot
©
CHESAPEAKE
SPSA is hoping Suffolk will lift a stop-work order on a dirt-moving operation at its landfill this week, but the debt-ridden trash agency will have to spend thousands to fix the problem.
T o get the order removed, the Southeastern Public Service Authority will have to agree to pay $40,000 to put up an evergreen-tree buffer along Portsmouth Boulevard, SPSA's board was told Wednesday.
SPSA already has spent about $75,000 this month to buy and bring in soil to top off and close out a big piece of its regional landfill after Suffolk's order on March 3 prohibited the use of on-site dirt.
The work stoppage also could cost SPSA as much as $5,700 a day in payments to a contractor, even if there is no dirt to move. The SPSA board on Wednesday transferred $250,000 from another capital project to pay for importing soil and other costs associated with the restriction on moving dirt. Failure to fix the problem with Suffolk could cost the agency $500,000, officials said.
The stop-work order is another piece of SPSA's larger financial troubles, which include finding a way to deal with $240 million in debts.
SPSA, hampered by declin ing revenues and accused in a state report of poor leadership and financial discipline, might not have enough money to pay basic operating costs by April or May.
To keep the agency afloat, the eight member localities are considering a bailout plan that could mean trash-fee increases for residents of Chesapeake, Norfolk and some of the other cities. The SPSA board could vote on the bailout plan in April.
Top administrators with both Suffolk and SPSA say the stop order could be removed within a day if the trash authority resubmits an erosion and sediment control plan for the dirt-moving effort. That hadn't happened as of Wednesday.
Suffolk officials say they were contacted by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation on Feb. 26 and asked to investigate concerns that SPSA was clearing land and doing other activities without proper permits.
The next day, a Suffolk public works inspector and a state inspector determined that SPSA had cleared 45 acres, city documents say. T he work didn't appear to be included in any approved plans or permits.
SPSA officials say they thought they had permission to do the work. They said all they were doing was moving dirt.
But Suffolk officials say a SPSA field representative told city staff members that the trash authority was actually doing work to expand its landfill, an effort that would cost millions and need board approval.
SPSA Executive Director Bucky Taylor said that was not the case. Taylor said he didn't know whether the worker at the landfill was a SPSA representative.
Mike Saewitz, (757) 222-5207, mike.saewitz@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Is that...
Is that...could it be...I think it is...a faint glimmer of light in this otherwise dark tunnel. By "complete Cell VII" do you mean that it has already begun? The digging that is; the subject of this article? HaHa just kidding. Keep up the good work, I gotta go.
A new day
Well, I see our positions are at least informed by a similar understanding. But of course, the situation changes soon when the cap comes off Virginia Beach, and if the sale of the RDF/WTE plants is deemed to be beneficial, there may be some breathing room in which to renegotiate new agreements. In fact, I believe that will be necessary before the members would agree to spend the money necessary to expand landfill capacity, especially in view of the fact that a 75% majority will be necessary to approve borrowing to complete Cell VII.
Wow
Are you just sitting there hitting F5? That was fast! Anyway, I'm not suggesting anyone "simply ignore the legally binding negotiated agreements". That would be wrong. On the other hand, I my opinion, it is precisely your "current[ly] beneficial arrangement" and the other members "full understanding of the value of [y]our contract with SPSA" that will, until 2018, prevent any beneficial change at SPSA. As the other members see their tip fees raised over and over again, ever higher, as VB and Suffolk laugh all the way to bank, there will never be an end to the animosity and the lawsuits and the silly bills and thus SPSA will never be what it could/should be. That is, an equally inexpensive, efficient, long term solution the this regions MWD needs. 2018 is a loooong way away. However, I certainly cannot fault you for holding you position as you do, I'm sure VB would quickly replace you otherwise but, everyone knows that dog won't hunt.
Wrong Impression
Well we have never said that at all. The Beach is of course open to negotiation, but with a full understanding of the value of our contract with SPSA going into those negotiations. You on the other hand seem to be implying that we should simply ignore the legally binding negotiatied agreements and agree to new arrangements with no consideration to our current beneficial arrangement. If history advises, we need to get the parties who are members of SPSA on equal footing, which is part of what the SCS report advocates. But that is post 2018; in the meantime, the Beach has taken the first step to ease the current short term fiscal crisis, but that does not solve the problem through 2018; frankly, SPSA's facilities would be closed today had we not intervened. Now is the time to enter those negotiations at the Mayor level.
What?
"it is the cost allocation system that is broken"
You never cease to amaze. Everyone knows that, the question is, how can you (Va Beach) admit it and then turn right around and say VB will never consider renegotiating it's contract which caps it's fees at an unrealistically, disproportionately low rate compared to all others except Suffolk? You always sound like you are pro SPSA, you sound disappointed in the other members when they do things seemingly to the detriment of SPSA, you sound like it pains you to see things going the way they are but, I wonder why. "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" If VB and Suffolk wanted to renegotiate their contracts I doubt the others would vote them down and if all members were willing to hash out new, more equitable, arrangements then Cosgrove's bill would have never come about, would it? I suppose a contract is a contract though; Right up to the bitter end, SPSA "be darned".
We will get what we deserve
Well Santa, at least you are consistent. Of course, four of the eight members are brand new; that is, they have just been appointed within the last few months. That includes Suffolk, Portsmouth, Franklin, and Isle of Wight. So, did you notice any big change? Point is, no matter who serves on the board, the members control the municipal tip fee. If they wish to have a lower tip fee, debt service be darned, that is what they will have. So what happens then? Fire that bunch and then get eight more who will do the same thing? No. You need to deal with the reality, and that is that actually SPSA performs very efficiently and effectively; it is the cost allocation system that is broken. Until that is fixed, even Cosgrove's bill will do absolutely nothing; in fact, it will exacerbate the situation. Fact is, in my view, it will paralyze the board and prevent it from acting. I guess that is what we all deserve.
The solution is very simple.
The solution is very simple. The public should demand the removal of all SPSA Board members.
No one knows
Well actually, that is not true. A decade ago, the capped fee differential was quite small, and we would have paid the higher tip fee as well had it been passed. And of course, your attempt to insult my standing by saying that I am unelected and therefore unaccountable is even more absurd given the fact that Delegate Cosgrove's bill if signed by the Governor will require that only non elected business people serve on the SPSA board, and the Governor will appoint them, not the Mayor/City Council. So if you don't like unelected and unaccountable representatives, take it up with Delegate Cosgrove. Frankly, it is not at all clear in his bill whether the rrepresentative appointed by the Governor is supposed to represent the member or whether the ex officio appointee is supposed to do that. What happens if they disagree? How many is a majority? No one knows.
Now thats funny
Of course VB lost the vote. And why would they have voted any different. A raise in the tip fee would not have impacted VB anyway. And having an un-elected, un-accountable representative on the SPSA BOD made it easier for VB to vote to tax other communities.
Fact or fiction
Well of course, santa and 2cents ignore the fact the Chesapeake representatives to SPSA voted with the majority for years to continue the policy of keeping the tip fee as low as possible by financing debt over very long periods of time and not establishing a schedule to pay it back. Beach representatives often lost these votes 7-1 as the members were led astray by the siren song of low tip fees. One could argue that Chesapeake saved all that money in past years and is simply now being called upon to pay the piper. But of course, politicians who supported that past behavior don't want to get painted with that brush, so it is far more valuable for them to demonize SPSA and blame it for the problem. And if you don't know better, you might even believe them.