Pleasanton mayor urges rewrite of compactor contract; commissioners order attorneys to meet

Pleasanton Mayor Matthew Young told the Linn County Commission on the floor that the county’s proposed solid-waste compactor contract is incomplete and risks shifting costs and liabilities to cities.

Young said the county’s draft “does not include the monthly stipend of $3.25” the city has relied on and “does not include guidelines for the site layout and expectations for facility and site maintenance.” He told commissioners that Pleasanton has experienced maintenance problems and that verbal assurances have not been written into the draft contract.

The mayor asked the commission to explain why Pleasanton was “singled out” for a motion last week to remove the compactor if the city did not sign. He said Pleasanton seeks a written, mutually drafted agreement so that “that which is verbal cannot be held to.”

Commissioners responded that they do not want to close compactors and that they would reopen negotiations. Commissioner Ally moved — and a second was recorded — to have Pleasanton’s attorney and the county’s legal counsel meet in a workshop to draft a complete contract; the motion passed on a voice vote. Commissioners said they would start with the Pleasanton meeting and, if the attorneys’ work leads to broader changes, they would return to other compactor partners to update the agreement countywide.

County staff and commissioners discussed a letter from Pleasanton’s counsel outlining three options previously sent to the county; commissioners characterized the options as the county’s response to that letter. Matthew Young asked that Pleasanton’s attorney Jacqueline Paletta meet with county counsel Mark Hagen to produce a single, written contract that lists responsibilities for the compactor sites, including insurance, permitting and maintenance.

Commissioners also noted that some other cities have already signed the draft contract; Pleasanton said it had sought clearer allocation of duties, permit handling (Pleasanton referenced KDHE guidance), and a multi-year renewal review clause. The board approved sending the two legal teams to draft the contract and agreed to return to the broader group of partner cities if substantial changes emerge from that meeting.

The commission’s vote was procedural: the board directed legal counsel to negotiate and draft a revised agreement rather than adopting a new contract immediately. It did not adopt contract language or change permit policy during the meeting.