Sigourney council deadlocks on county recycling contract; dumpster-ordinance rewrite sent back to committee

A motion to dissolve Sigourney's 28E agreement with the Keokuk County Recycle Center failed on a 2-4 vote at the May 21 council meeting, leaving the county contract in place. Council Member Schultz moved to end the intergovernmental agreement; Council Member Iosbaker seconded. The roll-call vote was: Ayes ' Iosbaker and Schultz; Nays ' Lentz, Clark, Conrad and McLaughlin.

Mayor Jimmy Morlan said a three-week count showed about 60 residents used the county recycling center and reported the city pays about $1,900 per month under the 28E agreement; he also stated his belief that roughly "90% of the recycling goes to the landfill." The transcript records the claim but provides no documentary evidence to support the 90% figure.

Earlier in the meeting the Street and Sanitation committee presented a proposed revision to Title VI, Chapter 4 (Utilities Refuse Collection). The draft seeks to remove vague terms such as "household" and "cans," replace references to "cans" with "containers" or "bags," and to require permits, dumping-frequency standards and permit fees for outside commercial dumpsters. Council Member Schultz framed some dumpsters as neighborhood blight and urged stricter regulation. Council Member Clark countered that the draft reads as an attempt to eliminate dumpsters and urged the city to first negotiate with outside haulers such as Cox to reach an agreement; Clark also questioned whether the city would be authorized to require haulers to dump weekly.

Council Member Conrad emphasized that the city's current ordinance already gives the city authority to regulate containers and that the committee's objective was to prevent long-term, unemptied dumpsters; he said the committee's intent was not to remove dumpsters entirely. McLaughlin said utility-sanitation permits could be structured so outside haulers could bill customers for any additional permit costs. Council members disagreed on an appropriate maximum on-site duration for a dumpster; suggestions ranged from one week to one month. With the disagreement unresolved, the council did not advance the proposed ordinance and sent the draft back to committee for further edits and member suggestions.

The discussion highlighted competing council goals: improve neighborhood appearance and public health, avoid imposing undue costs on residents who rely on outside haulers, and establish enforceable standards without creating excessive administrative burdens. The minutes show no interim policy change; the existing refuse ordinance remains in force until the council adopts a revision.