Long-simmering issues with trash service in KCK coming to a head

by Mary Rupert

Long-simmering issues with trash service seem to be coming to a head this week between Waste Management and the Unified Government.

A recent letter from Waste Management to the UG stated that unless the UG pays Waste Management more than $450,000 that the UG has subtracted from its payments, Waste Management would stop trash service after 30 days, around March 22. The letter added that Waste Management could extend service while the UG makes a transition to another provider. The letter also mentioned other items it says were violated in the contract.

The UG has subtracted funds for missing and late trash pickups and recycling pickups in the past year. The amount was more than $450,000, according to a Waste Management spokesman.

During the past few years, after Waste Management took over from Deffenbaugh, residents have complained about missed trash pickups and missed recycling pickups. The residents have complained to Waste Management, to UG commissioners, to the mayor’s office, even to the Wyandotte Daily comment sections. According to an agreement the UG made with Waste Management, all the complaints since 2019 were supposed to be funneled through the UG’s 311 number, so the UG and Waste Management could keep track of them.

While conditions are said to be better since last summer, one resident recalled seeing trash a few weeks ago that was sitting along Metropolitan Avenue between I-635 and 55th Street, for about a week. While trash had been picked up on one side of the street, it wasn’t on the other side.

In a news release today, a UG spokesman indicated they were still willing to work with Waste Management. The spokesman stated that the UG has taken steps to improve and maintain collection services, and it remains committed to working with Waste Management “to ensure our residents receive the service they pay for and deserve. The Unified Government is committed to ensuring that service is not interrupted by any contract dispute with Waste Management.”

The steps the UG took, according to the spokesman, included:
• “Approved route changes to balance and improve service;
• Adjusted payments annually based on community growth;
• Provided direct 311 phone line access to Waste Management to facilitate complaint resolution;
• Withheld funds under the contract to remedy recurring, systemic missed trash and recycling collections.”

Paul Howe, senior manager of community relations for Waste Management, said today that the Waste Management letter was delivered to the UG on Friday night.

“At this point, as the letter points out, we’ve certainly made a demand and notified Wyandotte County of our intent to cancel the contract for breach of contract,” Howe said today. If the funds are not paid to Waste Management, the company could seek a legal remedy at some point to cancel the contract, he said.

“In 2019, the UG withheld payment or short-paid invoices we had delivered for trash and recycle collection,” Howe said, “short-paid greater than $450,000 in 2019.”

He said Waste Management made repeated requests to UG staff to provide details, data and calculations used for making the determination “for the unjustified withholding of the money.” He added he did not receive a response to that.

“Beyond that, we were very disappointed in the report that Burns and McDonnell delivered to the Commission last week,” Howe said. “We believe there were many instances of erroneous information, information that was incorrect.” He said they were not asked for input on it.

UG 5th District Commissioner Mike Kane, one of the most outspoken commissioners on the issue of trash service, today said, “They haven’t lived up to the contract. They have never lived up to the contract. They don’t want to live up to the contract.”

Commissioner Kane doesn’t think Waste Management has done a good job collecting trash. He said some of the other UG commissioners agree with him.

Commissioner Jane Philbrook of the 8th District said during the Feb. 13 UG meeting that she had some of the same concerns he had. She added that some residents have given up on trying to call in about their trash being missed because they don’t see anything changing. She said there was a need for more community engagement to let people know they should call 311.

Commissioner Angela Markley of the 6th District said at the Feb. 13 meeting that when she gets complaints about trash service, she urges the residents to call 311 about it, and the residents are glad to hear there may be a fine.

Commissioner Brian McKiernan of the 2nd District said at the Feb. 13 UG meeting that there was an entire neighborhood being missed for trash collection, week after week. He said residents had called consistently to Waste Management and to him and they were not seeing any change.

“My goal is not to penalize them a half-million, we want quality service,” Bach told the commission at the Feb. 13 meeting. The UG doesn’t want to have two staff members following the trash trucks around every day to see if they get the work done, he said. He added he believed they have done better in the past several months, but there is still a lot of work to do.

While Waste Management has been saying the complaints have been decreasing, they have not been decreasing as much as they should, Commissioner Kane said. For example, there are two to three cul-de-sacs in his area that they just don’t pick up, he said.

The UG is paying $2 million a year for trash collection, and it’s not fair to the community not to get the service they paid for, Commissioner Kane said.

“We lived up to our end, and they should live up to theirs,” he said.

He added the UG administration is trying to work out a solution with Waste Management currently.

“This is one of the most frustrating things I’ve worked on in my 15 years,” Commissioner Kane said.

UG presented review of trash services Feb. 13

Through the past few years, the UG saw some service delivery it was not pleased with, UG Administrator Doug Bach told the UG Commission at the 5 p.m. Feb. 13 Commission meeting. The UG asked Burns and McDonnell early last spring to do a review of services and the contract, he said.

The UG had received complaints from customers that trash pickups and recycling pickups were being missed or completed after 5 p.m., according to Laura Drescher, lead consultant-engineer with Burns and McDonnell, who presented information at the Feb. 13 meeting. At one time, Waste Management had been reporting misses and completion times to the UG, but discontinued that in mid-August 2019, according to Drescher.

UG staff, meantime, has been tracking 311 phone calls and were going out to look at routes after hearing complaints, to determine penalties for missed collections, according to Drescher.

While the Waste Management website says it has 99.9 percent accuracy in trash pickup, the information presented by Burns and McDonnell showed less than 99.9 percent accuracy, especially in December 2018 before a reroute took place, according to Drescher. After the reroute, performance improved, according to a chart that was presented Feb. 13.

Waste Management took over the trash contract from the former provider, Deffenbaugh. The 20-year contract was signed in 2012 with Deffenbaugh and runs through 2032, according to Drescher. Waste Management acquired Deffenbaugh, including the contract, in late 2014 and early 2015, she said.

Drescher told the UG Commission that the current contract that Waste Management is under has provisions for penalties. After a complaint is filed, the contractor has 24 hours to correct the situation before it is penalized $200, she said. The penalty is per household, not per complaint.

The contract, besides penalties for missed collections, also has penalties for late collections. Completion time is 5 p.m. on the trash day, and the UG has tracked many collections that were from 6 to 8 p.m., according to Drescher.

The Burns and McDonnell study supported continuing to report missed trash collections, enforcing the penalties in the contract by deducting from the monthly payment, adding vehicles that have been recommended, additional field supervisors for quality control, better communications between the UG and Waste Management through emails, and continued community engagement to improve collections, among other items.

The study also supported more educational outreach to help the community understand what can go in a recycling bin, what can be set out, and how to report illegal dumping.

Recommendations included continued coordination with Waste Management and the UG on collection status, service optimization and community engagement; formally requesting additional routes to meet contract times and mitigate missed collections; and development of a solid waste management 5-year update as required by the state to focus on long-term operations, programs and infrastructure.

Howe said that he didn’t know where the 99.99 percent service accuracy figure came from. It could have come from the commercial line of business, but Howe said they weren’t asked what the reference point was.

Also, there should not be a comparison between Wyandotte County and some other communities in the study, because Wyandotte County has an antiquated system, with unlimited trash, all at the curb with no standardized containers, he said.

It is not correct to compare Wyandotte County to Olathe because collection in Olathe is automated with only one kind of cart allowed, he said.

Howe said that the study that came out Feb. 13 reflected there were less than 500 misses that had been received by the 311 system from October through December 2019.

Howe said there were more than 450,000 services provided to Wyandotte County in a month’s period, and that includes over 53,000 households that receive four trash collection and four recycling collection trips per month. He said the number of misses compared to 450,000 shows an accuracy rate of greater than 99 percent.

“Our goal is always zero misses, but it’s greater than 99 percent accuracy,” he said.

He said he wanted to reassure customers that it is not Waste Management’s intent to walk away from services today, and they will continue to service the waste. He said that Waste Management would work with Wyandotte County, if necessary, to make a smooth transition to another hauler.

“We encourage Wyandotte County to cure the defaults,” Howe said.

A larger solid waste picture

Wyandotte County is not the only community discussing solid waste collection.

Kansas City, Missouri, recently decided to take over trash collection itself. (See story at https://www.kcur.org/post/residents-complaints-pile-kansas-city-rethinking-trash-collection#stream/0)

The question, if Waste Management leaves Wyandotte County, is what would replace it?

Commissioner Kane doubted if Wyandotte County could handle trash collection in-house. It doesn’t have a landfill operating.

Currently going through the zoning process in Wyandotte County is a proposal to put a solid waste transfer station in the Fairfax industrial area of Kansas City, Kansas. The proposal has passed the Planning Commission, with one planning commissioner opposed. The transfer station would be a place where trash could be dropped off by trucks, and then hauled out by trucks to a landfill.

Melissa Clark, executive director of the Fairfax Industrial Association, which is opposed to the transfer station site, said today that she didn’t think the transfer station was related at all to the current situation with Waste Management.

The proposed solid waste transfer station, which would have a capacity of up to 1,000 tons a day, is on a site on 7th Street, and is close to Sunshine Biscuits and Manna Pro. The Quindaro Homes development area is to the south of the site.

The owner of the property is Allied Services LLC, and the applicant is Browning-Ferris Industries. Both are owned by Republic Services. Browning-Ferris is the same firm that proposed a landfill on the historic Quindaro Ruins in the 1980s, but community opposition defeated the project.

Clark said the current proposed solid waste transfer station is opposed by Kellogg and Manna Pro, and that a protest petition has been submitted. Only property owners within 200 feet were allowed to sign the petition, she added.

Although on Tuesday the transfer station site was still on the UG Commission agenda for Feb. 27, Clark said she had been told that the item will be delayed until March.

According to remarks made at the Planning Commission meeting, there was a special use permit for a transfer station on part of the property until 2006, and it has not been used in recent years for that purpose. The transfer station has not been in operation for over 20 years, according to agenda documents. Improvements were made to get the facility back up to today’s standards, according to the applicant. The waste that would be taken to the transfer station would then be hauled to a landfill in Sugar Creek, Missouri, according to the proposal.

Clark said one of the property owners nearby remembers the solid waste transfer in Fairfax in the 1970s and 1980s, and said it had trash everywhere, with a bad odor. However, the applicants at the Feb. 10 meeting said there would not be a lot of trash outside of the approved site, and downplayed any odor.

“A solid waste transfer station would not be good for a food manufacturing plant,” Clark said. She said she didn’t understand why there were not more votes against it on the Planning Commission.

It would be a detriment, property values would decrease and it would be more difficult to attract employees to other businesses in the area, she said. The original proposal said there could be more than 300 truck trips a day.

“Then they turn around and recommend approval,” she said. “It does not make a lot of sense.”

Clark appeared in opposition to the transfer station at the Feb. 10 Planning Commission meeting. According to the record, four other Fairfax firms or organizations also sent in messages to the meeting opposing the transfer station. The Fairfax Drainage District and the Board of Public Utilities, which has a nearby Quindaro Plant property, also are opposed to it, Clark said at the Feb. 10 meeting.

At the meeting, Clark said that a transfer station would be a setback to the Fairfax Industrial Area, which has been working hard to improve the image and esthetics of the area.

More chemicals coming into the sewer system from the transfer station would cause additional expense to the Fairfax Drainage District, according to the district’s general manager, who spoke at the Feb. 10 meeting.

Clark said she doubts that Kellogg would expand on the property they have that is available to be developed near their plant if a transfer station is approved nearby.

“It’s a shame to allow a small transfer station, a $5 million investment, to ruin the possibility of having hundreds of millions of investment,” Clark said.

A video of the City Planning Commission meeting Feb. 10, with the discussion of the solid waste transfer station at 1:53, is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6RDYD_T5vI.

Much more information about the UG’s viewpoint on trash collection is available online in the video of the UG’s 5 p.m. Feb. 13 meeting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z92k1PUf-cs.

Links to older stories are at https://wyandotteonline.com/trash-routes-to-change-starting-monday-for-more-than-14000-customers/
https://wyandotteonline.com/ug-looks-at-changing-trash-day-for-some-customers/
https://wyandotteonline.com/kck-residents-asked-to-call-311-about-any-problems-with-trash-service/