Attorneys for the city of Pleasanton and the Linn County Commission have resumed talks on a new contract about the operation of the compactor in Pleasanton similar to this one in La Cygne. The talks could have implications for the other compactor operations across the county as well. (Journal file photo)
PLEASANTON – Attorneys for both the city of Pleasanton and the Linn County Commission are back in negotiations after the commissioner gave Pleasanton 45 days to sign a new contract on the operation of the city’s trash compactor or face having it pulled from its location west of the Pleasanton High School.
That was the report that Pleasanton City Attorney Jacklyn Paletta gave to the Pleasanton City Council via teleconference on Tuesday, Jan. 21.
Paletta said that she met with Mark Hagen, former county counselor who has been hired by the county to resolve the issue, on Thursday, Jan. 16, to try to draft a contract with which both parities could agree.
In an attempt to update the contract for trash compactors with the five cities who operate them – for the first time since the 1970s – county officials last fall sent out contracts for the cities to approve.
The six cities that operate compactor sites include Blue Mound, La Cygne, Mound City, Parker, Pleasanton, and Prescott. Centerville’s compactor is operated by the county, and Linn Valley, Sugar Valley and Tanglewood lake developments have dumpsters that are unattended and open to property owners there 24 hours a day.
Mound City, for which Hagen is city attorney, Parker, Prescott, and Blue Mound have already signed contracts, however, both Pleasanton and La Cygne have not.
The main issue for both of those cities is liability, a contract that doesn’t spell out responsibilities of the county and city, and how much the county will pay the cities to operate the compactors, which would include personnel costs.
According to Shaun West, county public works administrator, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) would allow the county and each city to be dual permit holders for the each compactor site.
However, both Paletta and officials from La Cygne have said that their discussions with officials with KDHE indicate that only one entity is allowed on each permit.
She said that the county doesn’t want to be responsible for any fines or penalties that might be charged to the permit holder if there was a problem with the city’s employees operating the compactor.
City officials have suggested the county could take responsibility for hiring and supervising the employees at the compactor site. But that proposal has been flatly rejected, the attorney said.
Paletta said that from her discussion with West he indicated that with the addition of new Commissioner Alison Hamilton on board, the county wants to work with the cities to maintain compactor service while negotiations continue.
She also said that Burton Harding, La Cygne city attorney, had drafted a contract, but that contract had been rejected by the commission.
Paletta asked the council if they still wanted to pursue having the compactor removed from where it is currently located, adjacent to the city’s softball field.
“I want it out of the park,” Council Member Aaron Portman said.
Council Member Angelina Randall said she believed it would be difficult to get grants to further develop the area with the compactor’s current placement.
“It’s hard to get a grant with a compactor right in the middle of a fishing area where we want to promote youth fishing or youth fishing tournaments and stuff like that,” Randall said.
Council Member Kimberly Herring asked if the availability of three-phase power wasn’t one of the main problems with moving it from the current site. She said she remembered the conversation about moving it included the cost to run three-phase power to the new site.
The council discussed a proposal about five years ago that would have placed the compactor north of the city, but the county did not want to move it there because it would have been more of a problem to get their trucks to the site and they would have to travel through a residential area with children.
Herring said the city’s most recent proposal to move it did not get county approval because the county also did not want to pay the cost to move the compactor.
The council discussed a triangle piece of land that is in the industrial park south of the city that is accessible by Tucker Road. That proposal was offered by West, Paletta said, but she also said there seemed to be a lack of communication between West and other county officials.
Herring suggested that the council invite Commissioner Alison Hamilton to the council’s Feb. 3 meeting to further discuss the issue.
Randall also broached the issue of the county’s maintenance on some compactor stations and not others. She said that the county recently spent $8,000 on another compactor site but hadn’t spent money on Pleasanton’s even those it was always breaking down.
She said she wanted the county to produce a maintenance schedule for compactor maintenance.
Paletta said that one of the problems the county was at the mercy of the schedule of its maintenance contractor.
Randall said that was poor planning on the county’s part and that maintenance issue needed to be addressed in a new contract.
She also noted that with the current compactor site, there is no place for a open roll-off container for scrap metal, which is available at most of the other city sites.
Paletta said she also planned to seek a timeline that would have the contract up for renewal in three years.
Comments