Sept. 7, 2026
By TIM HUNDT
VERNON COUNTY, Wis. – At their August 11 meeting, the Vernon County Infrastructure Committee discussed a critical turning point for the county-owned solid waste facility as dwindling airspace, active waste diversion, budget challenges and an expansion application with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that has dragged on since 2018.
You can review the history of the ongoing expansion process from our previous reporting here.
Solid Waste Administrator Stacie Sanborn began the meeting by updating the committee on some recent DNR compliance issues related to day to day operations. Sanborn said the DNR cited Vernon County’s landfill for four compliance failures tied to its 2025 annual report, according to Sanborn. She said the issues stemmed largely from documentation gaps and operational choices made to protect the site, and she outlined corrective steps already underway.
First, DNR flagged the absence of special waste applications and related laboratory analyses. Sanborn said she filed the annual report under an approved extension while out on medical leave and, working from home, failed to attach the supporting documents. She said the county will compile those applications and lab results and submit them with its formal response.
Second, DNR cited deficiencies in the landfill’s organic stability reporting, including items tied to leachate recirculation, methane generation rates and settlement analysis. Sanborn said the landfill did not conduct leachate recirculation last year because operations were at higher elevations and near side slopes, and adding liquid on top was not advisable. Because recirculation was not performed, the dependent monitoring items were not applicable, she said. The county will provide a narrative addendum explaining why recirculation was not done and why related evaluations were not triggered.
Third, DNR said the report showed alternative daily cover at 25% of waste volume, above the 12.5% limit. Sanborn said that figure resulted from a tonnage-based calculation that overstates cover when compared with waste because materials like soil compact differently. She said the county will recalculate using a mass/volume-appropriate method recommended by its consultant to meet the 12.5% cap. Going forward, she said, staff will run a precheck on alternative daily cover projections when evaluating special waste requests to avoid bumping up against the limit.
Fourth, the agency said monthly random load inspection logs did not include the inspected trucks’ license plate numbers. Sanborn said plates were on an internal list but not transcribed onto the half-sheet forms submitted with the report. She said staff will add plate numbers to last year’s logs and resubmit them.
DNR also listed several areas of concern that Sanborn described as reminders tied to newer regulations rather than violations. She said those will be incorporated into standard compliance and reporting practices.
Sanborn said the county plans to submit a comprehensive written response, with all supporting documents and corrections, by the end of the week.
Expansion plan and long-term future
County officials discussed a 60 percent waste diversion effort currently underway to preserve the remaining airspace. Sanborn, who recently returned from medical leave, explained that the county is actively diverting waste to prevent the current cell from hitting full capacity before state regulators rule on the proposed 15-year expansion.
“Based on the last couple weeks worth of data I have, we’re estimating about 60 percent of our regular volume is being diverted,” said Sanborn. “If the county is pursuing an expansion, we have to conserve air space until we are approved to expand. Otherwise, if we reach full capacity, the landfill is then required to go into full closure.”
Interim Landfill Manager Gail Frie supported the diversion strategy, noting that sending waste to neighboring counties is a necessary, state-recommended measure to keep the facility open.
“And diversion was a recommendation of DNR, and it’s also a much cheaper way to go rather than to try to transport waste out,” said Frie. “By doing it this way, with diverting that much buys us enough time through the end of 2027 realistically.”
Sanborn reported that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has proposed several meeting dates in mid-September to review the horizontal and vertical feasibility study, with a potential state determination expected in October.
The active diversion of waste has impacted the department’s revenues, causing a direct cash flow squeeze on the county’s general fund. Administrative Coordinator Nate Torres, who spent his first weeks analyzing the solid waste budget with Finance Director Annie Lockyer, Sanborn and Frie, reported that the department’s annual loan repayment to the general fund must be slashed from $65,000 to an interest-only payment of $6,500.
“You can see that it was budgeted last year at $65,000,” said Torres. “This year, it’s budgeted at $6,500, and so because we’re in this year where we’re not going to be able to recognize and and accept full demand just because of the timing and the expansion and things like that, it is you know you can you see that revenue is dropping significantly, which will not allow us to repay the full $65,000 as forecasted.”
Sanborn acknowledged the budget crunch but defended the department’s financial history, arguing that a significant portion of the department’s negative $207,000 cash balance represents specific county-approved loans. She pointed out that the department has self-funded more than $1 million in expansion study costs and $630,000 in equipment purchases since 2019.
2027 projected revenue
Based on the committee discussion, the county modeled a worst-case revenue scenario for Solid Waste in 2027 that assumes continued diversion of roughly 60% of typical waste volumes to conserve remaining airspace and no acceleration in intake until state approval milestones are achieved. Using the July airspace survey as a baseline, Sanborn estimated between 7,800 and 11,600 cubic yards of airspace would remain on Jan. 1, depending on compaction. Translating that to tons at a conservative density yields a planning figure of about $510,000 in tipping-fee revenue for 2027. She paired that with reduced permit-fee expectations as haulers continue diverting, and she trimmed salaries and other controllable costs to align with the lower intake. The budget also shifts the county loan line to interest-only for the year, acknowledging that curtailed tonnage will not support the previously forecast principal payment. Sanborn emphasized this is a promise-less, deliver-more posture noting that if DNR approvals arrive early enough to allow limited vertical expansion use, revenues could trend higher; if approvals lag, the department will stay within this conservative revenue envelope.
“Realistically we should have plan of operation approval by the middle of 2027,” said Frie. “And then we can use the the vertical expansion. We don’t have to wait for the landfill expansion to actually be constructed to use the expansion airspace capacity. We need a decision one way or the other before the end of 27. That’s the bottom line. We’ve got to set an end date sometime.”
Sandborn said the solid waste department has reduced staff to keep costs in line with reduced volumes and revenue while they wait for an expansion decision. She said the department moved from three full-time positions plus her role down to two full-time staff and the director, after two longtime employees retired in 2026. Only one of those positions was refilled and the other was replaced with limited, on‑call help to cover peak needs. Schedules were realigned so recycling tasks occupy the front half of the week and solid-waste cleanup and site work are concentrated later, allowing the smaller crew to cover both sides without overtime.
On the solid-waste ledger, salaries and related costs were cut to reflect the roughly 60 percent diversion of typical volumes to conserve airspace, while the recycling budget also shows lower wage and benefit lines tied to the leaner roster. Sanborn said the right-size approach lets the department operate within a conservative revenue forecast that includes interest-only repayment on the county loan, with the option to scale up if DNR approvals allow intake to increase.
The prolonged delays and financial strain have prompted some supervisors to question whether the county should proceed with the expansion project at all. Supervisor Wayde Lawler urged the committee to establish a general discussion on whether the county should continue pursuing the landfill expansion, independent of whatever the state ultimately decides.
“I recognize we’re subject to an approval process that we play a role in, but we’re not entirely in control of, and that introduces a whole host of unknowns,” said Lawler. “Before I was on this committee, I made the point that we have a responsibility, I think, to address, you know, independent of DNR approval of an expansion… Is that something we want to pursue based on what we have seen over the last, you know, two plus years of conversation?”
Torres agreed that the county needs to have a broader conversation about the landfill’s financial viability, suggesting a detailed review of capitalized costs before making any further commitments. The committee ultimately agreed to place a general policy review of the landfill’s future, its land rental procedures, and the stalled Town of Viroqua host agreement on the agenda for its September 8 meeting.
Public comment
A number of people made comments during the public comment period of the meeting regarding the landfill.
Viroqua resident Tom Lukens criticized county officials for what he characterized as a gross misrepresentation of the landfill’s true financials and projected revenues. Lukens pointed to the department’s audited net position decline of nearly $2 million over the past ten years as proof that the small facility is financially unviable.
“Both Stacie and Gail are misrepresenting the the financial facts that underpin landfill expansion,” said Lukens. “The the net position in the landfill has decreased by $2 million from 14 to 24… the entire financial predicates on which expansion is based are without merit.”
Mark Davison, chairman of the Town of Forest and head of the local Wisconsin Towns Association, countered by arguing that local residents overwhelmingly view the landfill as an essential public utility. Davison warned that closing the facility would result in skyrocketing trash bills and a potential return to illegal dumping along rural roadsides.
“The landfill is necessary,” said Davison. “If the cost gets too high, people are going to throw their garbage in the ditches… you’re worried about pollution, you think that’s a better plan?”
Kyle Kruizenga, a neighboring farmer, expressed frustration with the landfill’s management, citing strong odors and an ongoing failure to enforce county hauling routes. He also complained about the county’s decision to extend a land-rental agreement without an open bidding process.
“Also unacceptable is the smell of the landfill,” said Kruizenga. “I live next door… you’re not following the hauling route. You say there’s nothing you can do, because the trucks are not yours, but what’s the point of having the route and that there’s no enforcement?”
The next Infrastructure Committee meeting takes place on Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 9:30 a.m.
Add comment