Columbus County Community Chat

• It isn’t really a sale of property, Waste Management says

By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

Columbus County’s negotiations with Waste Management appeared to be close to settled at a Dec. 17 meeting.

In a 6-1 vote, the Board of Commissioners verbally agreed to sell a three-sided metal waste transfer station and lease the land the building sits on to Waste Management in exchange for certain incentives.

Putting the agreement in black and white was all that was left to do.

Commissioner Ricky Bullard, who opposed the sale, said after the meeting that he didn’t think the sale was legal.

According to state law, county real property and property valued in excess of $30,000 can’t be privately sold unless it is going to a non-profit and meets certain state requirements for historical or other value.

It had to be done through a bidding process, Bullard said.

Now, Waste Management, in a letter from corporate legal counsel, is saying the letter presented to the board in December “mischaracterizes the payment of the $325,000 by Waste Management to the county as a payment for the purchase of the transfer station building.

“In fact, the proposed $325,000 payment to the county is to compensate the county for waiving its option to purchase the transfer station building under the current agreement, in conjunction with the extension of the agreement,” Janne C. Foster wrote in a letter to Interim County Manager Leo Hunt dated Dec. 27.

The letter explains that Peverall “was clear in his statements to the county about the ownership of the transfer station building,” but adds that “the transfer station has been owned by Waste Management since it was constructed pursuant to the June 25, 1997 Transfer Station and Disposal Service Agreement.

“Waste Management built the building at its expense and holds the permit for operation of the transfer station,” the letter reads.

“I’m still against selling the transfer station,” Bullard said Friday. “I think when Waste Management owns the transfer station it is going to be hard to get a fair bid.

“I don’t think any contractor should have a hard contract to where we have no way to negotiate and bid out a contract,” Bullard said.

Bullard said news that the details of the $325,000 payment had changed it “stunned him.”

“I haven’t seen anything that shows me they own the building in black and white,” Bullard insisted. “If they built it and paid the contractor for it it’s probably a situation where they own it,” Bullard added.

Bullard said according to the terms of the old contract the county would own the building in five years with no cost. Under the new proposal Bullard said the county would be stuck either renewing a contract or paying more than what the building is worth to buy it back.

“The building will be 15 years old,” Bullard said.

Bullard said clarification of what the payment is for is a way around the law. He said previously the sale did not follow the law.

“I think all they are doing is changing the verbiage to make it legal,” Bullard said. “Well, that’s my opinion – that’s a way around it.”

It is noted on the upcoming commissioner’s agenda that the issue of selling the building was “tabled.”

“The issue was not tabled – the issue was voted on,” Bullard said.

Bullard said the contract on leasing the land, the trash pick up contract and transfer station agreement should all expire at the same time.

Chairman James Prevatte and Commissioner Bill Memory said at a previous meeting they had worked that out with Waste Management.

The latest proposal from the company is a little unclear.

While the proposal specifically states that the transfer station agreement and waste disposal service contract run until Dec. 31, 2012, a notice of the intent to buy the transfer station is required months in advance.

In addition, the proposal does not specify that the lease of the land is until Dec. 31, 2012. It states the lease is for five years but indicates no start or end date.

“Everything should expire at the same time,” Bullard said.

That permit is not in the county’s possession.

County administration staff said Friday they did not have a copy of the permit in question.
A call to Peverall was not returned.

The county building inspections department has been unable to locate any permit issued to the company 10 years ago.

Discussion of the agreement began in November when the county received a letter from Waste Management. No one was aware that the agreement was up for renewal and the board was crunched for time and did not want service interrupted.
Bullard has called the situation confusing because of a series of changes in the negotiation.

First, the Columbus County Board of Commissioners had two choices: pay Waste Management $325,000 for the metal building located at the closed New Hope landfill (owned by the county) or renew the company’s exclusive multimillion dollar agreement with the county and get a break on consumer price index increases for a year.

The company had never paid taxes on the building and some commissioners thought the price was excessive.
Then, things changed.

A few commissioners met privately with the company and Waste Management came back with an apology stating a clerical error resulted in the price error of $325,000 that should have been $171,000.

Greg Peverall, an executive with Waste Management, said in a “good faith effort” the company wanted to pay the county $325,000 for the station and pay the county to lease the land the building is located on.

Peverall maintained that the company owned the building but was offering to pay the county for it, plus give the county a break on consumer price index increases in the countywide curbside pick-up and transfer station agreement.

• Columbus County became a part of North Carolina’s government in December 1808 and was created from Bladen and Brunswick counties.

By BOB HIGH
Staff Writer

Happy birthday, Columbus! Not Christopher Columbus – Columbus County!

This is 2008 and the 200th year since the county’s formation in December 1808. In other words, this is our bicentennial.

Today, The News Reporter announces its intent for the balance of this year. The bicentennial logo accompanying this story is the work of staff member Fuller Royal. Civic, church and community groups can share the logo across the county.

Today also marks the first of 104 questions about the county’s history that will be featured on the front page above the masthead. Answers to today’s and subsequent questions will usually be found on Page 3.

Just one ‘Columbus’

A curious fact is that this county is the only county in the United States known as “Columbus.” There are many “Columbia” counties in scattered states, plus there are several cities and towns named for the 1492 discoverer of the New World, but this is the only county with Christopher’s last name.

The News Reporter will present articles throughout the year detailing the history of this county, including the unusual politics in the state’s General Assembly that led to our birth.

All of these stories and photographs, maps and drawings, plus many more will be presented in early December in a special volume that will give exhaustive views of the events that have shaped the present conditions of this county – from advances and declines in economy, education and healthcare, to construction of the infrastructure of the many towns and communities embraced in our 939 square miles.

Vocations and trades maintained by our ancestors have disappeared, not by neglect in most cases, but by necessity brought on by general advances in the way we live and the everyday demands we have for products and services.

One-room schoolhouses

Our economy is no longer based largely on what we can gather from vast tracts of timber, even though this industry is still our backbone. There are still those who remember the basics drilled and driven by dedicated teachers in countless one-room schoolhouses. Today, our young have camera and Internet capable cell phones, and most of us are slaves to computers to produce our work.

Children dance down streets to tunes ingested by gadgets equipped with cords that dangle from their ears. Adults get in daily exercise by running or walking with ears covered by “muffs” drilling music and words into their brains.
Our legacies include struggling to make ends meet on thousands of small farms as our forbears carved a bare existence by their bootstraps, to working at home on electronic products that reach to the far corners of the world.

We celebrated the birth of the rail era in 1852, and within 110 years many miles of the iron rails that marched across the county from east to west were removed. Today, trucks deliver what we need and – for the most part – ship our products.

Collapse of textiles

Textiles were an exciting industry in our nation, and examples of American inventions of machinery and processes were scattered across the county in the early 1900s. But, then came increased international trade, and the realization that foreign workers don’t need to be paid very much. Our textile industry, for the most part, has disappeared.

The examples of what The News Reporter will feature include unknown and rumored incidents being developed into genuine facts – from blacksmithing and working mules and oxen to driving air-conditioned tractors across fields to seed and harvest. From riding a horse and driving a buggy to wheeling at break-neck speed across the county on a four-lane highway.

We live in a high-speed society, geared to acts of speed instead of thorough study. The News Reporter will present a comprehensive look at our 200 years – a product created with input from hundreds who have shared their families’ accomplishments. And, the stories are intended to highlight the trends and those who started and/or embraced them to move us to where we are today.

Input from readers is sought, not just for family history, but memories of what went on in your community. Who was the village blacksmith? Who drove the first horseless carriage your grandfather ever saw? Who went to work in the “deep woods” on Monday and came home Saturday? How did the tobacco industry impact your family’s life?

Hog killing days

Who was the storekeeper in the community? Who killed hogs on a frigid January day? Who were the preachers and teachers? Did your grandfather takes up arms to defend this country – either as the United States or the Confederacy?
Did your ancestors exist as slaves, and only began to live when freed? Did your family contribute to the advancement of this county’s life in any way?

Do you have photographs, drawings or maps that would help develop “hearsay” and “hand-me-down” stories into fact? Do you have a question about county history that would be suitable to be included as one of the 104 to be posed in each of our editions for 2008?

There are countless facts, questions and comments concerning our 200 years of history. If a reader wants to furnish information, make a comment or ask a question, contact Bob High at 642-4104, Extension 247, or by mail at P.O. Box 707, Whiteville, N.C. 28472.

The first installment of detailed county history will be presented in the Jan. 10 edition.

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.”

• Chairman says better deal forthcoming but is quiet on company never listing building with tax office.

By NICOLE CARTRETTE
Staff Writer

Waste Management has never paid taxes on a building located at the county-owned but closed New Hope landfill.

Two weeks ago in a board meeting a representative with the company told Columbus County commissioners the three-sided metal building was worth $325,000 on their books and the county could either buy it or renew a five-year contract.

County Tax Administrator Richard Gore said Thursday it was not brought to his office’s attention during revaluation that the building was not county property. While the building is valued at $59,000 on the tax books, it is exempted as being county-owned.

“No one knew that it belonged to Waste Management, “ Gore explained. “They never got a building permit.”

“Nobody has told me that they own it,” Gore said. “I’m just hanging loose until somebody tells me whose it is.”

Gore said if the county and Waste Management agree it belongs to the company, the office could go back five years to collect taxes which would amount to about $3,000 in taxes and penalties based on the $59,000 valuation, not Waste Management’s value of $325,000.

The Waste Management office building is listed with the tax office as well as a number of vehicles.

It is unclear why a building permit was never obtained or why no taxes have been paid on the building.

When asked about the building not being listed with the tax office, Commissioner Chairman James Prevatte had little to say about the situation.

“I have to be careful because there is some negotiation going on there,” he explained. “It’s not listed in their name at this time.”

It appears that possible offers, which Prevatte did not disclose, have put the tax issue on the back burner for now.

“I can’t divulge the contract negotiations right now but it doesn’t look as bleak as it did,” Prevatte said. “It’s a contract negotiation.”

Prevatte said he and others had met with Greg Peverall, a representative with Waste Management, to discuss the contract and a subsequent meeting was planned prior to Monday’s commissioners meeting.

Prevatte said he had requested that someone with the authority to make changes and actually negotiate the contract be at Monday’s (tonight’s) meeting and that person would likely be Peverall.

Under the county’s current transfer station agreement, which must be renewed by Dec. 31, the county owns the land the transfer station is on but does not own the building or most of the equipment used at the station.

The county does not receive any portion of fees per ton nor a reduction on its waste and user fees for hosting the transfer station, with the exception of 33 percent of the fee paid on inert debris dumped at the closed landfill.

The county finance office could not determine the exact amount of money being paid to the county for such measures but said it appeared to be minimal.

Public Utilities Director Leroy Sellers said it was his understanding very few trucks from out of county come into the station.

According to the contract, trash may be hauled into the station for transfer to larger trucks from a 100-mile radius, which would include other counties in North and South Carolina.

At the previous public meeting, several commissioners blasted the contract as being to the benefit of Waste Management.

Commissioner Bill Memory said the county appeared to be between a rock and hard place and pointed out the county residents had paid the company millions over the years only to be told a metal building on their own property was valued at $325,000.

Waste Management had offered to defer consumer price indexing increases for the first year of the renewal that would have saved the county more than $400,000 a year but most commissioners weren’t agreeing that it was such a great deal considering the county’s waste contract with the company is around $6 million and not including fuel surcharges.

“This is, in my opinion, a one-sided contract,” Commissioner Ronald Gore said Thursday, but pointed out he hoped negotiations would bring forth a better deal for the county. “We need to see some issues ironed out,” he said, pointing out “there is room for negotiation.” Ultimately he admitted: “I think we are going to have to renew the contract.”

Interim County Manager Leo Hunt was reluctant to comment on what his recommendation would be to commissioners.

He has prior commitment and will not be at Monday’s meeting but did have concerns that the board found out about the contract at such a late date – less than a month before its renewal .

“I wish I’d known about this earlier – this almost slipped by us,” Hunt said.

As for the building not being taxed, Hunt said that would likely change and referred the reporter to the tax office. “It looked like it belonged to us,” he explained.

Commissioners meet tonight (Monday) in the Dempsey Herring Courthouse Annex building at 6:30 p.m.

Other agenda items include a request that the county purchase additional land for the airport, a county recreation department update, and a scheduled closed session for personnel to interview manager candidates.

In his book, “Where Have All The Leaders Gone?,” Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued what appeared to be a doomed Chrysler Corporation from collapse in the 1980s, credits much of the company’s successful turnaround to the people he hired as his lieutenants. Finding good people to work for you is a key to effective leadership, Iaccoca says.

That’s why hiring the right county manager should be job number one on the commissioners’ list.

Columbus County has advertised for a county manager for some time now and commissioners say they’ve found no one who they think can do the job.

Former County Manager Jim Varner has been gone for a while, and while Interim Manager Leo Hunt has held down the fort in the meantime, he says he’s ready to fade into retirement.

With round one of interviews apparently unsuccessful, we think the county commissioners should reassess the process.

For starters, the job calls for applicants to have a master’s degree with county government experience. Having someone with both those qualifications would be nice, but we believe this severely limits the pool of candidates. Some of the finest journalists to ever work for The News Reporter, for example, didn’t go to journalism school.

We’re also concerned by recent comments by commissioners that the county can’t afford the salary that some candidates might demand.

We say we can’t afford not to pay a top-notch candidate. Rookies and low-man-on-the-totem-pole candidates will demand a salary in the $50,000 range. A good manager’s salary will start in the $80,000 or $90,000 range.

If the commissioners are shooting for a $60,000 manager as they have in the past, then the county will likely be saddled with an average to below-average manager.

As we’ve said many times before, the commissioners should hire a quality manager and leave him or her alone to do his or her job.

With the county’s finances at a precarious level, the need for economic development and better planning, we urge the commissioners to broaden their search and remember that the cost of hiring a good manager will easily be recouped.

If the commissioners want to turn Columbus County around, do what Lee Iacocca did – hire the best people and the rest will take care of itself.