Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lee's Summit council debates single-hauler trash plan and whether to put it before voters
Summary
Councilmembers debated sending a proposed single-hauler residential solid-waste contract to an advisory public vote and asked staff to proceed with the RFP while vetting legal and timing questions; staff said bids could be returned in January and an advisory ballot could be scheduled later if council directs.
Councilmembers spent the bulk of the meeting discussing a proposed move to a single residential solid-waste hauler and whether that decision should be made by voters.
Councilmember Trish Pryor, who said she had spoken with “a wide range of constituents,” urged that the city continue the RFP process to gather pricing and then place the question on the ballot so voters can make an informed choice. “I believe the fairest and most transparent path forward is to continue moving through the RFP process … and this decision should ultimately be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide,” Pryor said.
City legal counsel cautioned about practical and legal constraints for sending a vendor-specific contract to the ballot. “When you get those responses…that response is a bid, essentially. It is a binding proposal,” Mr. Head said, warning that asking contractors to bind prices for multiple years could create an awkward precedent and discourage bidders.
Michael Park, director of public works, said the RFP had been structured so any winning price would take effect July 1, 2027, and that staff expected a roughly four-week RFP window with bids opening around Jan. 9. Park said the RFP assumes a five-year contract with optional extensions and that the first-year price would be fixed for that year with limited escalation thereafter.
Council members agreed on several procedural points: they asked staff to continue preparing the RFP and to explore a non-binding resolution stating council intent to place an advisory question on a future ballot if bids are acceptable, then to finalize ballot language with the election authorities. Council also asked staff to return legal analysis about timing and certification dates and to include clear service levels and estimated costs when presenting results to the public.
No formal ordinance or binding vote to call an election was taken at the meeting. Council directed staff to: (1) finish the RFP and aim to advertise in January, (2) prepare options for a non-binding resolution describing the intent to place an advisory question on a future ballot, and (3) prepare the full bid packet, price brackets and suggested ballot language for future council consideration.
The council discussion closed with the mayor summarizing next steps: staff will bring a resolution for consideration (targeted for the Dec. 16 packet), bids will be solicited in January and council will decide afterward whether to refer the matter to voters for a November ballot if the bids and timing support it.
