MONROE - The City of Monroe is questioning how much power the county should have to select its representatives on the Green County Solid Waste Management Board and to force the city to adopt legislation to control the flow of solid wastes out of the city.
On Monday, June 3, the city's Board of Public Works shunned both issues, which are in a new transfer station agreement being proposed by the Green County Solid Waste Management Board.
The same concerns would apply to any municipality user of the transfer station, which is self-supported through users' fees, but controlled by the county, City Administrator Phil Rath said after Monday's meeting.
Rath recommended not adopting the agreement, saying it does not address the concerns he has with representation on the waste management board.
County supervisors unanimously approved a resolution in May to increase the Solid Waste Management Board from nine to 11 members, adding as permanent members the chairman of the Monroe Board of Public Works and the president of the Monroe Common Council. The other members are five supervisors and four citizens. All are appointed by the chairman of the county board of supervisors.
Although it appears the county was "taking a positive step" in the new agreement to address the city's concerns for representation, "I don't know if it goes far enough," Rath said.
Only Green County has the power to appoint or remove members, he stated in a note to the city's Board of Public Works, and thus "the costly decisions are made by a body that is not necessarily representative of the city's interests."
Rath said, "The city has no power to remove the city council president or chairman of the Board of Public Works (from the waste management board)," via the proposed agreement.
The ethics of the county appointing its waste management board members is not an issue, according to City Attorney Rex Ewald.
However, the city's "code of ethics might surface if the county-appointed (board member representing the city) wants to vote on something at the city level," he added.
Furthermore, the legal structure of the county body doesn't match its function, Ewald added.
"It's nominally addressed, at best," he said.
Ewald said the city was not included in the county's discussion on the new proposed agreement, and he recommended more talks between the city and county.
Also in the county agreement is the need for user members to implement "flow control" of their trash, requiring local laws for any solid waste picked up within the municipality to be taken to the transfer station for unloading.
Some members of the Board of Public Works did not like the county-initiated control over waste removal that would dictate over the city government, as well as private waste management businesses, local businesses and residents.
The Board of Public Works in April had proposed a waste management board made up of one representative for each municipality user - about 16. A "weighted vote" provision was included in that proposal, in the event it was needed on any particular issue. A weighted vote in that proposal, based on population, would give Monroe about 30 percent of the vote-weight, Rath said.
The county's recent addition of two positions for city representation to make up 18 percent of the waste management board does not represent the city proportionally in either percentage of use or population, Rath said.
Currently, one civilian is representing the city on the solid waste management board. Monroe is the biggest contributor to the transfer station business, hauling in about 50 to 55 percent of the station's waste by weight.
In order for the transfer station to remain operational after this December , the waste management board needs a new agreement signed by its users as soon as possible, so users and the county can prepare their 2014 budgets this fall. No new talks between the county and city have been scheduled.
On Monday, June 3, the city's Board of Public Works shunned both issues, which are in a new transfer station agreement being proposed by the Green County Solid Waste Management Board.
The same concerns would apply to any municipality user of the transfer station, which is self-supported through users' fees, but controlled by the county, City Administrator Phil Rath said after Monday's meeting.
Rath recommended not adopting the agreement, saying it does not address the concerns he has with representation on the waste management board.
County supervisors unanimously approved a resolution in May to increase the Solid Waste Management Board from nine to 11 members, adding as permanent members the chairman of the Monroe Board of Public Works and the president of the Monroe Common Council. The other members are five supervisors and four citizens. All are appointed by the chairman of the county board of supervisors.
Although it appears the county was "taking a positive step" in the new agreement to address the city's concerns for representation, "I don't know if it goes far enough," Rath said.
Only Green County has the power to appoint or remove members, he stated in a note to the city's Board of Public Works, and thus "the costly decisions are made by a body that is not necessarily representative of the city's interests."
Rath said, "The city has no power to remove the city council president or chairman of the Board of Public Works (from the waste management board)," via the proposed agreement.
The ethics of the county appointing its waste management board members is not an issue, according to City Attorney Rex Ewald.
However, the city's "code of ethics might surface if the county-appointed (board member representing the city) wants to vote on something at the city level," he added.
Furthermore, the legal structure of the county body doesn't match its function, Ewald added.
"It's nominally addressed, at best," he said.
Ewald said the city was not included in the county's discussion on the new proposed agreement, and he recommended more talks between the city and county.
Also in the county agreement is the need for user members to implement "flow control" of their trash, requiring local laws for any solid waste picked up within the municipality to be taken to the transfer station for unloading.
Some members of the Board of Public Works did not like the county-initiated control over waste removal that would dictate over the city government, as well as private waste management businesses, local businesses and residents.
The Board of Public Works in April had proposed a waste management board made up of one representative for each municipality user - about 16. A "weighted vote" provision was included in that proposal, in the event it was needed on any particular issue. A weighted vote in that proposal, based on population, would give Monroe about 30 percent of the vote-weight, Rath said.
The county's recent addition of two positions for city representation to make up 18 percent of the waste management board does not represent the city proportionally in either percentage of use or population, Rath said.
Currently, one civilian is representing the city on the solid waste management board. Monroe is the biggest contributor to the transfer station business, hauling in about 50 to 55 percent of the station's waste by weight.
In order for the transfer station to remain operational after this December , the waste management board needs a new agreement signed by its users as soon as possible, so users and the county can prepare their 2014 budgets this fall. No new talks between the county and city have been scheduled.