Pleasanton Mayor Mathew Young, left, addresses the Linn County Commission about the contract dispute over the trash compactor in his city. (Screen capture / Linn County Kansas Live Stream)
By Roger Sims, rsims@linncountyjournal.com
MOUND CITY – Officials from the city of Pleasanton have had some choice words to say about last week’s ultimatum by the Linn County Commission that gave the city 45 days to sign a contract changing the terms of the placement of the trash compactor.
If the contract wasn’t signed by that time, the county would remove the compactor according to a motion unanimously approved by the commission at its Jan. 7 meeting.
However, pushback from Pleasanton officials based on state regulations and the economics had commissioners rethinking the nature of the contracts, even for those cities that have already signed.
The commission unanimously voted to have attorneys for the city and county meet to work drafting a contract agreeable to both parties after Pleasanton Mayor Mathew Young appeared before the commission on Monday, Jan. 13, providing a list of grievances about the proposed contract.
In a teleconference interview with Pleasanton City Attorney Jacklyn Paletta on Thursday, Jan. 9, she called the commission’s action to choose removing the compactor from Pleasanton “incredibly manipulative,” adding that it was so out of line that it almost didn’t warrant a response.
In early December, Paletta sent an email to county Public Works Administrator Shaun West following a discussion with him on the compactor situation. In the email she told West she needed a list of the responsibilities the county intended to continue to take, a list of the fees and expenses the county would seek from the city, and a list of what he saw as the city’s responsibilities.
In the email, the city attorney said she saw three options initially:
County stays on the permit, county absorbs the employees, county moves the site to the diamond/triangle at Tucker and Trump streets. It’s entirely the county’s and the city pays for the service. Any special fees or dates associated with spring clean up would be negotiated, but basically this would become a line item on the city budget. The city would pay $15-20,000 annually
2. Maintain the status quo. The county and city needed to redo a contract or memorandum of understanding that clearly delineates the rights and responsibilities both logistical and financial of each party. She suggested the county provide training or refreshers for the employee two to four times a year, and she offered to work with him to come up with some terms both parties could agree to.
3. Close the compactor in Pleasanton.
She went on to say that a joint permit or the city becoming the permit holder were not options. At the commission’s Jan. 7 meeting, the commissioner voted to go with option “C,” presumably the third one.
In the interview, Paletta said that the citizens of Pleasanton had relied on the compactor for generations and that to close the one in Pleasanton would shift the volume of trash to another compactor site in the county.
However, she pointed out the 1970s contract that the city and county have been working under was obsolete. She said neither party is adhering to the terms of that contract.
“So we need a new one that has all the rights and responsibilities clearly delineated that is in line with what KDHE would approve,” she said, referring to information that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment would not approve both the county and city as permit holders.
Apparently, West said that a KDHE staff member said the agency would approve dual permit holders. However, another staff member informed La Cygne City Clerk Jodi Wade that was not the case.
Paletta said she called each commissioner, but none of them returned her calls. She also noted that she had a two-hour meeting with Shaun West, and he asked her to submit a list of questions in writing, which she said she did in the December email. She added she had no response to her email.
She also said she informed the county she was willing to work with an attorney of their choosing to draft a contract that both parties found acceptable. The response was apparently a vote by the commission on Jan. 7 to issue the 45-day ultimatum.
“Shaun told me himself that the county would never approve closing Pleasanton’s compactor because it would put too much burden on the other compactors, and that the county commissioners were already receiving numerous phone calls and weren’t interested in receiving the volume of calls that would inevitably come from closing the compactor,” Paletta added.
At the Jan. 13 meeting, Young characterized the commission’s action as an attempt to bully the city into signing agreement instead of negotiating in good faith.
“It was to my great dismay that, instead of responding to our inquiries and proposals with a counterproposal or an invite to sit at a table for further discussion to come to an agreeable resolution, you chose to sit here and pass a motion to try to strong-arm the city of Pleasanton into signing an incomplete and ambiguous contract,” Young said.
He said the contract given to the city does not delineate responsibilities or does it contain the promises made by the commissioners.
“I consider the bully attempt last week to be very unprofessional,” the mayor added.
Young said the contract drafted unilaterally by the county does not include key provisions the county has agreed to while making all previous agreements null and void.
The mayor listed the problems that city officials see in the proposed contract:
It doesn’t included the monthly stipend of $325 paid to the city by the county that only “slightly” offsets the money the city pays out to man the compactor station.
It doesn’t give any guidelines for site layout and expectations for facility and site maintenance, and it doesn’t guarantee actual maintenance of the compactor. He charged that the county is currently not living up to the current contract by adequately maintaining the equipment and that it is only able to hold about 50% of its expected capacity.
It calls for the city and county to be dual permit holders for the compactor facility, however the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) officials have indicated the permit can only either the city or the county but not both.
Taking over the permit would force the city to insure the compactor’s operation and equipment for additional cost, and there would be additional paperwork and training involved if the city was to operate the facility.
Last year, the city of Pleasanton requested moving the compactor site, a request that has been the impetus for the county to review contracts that are by now about half a century old.
“We’ve been told for years we couldn’t move it from our lake-ball park site unless we paid for it,” Young said. He note that other compactor sites had been updated and those improvements had been made by the county.
“Why was Pleasanton singled out?” Young asked, referring to the 45-day ultimatum.
He noted that the city of La Cygne had asked for a written letter from KDHE agreeing to allow both the city and county to hold the permit. La Cygne also wanted in writing a clear division of responsibilities, an answer to an electrical issue plus a renewal of the contract in three years, and all promises by the county in written form, he added.
After Young finished, Commissioner Alison Hamilton said she did not want to close the Pleasanton compactor and suggested that the county work with Pleasanton by having Paletta and Mark Hagen, an attorney who works for the county, work together to draft a contract that addressed city and county interests.
However, Hamilton pointed out that the email sent by Paletta did not seem to leave room for negotiation.
“Out of three options, it was neither 1 or 2,” she said.
Commission Chair Jim Johnson asked Young if he had seen Paletta’s email, and Young said that he had. Johnson pressed by asking Young if he had the letter with him, but Young said he didn’t.
Young said the idea beyond offering the county the three options was to further negotiations and that the easiest way to insure that people operating the compactor correctly was for them to be employed and trained by the county.
Johnson pointed out that the county deals with eight entities, including six cities, and asked what the commission should do about those.
Young said he couldn’t speak for the other cities.
However, Commissioner Jason Hightower suggested that once attorneys hammer out an acceptable solution, the county might want to go back and look at contracts for the other entities.
The commission voted unanimously to have Hagen and Paletta work together to develop a new contract.
Comentarios