Dublin stink aired at Pulaski council



The Dublin odor that stirred up a stink at Pulaski County Board of Supervisors in November has drifted over to Pulaski Town Council.

E.W. Harless, who raised the issue at the supervisors meeting, aired his concerns to Pulaski Town Council last week after being urged to do so by Massie District Supervisor Andy McCready. Harless owns rental properties on Cook’s Lane, where the odor tends to settle.

“I’ve sort of been kicked around a little bit. I thought it was the town’s problem, then I thought it was the county’s problem, then the county kicked back that it’s the town’s problem, so now I’m on the other side of the creek tonight,” said Harless. He was referring to a comment McCready made in November, suggesting Harless should take the problem to “the other side of the creek” or Pulaski Municipal Building.

McCready also addressed council concerning a letter Pulaski Mayor Jeff Worrell sent to Supervisors Chairman Joe Sheffey Nov. 29 in response to comments made at the supervisors’ meeting.

Saying he was speaking for himself and only for himself, McCready first “complemented” town staff for having “burn up Wurno Road,” since the supervisors meeting working late and hard “finally placing some emphasis on addressing the sulfate problems.”

McCready told council his main concern is Worrell’s letter. He said the mayor “felt necessary to respond to a couple of quotations made by board members. Let’s just correct that and make it board member and me.”

He said he has “a particular concern” over ownership of the sewer line.

“I feel like we can probably look back over 25 years and see exactly what the contract says and we’ll figure out what the ownership is,” he said.

McCready made particular reference to the statement in Worrell’s letter, “Once the County/PSA paid for a portion of the line, it has been the Town’s intention and understanding that there is joint responsibility and ownership … .”

Noting that it has been 25 years since the line was built, McCready asked three questions:

•“About how long was the town going to take to reveal this?”

•”Is the fact the county, in the past, decided to offer financial assistance to a town project going to be used against the county in the future?” and

•“Do we, the county, need to keep that in mind?”

McCready charged that there were errors in Worrell’s letter and that he had other “technical points” he wasn’t going to go over. However, he added, “I hope that a telephone call would go a lot further than a memo. I’m always available. I’ll be happy to speak with any of you, anytime – the number’s in the book.”

He went on to add, “I know, together, that we’re going to make Pulaski town and county successful. I know we have good projects on the board now and we’re going to be successful.”

However, he said it’s important the two jurisdictions work together, “not by finding blame, not by writing memos, but by getting our hands dirty and getting to work.”

He concluded that he wants to continue working with the council and mayor.

Before McCready’s comments, Harless said he realized nothing could be done that night to correct the problem, but “I’m hoping everyone can work together to get the problem solved.”

“So far I haven’t lost anything,” Harless said, referring to the fact tenants who are threatening to move haven’t left yet. “Now, I’m going to be up here with a different temper if I do and I’m going to expect someone to reimburse me. That’s why I want to know who owns this … who is the daddy of this thing?”

Worrell said Tuesday he wasn’t going to continue to debate whose fault the odor is. “There are 35,000 citizens in the county and 9,000 of them live in the town, so it’s a problem for all of us,” he said. “I will tell you we have been, and we will continue, to work with the county to solve the problem.”



You must be logged in to post a comment Login