By Charlene Sims, info@linncountyjournal.com
MOUND CITY – On Monday, Nov. 25, representatives from the cities of La Cygne and Pleasanton met with the Linn County Commission on Monday, Nov. 25, about concerns those cities had about the new compactor site contracts that the county had sent for them to sign. Both sets of representatives ended up not agreeing to sign the contracts until they were more detailed and had specific details about their sites.
La Cygne Mayor Debra Wilson started out the discussion explaining that 25 years or more ago the county had approached the cities about locating compactor sites so that people would not be dumping trash around the county.
Wilson said that in comparing the two contracts, the old contract stated that the county would pay for the facility, the utilities, and insurance and the city would pay for the employee to supervise the site. She said that the new contract did not say anything about the county paying for the building, utilities or insurance.
She told the commissioners that over the years the cost for that employee has gone up but the city did not come back to the county for help with that. Wilson said that 25 years ago the county was paying $200 monthly towards that bill.
She said that in the new contract it didn’t say anything about the county paying for fencing or other repairs around the site or the money for the employee. She said it looks like now that the city would have the additional responsibilities by moving the city’s name on the license instead of the county having responsibility.
“As far as La Cygne, we are concerned about the additional liability there,” said Wilson.
She explained that county residents and city residents paid the same amount of taxes for solid waste removal in the county but that many city residents now paid for their own curbside service. So, the people that are paying for the compactor are also paying for curbside service from private companies.
“My point of view is that we have not asked for anything additional from the county but we would like not to have any additional things put on us by the county,” stated Wilson.
“I don’t think we’re putting any additional things on you,” Commission Chair Danny McCullough said. “We’re just having you guys be accountable for your area. Because I can’t go into your area and tell your compactor person that they need to get out and help that person take the trash out.
“Because I’m a commissioner, and we just don’t do that. It’s just like the SRO (school resource officer) program, we don’t go in the school and tell the SRO how their job should be ran on that site.
“I think it’s more of an accountability thing. We’re not asking anybody to pay anything more or anything less. We are pretty much giving you a prepared site and asking you guys to take that over while Linn County sets the permit issuer also with you guys.
“We’ll help you guys, we pay for that. We’re not asking for any other funds. We’re just asking for you guys to take accountability for your site. And if you guys want to be able to move your site you can.”
La Cygne City Clerk Jodi Wade told commissioners that the city had visited with Public Works Director Shaun West and had sent questions to him about differences in the current contract and the new one.
Wade expressed concern that the new contract making the city of La Cygne the permit holder made the city liable if there is a violation.
“I don’t know what the requirements are from the state,” Wade said. “We don’t know what we could be obligating ourselves to. If there is a hazardous spill out of the unit. If somebody puts something in that, you know, ended up creating those types of items.
“We haven’t operated these facilities. We contact the public works person and say this is the circumstance that arose and you all would come on site and do whatever was necessary to handle those situations.”
“That’s been the process over these years with it,” she added.
She went on to say that the city had hired the individuals to monitor those stations and the county had provided an amount to help with some of that cost. The property that the site is sitting on is a leased space where the county and the city agreed where the placement of those items would be.
There will be some additional costs to the city if they are to maintain the buildings that are on site, Wade said. It does say that at this point in the new contract that the electrical is going to be maintained by the county. She said the contract did not say anything about the insurance coverage that the county has always paid for.
“We will also have to insure the property and the units?” asked Wade. “Which again would be additional costs to the cities that we haven’t handled in the past.”
She pointed out that building maintenance and insurance would have to be put in the city’s budget if they were now responsible for that.
Wade said when the city was originally invited to the meeting about the old compactor contracts they were asked if they had any concerns. She said at that meeting they learned that each site operates differently, some are unattended, some are within locked gates and own their own equipment, and then some are just open to the public.
She continued that there were differences in their operation, differences in their hours and they may have differences in their quantities. The cities and the county discussed those differences that at an earlier meeting.
“Can it be one common type of contract with every one of them based on the way they differently operate? Is that what we are trying to accomplish here?” asked Wade.
She explained that the city would need to go to their budgets and incorporate some dollars to maintain the buildings, fencing and other items at their site now. She pointed out that levying, for example a $1,000 item, on a county level versus a city level that there is a difference there.
“We levy right now $28,000 to pay for that person who operates that facility. That’s four mills for the city to come up with $28,000 to cover that,” said Wade. “I don’t know what you guys exact levy amount is, but if it’s the county that levies that $28,000, it’s going to be a lot less per person.
“And it’s not that we are trying to get all minor detailed, but since everybody uses it, it’s just looking for the best interest in the cost.”
She also reminded them of the liability side and stated that the city does not know what comes with that permit ticket.
“We don’t know what we are going to have to do if there is some sort of spill or something that happens. We just don’t know what that is going to entail or cost,” said Wade.
She told the commissioners that the county was more prepared to clean up hazardous situations than the cities were.
Wade said that the city did not understand why there is a necessity now for the city to become an active permitted transit. She said the city would need to have more time to prepare their budgets for these costs.
Commissioner Jason Hightower pointed out to the other commissioners that the city was going to be liable whether it was a county resident or a city resident using the site.
Wade suggested there should be different types of agreements because the compactors operate differently.
McCullough said he shouldn’t be getting phone calls if a trash site was closed because that was the city’s responsibility.
“But you would get the call because you all are the ones that transport the container so if it was full, and if it’s full like that it’s based on the schedule,” Wade replied. “Is the landfill capable? Do we have our normal schedule is only to come through every two weeks and all of a sudden for whatever reason it filled up in one week’s time?”
Wade said that for whatever reason the compactor is full, garage sale days or city clean up events, the city calls the county to pick up the container.
“It’s based on does the county have the feasibility to do an additional route or if they don’t, then we have to advise everybody that it was an overpacking week and unfortunately the route doesn’t come through,” said Wade.
“I don’t get why these is such a big deal,” McCullough said. “We’re not here to make anything harder on you guys. We’re not here to separate ourselves from you and I feel like that’s what you guys think we are trying to do.
“We’re not trying to do that. We are trying to allow you guys to operate how you guys want to. Move your facilities where you want to. For the last six years being a commissioner, I’ve had Pleasanton contact me multiple times because they don’t like their facility right in the middle of their baseball field.
“I understand, but I don’t feel like that’s my job as a commissioner to say yes you can do that. That’s your guys’ responsibility, you guys can make that decision.”
“Danny, I think what Jodi is saying is that we don’t have these differences outlined out in our agreement and that’s why she’s not comfortable with what we are putting out,” Commission Jason Hightower said.
“But this has been going on for over a year, and whenever everybody sat in here, we, I specifically, said ‘Please give us any written questions or concerns,’ and Shaun and Jessica brought us nothing, correct?” said McCullough. “There was nothing given to us, because I was upset about it because everybody sat right here. Nothing ever came back across my desk.”
Wade answered back we had no concerns in how it was operating then so we had nothing to say. She said the city understood that the contracts were old and needed to be updated.
Wilson reiterated Wade’s statement that the city did not have any concerns at that time, and that is why they did not send anything to the county.
“But, what we have concerns over are the differences between our old contract and the new one,” said Wilson. “Like if the county is not paying $200 month towards the employee.”
This brought up discussion with County Clerk David Lamb that cities are paid different amounts. He said that the reasoning for the different amounts are unknown to him. The lake developments are not paid anything because they do not hire an employee to oversee the site.
Hightower stressed that the sites were all different.
“From the start, Danny, I’ve been asking for us to make our agreements the way it needs to be to work with each of the different entities not just one blanket,” said Hightower.
“So you want to meet with each city and come up with something different?” asked McCullough.
“I think it needs to work with what we have going,” said Hightower.
Wade said it does make a difference whether the site is open to the full public or just private entities. It does make a difference as to how much service is happening there. She explained that the city compactors are not just for those cities but for all county residents. If one compactor site was full or closed, Linn County residents have the right to use any of the cities’ sites but they cannot use the private lake development sites.
Matthew Young, mayor of Pleasanton, told the commissioners that they have a lot of the same concerns as La Cygne. He said that, from the beginning, they have sent some concerns and questions over to the county.
Young said that the maintenance to the equipment does not seem to have a consistency to it. He said that the city requests the same thing, that locations are handled differently as opposed to a blanket for everyone.
The attorney for the city of Pleasanton, Jacklyn Paletta, spoke next.
“Who drafted this proposed new contract?” asked Paletta. “I am aware that you guys don’t have an attorney in the county. Where’s the copy of the insurance policy that governs the liability for these machines?
“Who gave you the legal determination, Mr. Johnson, that the county would be liable because it’s your trash?” Paletta asked Commissioner Jim Johnson. “Did KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) agree to that terminology that it would be the county that would be liable because its your trash?
“Language really matters, and those words that are used in that contract and the absence of words in that contract that has meaning. And so the responsibility and liability that faces each one of these cities as a result of these changes is something.
“I am sorry that the time has elapsed and has taken some time, but it requires due consideration because of the increased potential liability. Especially to the extent that you want these cities names to be on the permit.
“That does change the landscape of the liability and as far as it pertains to the inability to get questions to you, the last minute notice does not help. To the extent that you want the cities to have meaningful dialogue with you all about these changes, and certainly the necessity of having a current contract that’s appreciated.
But to give cities notice on Friday of a Monday meeting, this shall happen on this day at this time and you all shall be present or you won’t participate in the conversation. That makes it difficult for people to come up with questions in a reasonable time
“I would have been more than happy to email you Mr. McCullough about the questions that the city had, but unfortunately I wasn’t given notice until Friday when this meeting is on Monday. I think that this dialogue about contracts between municipalities is something that is best suited for attorneys to handle to make sure that the liability for everybody is rightfully protected without any additional financial responsibilities to these small towns that don’t have the tax base to support it.
McCullough replied, “Like I stated this is not something to push anything off to anybody else because it’s a huge liability, it’s literally just to try to give the cities the ability to do as they please with their sites and to alleviate something off of Shaun West’s back that he doesn’t have time to control because he’s not there on everyday.
“So we wanted to maintain the equipment. We wanted to continue everything we’re doing. We’re not trying to make anything difficult on anybody trying to make you to spend any money that you don’t have to. I mean that’s not the goal here. I’m not against the cities. I don’t understand what this is turning into.”
Johnson asked what changes would be needed if the county asked the cities to get the permit and the cities are responsible because of city employee oversaw the unloading trash into the compactors.
“It substantially limits the liability of the county and I think that’s what you all were trying to do in the first place,” said Paletta.
“That’s not our idea,” said Johnson.
Hightower clarified, “But it (the contract) doesn’t clearly detail out how that’s going to work, and I think that’s the problem.”
“What I am prepared to say is that the city of Pleasanton is not prepared to sign the contract as drafted,” Paletta replied. “So I can’t advise them to sign the contract as drafted. So, until or unless something is drafted that is way more delineated or has way more information in it, I cannot advise my city to sign that contract.”
“Well, I think there’s confusion here that we’re putting the permit off on you guys, and I don’t think that’s the case here,” said Johnson.” We’re having you take care of it because it is your facility, and you guys sign the permit, but we are partnering.”
“We want the writing to reflect the intention and to have a clear delineation of whose responsibilities are what and to ensure that to the extent that the cities require, or the municipalities or lake communities or whatever they are called, need to undertake additional responsibilities that potentially require additional certifications from KDHE, training, etc. that all is complied with for the type of any liability in the future,” replied Paletta. “We are asking that there is more legal involvement to create a more detailed, better defined, contract agreement.
“This one right now is too loose and we’re going to find ourselves with too many problems going forward.”
Paletta said she would be happy to work with whatever attorney the county retains for this particular thing to get the language worked out as it pertains to the city.
Pleasanton City Council Member Bill Skipper asked the commissioners if they had a copy of this agreement that was sent to the cities and have they read it.
McCullough said, “I don’t know if I do.”
Skipper continued, “For example, No. 3, the city shall be responsible for constructing, maintaining the site subject to the exceptions of section seven of this agreement. If you go to section seven of the agreement, section seven says the county shall haul containers including solid waste containers, recyclables, metal waste to a final disposition site on a schedule of the county’s choosing. So, I mean it doesn’t make the circuit.
“Our biggest concern is if we become the license holder, we do encounter that liability. The biggest single liability on that trash compactor is not what people put in the dumpster. It’s the hydraulic system. Its hoses, that’s where the ground contamination is coming from, it’s from leaks.
“It says that you will maintain the equipment. Well, it’s your equipment and you are supposed to be maintaining it. Danny gets the calls because it’s closed because it’s too cold; the hydraulic system doesn’t work. It hasn’t been emptied, so it’s full. So we can’t allow people to add trash. I can’t see where the city should be responsible for your schedule, your maintenance.
“If we were to do this, we would need a maintenance contract that said what sort of schedule is your preventative maintenance going to be done on. What sort of schedule are you actually going to pick up trash? How often is it going to be emptied? What is the penalty if the compactor is closed because of inactivity from your repair organization and I think there should be financial penalties to the county if you don’t meet those contracts or requirements.”
McCullough answered, “We don’t have a penalty against the cities when they leave bicycles and all this other stuff out in your area in your sites that we get hit by KDHE for. Because we don’t control that, we don’t have control over that.”
Skipper said that it is as clear as mud that not a lot of consideration was given to writing this thing. One shoe doesn’t fit all.
“But it has for 40 years and its operated just like this without a contract so what do we do? Do we just stop all trash service until we get a contract in hand or what?” asked McCullough.
Hightower said we work together.
McCullough said, “That’s what I am trying to do. I don’t understand. We’re paying for your licensing. We’re paying for everything. What we’re asking is for you guys to take accountability for your employees and be able to put the site wherever you want it.”
“If that’s what you wanted, why doesn’t it say that in the contract?” asked Skipper. “The contract doesn’t say what you’re saying. Just make it so that it is clear and it shows that there is some consideration written into a contract.
“This stuff wouldn’t make it in fifth grade for determining who is hall monitor. We need to do a better job of delineating what needs to be done. You talk about our responsibilities, yes we do have responsibility but I will ask you this when is the last time the county provided an operators manual or an update or input to the cities.”
“I have no idea, and that’s what I want to get lined out here,” said McCullough.
“Just make the contract a useful legal document instead of toilet paper,” Skipper said.
Comments