Ellis County commissioners ask staff to draft policy on unsecured loads at landfill

Ellis County commissioners directed staff to draft a policy to address unsecured loads at the county landfill after a two-hour discussion that covered safety, enforcement and public outreach.

The discussion began with Justin Craig, Ellis County environmental services director, saying the proposal’s intent was not revenue generation but safety: “the purpose of this wouldn't be the intent would not be to generate any additional revenue at the landfill, but it's something that we possibly just need to address as a community,” Craig said. He presented options used by nearby jurisdictions — doubling tipping fees in some counties and a 50% surcharge in another — and a staff recommendation to define “secured load,” pursue an education period, and consider either a percentage surcharge or a flat fee.

County leaders and speakers at the meeting emphasized safety and practicality. A resident who identified himself as Kennedy said he was “really worried about what might happen on the overpass over Interstate 70” if debris blew from unsecured loads, noting the overpass has “no guardrails, no fencing.” Toby Doherty, Hays city manager, told commissioners the city staff supported a measured approach: “it’s a nudge rather than a mandate,” he said, arguing that incentives and outreach could change behavior. Sheriff Scott Brown noted criminal enforcement is an option: “which is actually a misdemeanor. It's, we can write a citation. That is a must appear in front of a judge if we go that route,” he said, adding that the sheriff’s office would enforce when investigators can identify responsible parties.

Craig supplied cost context from 2024-2025 data: the average municipal waste ticket was $35.42; a 50% surcharge on that average would be about $17.74. Construction-and-demolition loads averaged $64.95; a 50% surcharge would be about $32.47. Craig said those figures indicated the worst-case revenue scenarios and that the county should not expect full noncompliance. Commissioners debated implementation details: defining acceptable securing methods (tarps, ratchet straps, rope or other bindings that show an attempt to secure load), how to handle repeat offenders, and whether to require all loads to cross the scale so clerks can verify security.

Commissioners discussed enforcement tools such as installing a camera to let scale-house staff view load security without exiting the booth, printed educational materials, and a lengthy grace period before full enforcement. Commissioners expressed a preference for a simple, implementable approach; one suggested a flat fee for small loads and higher codes for larger loads to keep administration simple. Commissioners also voiced concern that strict enforcement without sufficient outreach could push some people toward illegal dumping rather than secure their loads.

No formal ordinance or rate change was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners asked Craig to return with a tentative written policy and implementation plan, including recommended definitions, an education timeline, potential fee structures (flat fee or percentage), signage and outreach materials, and equipment estimates for a camera. Craig and staff were also tasked to research how nearby jurisdictions handle repeat offenders and fee schedules. Commissioners said they favored a long education period and a clear, documented process to support scale-house clerks who might face disputes.

The item drew multiple public comments and participation from city and county officials; commissioners concluded by asking staff to prepare a draft for future consideration rather than taking immediate regulatory action.