Rokosz Most: So, some contentious back-and-forth arose at the April meeting of the UCRRA board members regarding two companies who had responded to a request for proposal and how much they were ballparking to the agency for their services. What was the RFP for?
Greg Olivieri: The request for proposal basically said we need some questions answered having to do with siting a landfill. The main question is first of all, is it even feasible? Is it even a reality that we could possibly put one in this county? We don’t even know. So that’s the starting point, right? It’s not even about finding a site yet. It’s about let’s look at these options. One option might be putting in a landfill. One option might be taking some old landfills that we have and cleaning them up and bringing them up to modern standards.Â
RM: At the meeting, you wouldn’t share the price amounts provided by the two companies, the estimate of what they would charge, that you hadn’t yet had a legal opinion on it. I took it to mean, you saw advantages to not publishing the prices that these companies came back with because you didn’t want to lose your leverage?
GO: When there is no more negotiation, there is no more of the business side of things being taken care of. That shouldn’t necessarily be out in the newspaper while you’re doing it. Then you can just put everything out there in front of the public and say this is exactly what we’re doing, this is exactly what our choices were. That’s the most prudent way to get the job done properly. Therefore, if I gave anything now to publish, it wouldn’t be accurate as to what’s going on anyhow. Prices can change, and we’d be misleading the public. For me, it’s just not appropriate to release it at this time. Give us a little bit longer to get this done over the next week or two. And then everything can be released.
RM: So it was actually the Hydroquest study that started all the pushback and scrutiny which rated Plattekill as the best site. That was already done in 2019 to try and locate and assess sites, was that study insufficient?
GO: It wasn’t that they did anything wrong. The company did they did exactly what they were asked to do.Â
RM: This was before your time, right?Â
GO: This was before I came. Yeah. There was staff and some board members that felt like to find out if there were any locations that might possibly work, maybe that would be a good first step. But then what they ran into was the realization that, this didn’t go far enough. There’s no way that we could use this to determine where to put a landfill when we have all these other unanswered questions. And if we release this [report], we’re just going to upset people So they just literally didn’t do anything with it.
RM: So how did the report get out?
GO: It’s not an official document. We’re not getting a copy. It’s not a public document. We never even accepted this the board has taken no action. So it never became a public document.Â
But unfortunately it was talked about in a board meeting, which is a public meeting. So that brought it to light, and then we had a switchover of board members at the end of the year in December, right? And two board members who left spoke to Bill [Kemble] about it and give him more details on it.Â
Well, once they did that, they kind of brought it into being a public document.Â
Financial details kept under wraps at the UCRRA
RM: So then it became an issue.
GO: It became more of an issue out front and then it became a situation where it’s like, okay, I’m better at least familiarize myself with the study. And on top of that, it just looks like we’re trying to hide something which nobody was really trying to hide. They were just trying not to create this type of concern. Right? So it was like just put it out there. And, you know, let the chips fall where they may. So we made it public.
RM: Is there any justification for people being angry about this study, that they’re saying $11,000 as spent on that was taxpayer money?
GO: It’s not taxpayer money. We’re not supported by the taxpayers. We generate our own revenue through the flow-control law and tipping fees. If somebody wants to be upset about $11,000 and feels it was a waste of money, then they’re entitled to their opinion. But what they don’t realize is that $11,000 In this industry is not a lot of money for anything that’s a very modest amount of money for anything.
RM: Legislator for Plattekill Kevin Roberts was pretty displeased about the whole situation. And he was wondering out loud to me exactly why the RRA is even taking responsibility for this study. He believes that the legislature should just be handling it entirely. Do you have an opinion on that?
GO: Yeah, because the legislature controls UCRRA, and we were formed to do this. One of the original reasons for being formed was to actually locate and create a centralized landfill — over 30 years ago, really.
That never happened. I’ve only been in the county a little over six months, but I’ve heard stories. If I had to guess, it had a lot to do with politics and money. That’s normally what drives or kills these things, right? I imagine over the years there just was not enough will power to get through whatever political maneuvers needed to be made and whatever financial maneuvers needed to be made to actually get it done.
Join the family! 
