City staff outline four solid-waste service options; commission signals support for consolidation station with long-range transfer-station planning

Trevor (staff) told the commission the purpose of the presentation was to provide data and options and to solicit a policy direction: “what we're hoping to get out of it is kind of a consensus on what direction you all see fit to move forward for the future operations of the city's solid waste.”

Staff presented four service models to address persistent operational problems (staffing shortages, vehicle maintenance, long hauls to off-site landfills and overtime): (1) retain and upgrade city-operated collection by adding crews and trucks; (2) build a city consolidation station (city-only staging site where refuse would be aggregated before longer-haul trips); (3) build a city-operated transfer station (public facility that would accept outside tipping fees); and (4) fully contract collection to a private provider. Staff outlined pros, cons, estimated capital and operating costs, and projected monthly rates under each option.

Staff said the city currently serves just under 10,000 households, bills roughly $19.31 per month for collection, staffs 11 collection employees and operates six collection trucks (typically only four trucks are available daily because of maintenance). Refuse is hauled to Waste Management’s Shawnee facility; trips are long (30+ miles one-way in some models) and staff reported multi-hour waits to tip at the landfill. Waste-management capacity and access were cited as a long-term risk: Waste Management has indicated the city could be denied access in future years and a regional study projects Johnson County landfill constraints by 2037.

Estimated cost and service highlights presented by staff included: option 1 (upgrade city collection) would require three additional staff and two more trucks, was described as the easiest to implement but likely to “kick the can down the road,” and was modeled to raise operating costs (staff estimated roughly $2.7 million in operational costs and an incremental increase to the monthly rate of about $3). Option 2 (consolidation station) showed an estimated capital cost of about $1.29 million, operating projections that translated to a monthly rate near $22.74, and the ability to cut daily long-haul trips roughly in half; staff said KDHE guidance indicates a consolidation site may be allowed with fewer permitting requirements than a full transfer station if strict conditions (48-hour storage limit, city-only access, stormwater controls and screening) are met. Option 3 (city transfer station) had an estimated capital cost of about $4.5 million and a modeled residential rate near $25 per month but would require more staff (six additional positions) and full permitting; revenues from outside tipping could offset operating costs but staff said it would be the most complex to operate. Option 4 (full private contract) would remove the city from daily operations but retain contract oversight; staff did not recommend an open-market model and noted contract oversight and resident confusion can persist even when services are outsourced.

Commissioners and staff discussed implementation and timing: staff estimated option 2 would likely not be operational until 2027 because of site preparation and construction; option 3 would add at least another year for permitting. Commissioners asked that staff solicit community input (surveys and possibly public forums) before finalizing a plan; commissioners also suggested a phased approach (option 2 now with planning and site design that allows future expansion to option 3, described in the meeting as “option 2.5”).

Several commissioners voiced support for option 2 or a 2-to-3 phased plan. Commissioner Nancy said, “I think option 2 looks like the best option for us at this time.” Other commissioners indicated they favored option 2 while keeping an eye on longer-term transfer-station feasibility and potential grant funding for recycling services. Staff agreed to prepare community engagement materials (survey and public information) and to return with refined cost estimates and a proposed timeline tied to the city’s budget calendar. No formal vote to adopt any option was taken at the study session.

Commissioners also raised workforce questions (difficulty recruiting and retaining CDL drivers and collection staff) and asked staff to consider where existing employees could be retained if contracting were chosen. Staff noted the city’s Solid Waste Citizen Advisory Board had not recommended privatization.

The commission directed staff to proceed with planning for option 2 (consolidation station) while developing a long-range plan that would allow transition to a full transfer station if the revenue and permitting environment supports it; staff will pursue community engagement and report back during budget deliberations.