Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2015-007

March 26, 2015
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2015- 7
Joseph O’Sullivan
Branine, Chalfant & Hill, LLC
1 North Main St., Suite 418
P.O. Box 2027
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2027
Re: 	Public Health‒Solid and Hazardous Waste‒Cities or Counties Authorized
to 	Provide 	for 	Collection 	and 	Disposal 	of 	Solid 	Wastes 	or 	Contract
Therefor; Fees
Synopsis: 	The portion of a county administrator’s salary directly related to the
negotiation of contracts for services necessary to implement the county’s
solid waste management plan may be paid out of revenues received from
fees collected pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a). Fees collected
pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) may only be expended for
purposes that directly relate to purposes specified in that statute, and not
for purposes that are merely incidental to those primary purposes. Cited
herein: K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410; K.S.A. 75-704; K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-
3410.
* 	* 	*
Dear Mr. O’Sullivan:
As Reno County Counselor, you ask our opinion whether a portion of a county
administrator’s salary and deferred compensation may be charged to or reimbursed
from the county’s solid waste fund.
In your letter, you state that Reno County has adopted and implemented a solid waste
management plan (“the plan”) pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410. You further state
that the county administrator typically does not oversee daily landfill operations, but is

Joseph O’Sullivan
Page 2
directly involved in the negotiation of contracts for services necessary to the plan,
including contracts for engineering and construction of solid waste disposal cells;
contracts for monitoring and remediation of environmental contamination, and contracts
for landfill gas collection systems and gas disposal. You also provide for our reference a
copy of Reno County Resolution 2012-39, which establishes the office of county
administrator and generally describes the duties of that position.
K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) specifies the purposes for which fees collected under a
county’s solid waste management plan may be used:
[S]uch 	fees 	[may] 	be 	used: 	To 	implement 	an 	approved 	solid 	waste
management plan, to conduct operations necessary to administer the plan
and to carry out its purposes and provisions; or for the acquisition,
operation and maintenance of county waste disposal sites; or for financing
waste collection, storage, processing, reclamation, disposal services and
recycling programs, where such services are provided. 1
We note that you asked a similar question in 2007 concerning whether solid waste fees
could be used to pay for maintenance of a county road connecting the Reno County
Landfill to a county primary arterial road. At that time, K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-3410(a) did
not include the italicized language above, which was added to the statute in 2009. 2 In
Attorney General Opinion No. 2007-18, Attorney General Paul Morrison concluded:
[K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 65-3410(a)] allows for the revenue to be expended for
purposes that directly relate to statutorily specified purposes and not for
purposes that are merely incidental to those primary purposes. Thus, in
our opinion, maintenance of a county road that services adjacent business
and individual property owners, as well as landfill related traffic, is not
sufficiently related to the statutory purposes specified by K.S.A. 2006
Supp. 65-3410 to warrant use of revenue derived from fees imposed
pursuant to that statute.
In other words, maintenance of that road was not sufficiently related to “the acquisition,
operation and maintenance of county waste disposal sites; or for financing waste
collection, storage, processing, reclamation, disposal services and recycling programs,”
which at the time were the only statutorily permissible uses for solid waste fees at the
time.
However, the 2009 amendments to the statute broadened the permissible uses for solid
waste fees. Fees collected pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) may also be used
“[t]o implement an approved solid waste management plan, to conduct operations
necessary to administer the plan and to carry out its purposes and provisions.” Based
upon the description of the county administrator’s contract negotiation duties that you
provide, we opine that such duties as described are directly related to the statutorily
1 Emphasis added.
2 L. 2009, Ch. 117, § 1.

Joseph O’Sullivan
Page 3
specified uses of solid waste fees because the services contracted for are necessary to
implement and carry out the purposes of the plan. We therefore opine that a county may
use fees collected pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) to pay for the portion of a
county 	administrator’s 	salary 	and 	benefits 	directly 	attributable 	to 	such 	contract
negotiation duties.
With respect to the county administrator’s general administrative duties described in
Reno County Resolution 2012-39, we do not have enough information to determine
whether such duties are sufficiently related to the statutory purposes specified by K.S.A.
2014 	Supp. 	65-3410(a). 	Whether 	a 	county 	administrator’s 	general 	administrative
oversight of county operations is directly related to the purposes specified in K.S.A.
2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) is a question of fact. We therefore decline to provide an opinion
on that issue. 3
However, we reaffirm the general conclusion from Attorney General Opinion No. 2007-
18, namely, that revenues collected pursuant to K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 65-3410(a) may only
be expended for purposes that directly relate to purposes specified in that statute, and
not for purposes that are merely incidental to those primary purposes.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Sarah Fertig
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:SF:sb
3 The Attorney General provides opinions on questions of law, not questions of fact. K.S.A. 75-704.