Russell County magistrates discussed and approved moving to county-run operations at the county transfer station after their current contractor indicated he would stop managing the site because of worn equipment.

A magistrate told the court the transfer station has been closed multiple times during the day and that “he’s kind of had it, I guess. His equipment’s wore out,” describing the contractor Mitchell as “ready to just give it up.” The magistrate said the county must decide whether to contract the service to an outside company or run the transfer station itself.

The court heard that a firm called Kentucky Sanitation proposed hauling trash from the Russell County transfer station to regional landfills. The magistrate said the company would provide trucks and trailers to haul waste, and recommended the county run day-to-day operations while using that hauler for transport. “If we was going to ever do it, now’s time to do it for ourselves,” the magistrate said.

Officials discussed operational needs if the county assumes control, including purchasing or using county equipment (a backhoe was cited as necessary to push and load trucks), securing at least four or five trailers to avoid backups, and modifying the dump pad so trailers can be pushed without damaging equipment. One participant said two trailers could be supplied immediately but that “two will never work” and that four or five were needed because compact trucks fill trailers quickly.

Magistrates also discussed administrative changes: implementing a point-of-sale system to manage cash at the site, reconciling receipts for auditors, and creating checks-and-balances for cash flow. The county plans to retain the scale operator who agreed to stay and to have oversight help from an official named Owen Raul. The magistrate who spoke noted that accepting cash will require new procedures: “There’s definitely going to have to be with cash flow in and out. We’re going to have to show all the checks and balances.”

Permitting and regulatory steps were raised: operating under Mitchell’s current permit arrangement would require actions to keep the site compliant, and the magistrate acknowledged additional expenditures for equipment and possible site improvements such as pouring more concrete or building a new pad to handle multiple trailers.

Timing and personnel were discussed: the magistrate said he wanted to begin as soon as possible—“Monday if we can”—and that Mitchell had offered to provide information and contacts to help transition hauling contracts. The magistrate also said he would meet with Mitchell after the session to move the plan forward.

A motion to proceed with county operation and to have the recommended hauler provide trailers and trucking was made, seconded by another magistrate, and approved by voice vote; the court recorded an “Aye” with no opposition noted. The motion did not include a detailed contract or a roll-call vote in the transcript. The court also noted the change will increase administrative workload for county staff and could require raising collection rates to cover higher hauling costs.

The discussion closed with officials agreeing to follow up on equipment purchases or rentals, trailer delivery scheduling, permit requirements, and implementation of a point-of-sale system to ensure auditors can account for cash receipts.