Transfer Station On the Back Burner in Light of New Information

If ECUA knew in late March/early April that service in Santa Rosa County was being terminated---why did they not reveal that fact when also requesting permission from the Escambia Board of County Commissioners to build a Transfer Station?  Can an ECUA Employee make this call without an action and/or vote of their governing board?

I have been meeting with and speaking to County staff and others associated with ECUA about the potential of a new transfer station off of Pine Forest Road.  I've been having these discussions for about a year and a half.

I have been told this was absolutely, unequivocally needed without delay.

So I went out and toured the site and listened to ECUA's sales pitch on this.

I even wrote this blog post on it--which was very negatively received in my district.  Very, very negatively received.

But I did my best to explain the justifications for it, and I also publicly stated that I would not support it unless and until one or more public meetings was scheduled in the Bellview community of District 1 at which the ECUA could let citizens know the following:

1.)  Why a transfer station NOW
2.)  Why a transfer station HERE
3.)   A business case analysis illustrating precisely the operational cost savings this would achieve for ECUA and the rate-payers.
4.)  A complete and thorough illustration of HOW the transfer station would look, operate, and be kept clean and smell-free.


That was two weeks ago.  A lot can change in a couple of weeks.......

Now comes the revelation that ECUA has already decided it will end it's twice weekly waste and recycling collection services in neighboring Santa Rosa county this year (via a letter sent on April 2nd.).

Also--I'm told the ECUA's regular, heavy use of the County's Palafox Transfer station has only just begun over the last 10 months.  They are overwhelming the capacity and filling up the transfer station by Thursday of most weeks.  But this is a new practice by ECUA I'm now told.  I wasn't told this before I agreed to a discussion about a new transfer station.   So, if ECUA just started using our Palafox street transfer station heavily and regularly over the last 10-12 months---why now, and where did they take it before?  Why this new change?

So we are getting new revelatory information after the big push to approve an interlocal---why after the fact, why not before?  Do they even need a new $10 Million Dollar transfer station?  Why did they not disclose the fact that they unilaterally decided to end the twice weekly residential waste pick up in Santa Rosa County--they obviously knew this when they decided and sent the letter in early April--but why leave the County Attorney and County Administrator and District 1 County Commissioner in the dark about that important fact?  (none of us knew this until very recently)

Had I been told this stuff before the initial draft of an interlocal between ECUA and the County had been brought to the board in May--I would have been a lot less supportive, and I would have had a lot more questions.  Maybe that's why we weren't told?

Importantly:  How did an ECUA employee unilaterally make this decision to end garbage collection if the ECUA board didn't vote on this?  With the end of service in Santa Rosa--why can't ECUA now re-deploy these resources (excess drivers and and excess trucks used for twice weekly trash and recycling pick up in Santa Rosa County) back to Escambia County to more efficiently route the pickup of garbage here--which would potentially negate the need for a new ratepayer funded $10 Million Dollar transfer station?

Too many questions, too many facts withheld.

This transfer station, so far as I am concerned and for my vote, is now officially relegated the back burner, on life support, until I get some answers and explanations about the revelations described  above.