Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public pushes council to delay landfill decision amid questions over rates and process
Summary
Multiple residents and the city’s sanitation contractor challenged the timeline and transparency of a proposed switch in landfill providers; Mayor Williams and several council members asked staff for incident reports and packet materials before reconsidering the matter, and council removed the landfill item from tonight’s agenda.
Several residents and the city’s current sanitation contractor pressed Sedalia’s City Council on May 18 over a proposed change to the city’s landfill disposal contract, prompting the mayor and council members to request more documentation and to remove the item from the meeting agenda.
Harry Hoert, who identified himself as a downtown business owner, questioned public statements about a $51 rate tied to the proposed landfill arrangement and urged council members — both new and incumbent — to work together rather than revisit what he described as a divisive contract process. Harry Hoert said the previous ordinance accepting the landfill proposal had been vetoed by Mayor Williams and warned against repeated reintroductions without clear public outreach.
Gary Lobal said he had not seen notice of a public works meeting and asked to review minutes or notes from the committee that recommended returning the landfill item to council. Lobal said he wanted to see the committee’s reasoning before the council acted again on a landfill contract that, if approved, would send city trucks 30 miles to dump waste.
Ben Cipherman, regional vice president of GFL Environmental, spoke for the incumbent contractor and provided council with contract documentation he said showed the municipal solid waste (MSW) contract capped annual increases at 5%. Cipherman said higher one-time rates reported publicly — for tasks such as cleanouts, asbestos or special-waste handling — were outside the standard MSW pricing and therefore should not be conflated with the routine disposal rate.
Mayor Williams said he had requested incident and accident reports referencing injuries and had not received them; he also said a radio statement by city staff could amount to defamation if not substantiated. Multiple council members agreed they needed time to review the packet and supporting documents, and one councilmember moved — and the council seconded — to remove the landfill items from the night’s agenda until staff could provide the requested information. The motion passed.
What happens next: Council directed staff to provide additional materials, including minutes, incident reports and the procurement evaluation, before the landfill disposal proposals are reconsidered. No formal contract award or vote occurred at the May 18 meeting.
