Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Landfill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident demands written answers about alleged contamination at Generally Hauling landfill, cites grants and statute
Summary
Jim Roberts presented 10 formal questions about the Generally Hauling landfill — alleging long-term contamination, contested ownership, and gaps in disclosure — and requested written responses; county attorneys and commissioners said some items will require records or DNR input.
At the May 12 Franklin County commission meeting, local resident Jim Roberts read a prepared list of 10 questions asking the commission to address alleged contamination at the Generally Hauling landfill, disputed ownership and a history of property sales he said lacked disclosure. Roberts asked that the commission provide written responses and supporting documents and cited an EPA Brownfield assessment grant and proposed state legislation (Senate Bill 1586) in his petition.
Roberts told commissioners he had documentation he wanted entered into the record and listed concrete items for response: whether the county would enroll the site in Missouri’s Brownfield voluntary cleanup program if a Brownfield grant is approved; why the county had not supported Senate Bill 1586; why an assessor memo instructed that the property "is not to be discussed with anybody;" a string of tax-sales and changes in valuation; and whether the county acknowledges responsibility for closure and remediation of the site, which Roberts said was first operated by Franklin County in 1975.
Roberts said he supplied DNR test results and exhibits and asked the commission to respond in writing; the county attorney and commissioners said the sunshine law requires production of existing records but does not compel commissioners to answer oral questions. County attorney Ken stated, “The sunshine law does not require the commission to answer any questions. The sunshine law is a production of documents law.”
Why it matters: Roberts alleged ongoing environmental harm, including hazardous runoff into the Marramac River watershed, and requested clarity about ownership, disclosure at tax sales and whether the county will pursue cleanup authorities or rely on state/federal grants. Several public commenters echoed concerns about downstream recreation, wildlife and public health.
Commission response and follow-up: Commissioners said they have requested DNR involvement, applied for an EPA Brownfield assessment grant and will provide records when they exist. Commissioners also disputed blanket assertions of county inaction and said some matters (assessor memos, former transactions) require separate records or responses from other elected officials.
Ending: Commissioners did not make a formal policy decision at the meeting. Roberts’ written questions and exhibits were received by commission staff and residents requested written answers; the transcript records county officials promising to provide available records and to consider next steps after the May 18 hearing and further information from DNR.
