SPSA possible post-2018

Published 8:46 pm Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Suffolk’s city manager hinted at the possibility of a regional solution to waste disposal continuing past the pre-set 2018 sunset date of the Southeastern Public Service Authority.

During the organization’s board meeting Wednesday, Selena Cuffee-Glenn gave a report on the discussions the chief administrative officers of the eight member localities of SPSA have had on the post-2018 future of waste disposal in the region.

“There is a desire to find some regional solution, so we are trying to explore every option,” she said.


Email newsletter signup

The organization has had its problems since its genesis in 1973, but a study commissioned by SPSA concluded last year that continued cooperation would reduce costs and help achieve compliance with solid waste management regulations.

It also proposed significant changes, however, including getting rid of Suffolk’s free-disposal deal it gets in exchange for hosting the landfill.

“There is a strong commitment on the part of everyone around the table to have honest discussion,” Cuffee-Glenn said.

In other business at the meeting, financial officer Liesl DeVary reported that the organization expects a surplus from fiscal year 2012 in the amount of $6.5 million. The surplus was created by expenditures that came in under budget and tipping fees that were slightly over budget, she said.

After accounts are reconciled and an audit is completed, the surplus will be transferred to the landfill closure fund, she said.

In addition, the board voted to approve the purchase of three pickup trucks for use at the Suffolk landfill. They are replacing vehicles already in use, which will be sold at auction.

The new trucks will be purchased by state contract, Executive Director Rowland Taylor said.

The board also took a divided vote to extend the terms of board Chairman Joseph Leafe and Vice Chairman Everett Williams. Leafe represents Norfolk on the board, and Williams represents Franklin.

At least some of the votes against the term extension were because of the process, which included a nominating committee and did not include nominations from the floor during the meeting.