Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Supervisors
Continued from page 1
' * school. “We ask you to have the courage to say, ‘No,’ ” he concluded.
The supervisors made no comments and took no action on the petition.
The supervisors also received information about the cost of the landfill. County Administrator John McCarthy said a bill introduced in the General Assembly to exempt localities from application fees had been defeated by interests representing private landfill operators, and the county would have to send the state $17,500 with the application for a new cell at the landfill to be used starting in 1994. This is half the fee originally opposed by the Department of Waste Management but considerably more than the localities had been paying to have their applications reviewed.
Mr. McCarthy said another landfill-related bill requiring that the operator be certified would not apply to the county, since the landfill operator was hired under regulations in effect in 1988. *
He added that another bill, still under consideration in the General Assembly, might help the county. It would provide that landfill cells to be closed meet federal EPA guidelines. These are less stringent than state requirements.
“There would be substantial cost savings per acre,” Mr. McCarthy said.
Mr. McCarthy told the supervisors about several other bills still being considered by the General Assembly that might affect the county. He said that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) has done a study that shows localities are under fiscal stress because of mandates, re
86.6%