Highland Heights had 4 bidders and lots of options to think
about when considering the city’s new garbage collection contract.
Toters? Yes or No?
For Garbage or For Recycling Too?
Three years ago, only two garbage companies submitted bids
in response to Highland Heights’ and Mayfield Village’s joint garbage contract
solicitation.
This time around there were four bidders, a turn of events
that delighted Highland Heights Service
Director Thom Evans.
But the lead story, according to Evans, was even better:
“We’re going to save a lot, a lot of money. We should save in the 1st year $150,000 by opting out of the city’s current contract, and save $250,000 in the second year.”
That’s great news, especially given that the city’s last
garbage contract came with a huge cost increase.
One wrinkle in the financial picture is the new contract’s fuel surcharge provision, which allows the winning company (Kimble, the city’s current contractor, formerly known as J&J) to add .5% to its monthly bill for each 10 cents that the cost of diesel fuel exceeds an agreed-upon base figure, which was set in early January. That provision works both ways. The city could get a reduced bill in the very unlikely event that the cost of diesel dips below the base figure.
One wrinkle in the financial picture is the new contract’s fuel surcharge provision, which allows the winning company (Kimble, the city’s current contractor, formerly known as J&J) to add .5% to its monthly bill for each 10 cents that the cost of diesel fuel exceeds an agreed-upon base figure, which was set in early January. That provision works both ways. The city could get a reduced bill in the very unlikely event that the cost of diesel dips below the base figure.
Accepting Kimble’s bid was a no-brainer.
What stumped Council was deciding between contract options. The city can keep its current system (resident-owned garbage cans and recycling bins), switch to Kimble-provided 96 gallon “toter carts” for garbage, or use Kimble-provided toters for both garbage (96 gallon) and recycling (64 gallon).
The advantage of the recycling toters is ease of use: residents will be able to throw all of their recyclables---whether paper, plastic, cans and bottles---into the toter. Under the city’s current system, residents have to separate paper from other recyclables.
What stumped Council was deciding between contract options. The city can keep its current system (resident-owned garbage cans and recycling bins), switch to Kimble-provided 96 gallon “toter carts” for garbage, or use Kimble-provided toters for both garbage (96 gallon) and recycling (64 gallon).
The advantage of the recycling toters is ease of use: residents will be able to throw all of their recyclables---whether paper, plastic, cans and bottles---into the toter. Under the city’s current system, residents have to separate paper from other recyclables.
While generally liking the idea, Council President Cathy Murphy questioned whether switching to
Kimble-supplied toters for both garbage and recycling would be too abrupt a
change for residents. She also was concerned that some residents might feel
overwhelmed trying to find space in their garages for the toters.
Councilman Ed Hargate
clearly signaled his views on the matter. He declared that, even if Kimble gave
him a toter cart for his garbage:
“I won’t use it ...I’d use bags.”
That would be no problem, according to Evans. Toters would
be offered to residents, but they wouldn’t have to use them.
For his part Mayor
Scott Coleman favored going totally toter:
“If we’re going to recycle and do recycling, a toter cart is the best option. It is most convenient, it will encourage recycling, and it will allow for more types of recycling.
Councilman Bob Mastrangelo agreed:
“If you are looking at the long term….sooner or later (landfill) costs will go up. Why wait 3 years (to add recycling toters). I’d probably have trouble getting it in my garage, but I’ll find room.”
An ordinance awarding
Kimble a $2,751,446.64,
five-year contract is listed on the agenda for a first reading on February 14th
.
What’s Up With High
School Tennis?
Last spring a group of Mayfield School supporters announced
ambitious plans to raise $3 million to renovate Mayfield High School’s football
field and outdoor athletic facilities.
In a recent presentation, the architect for the “Wildcat
Park” project told the Mayfield Village Planning & Zoning Commission:
“(The high school) Tennis courts are being removed and will not be replaced…All of the teams play at Highland Heights now.”
Say what?
Although my youngest kid (a varsity tennis player) had an
occasional JV practice or meet in the Community Park, her varsity practices and
matches were always held on her home courts, i.e., the lighted tennis courts
behind Mayfield High School.
Interestingly, there has been absolutely no public discussion
between “Wildcat Park” representatives and Highland Heights Council regarding
the architect’s plan to remove those tennis courts and move the Mayfield High
School tennis program to the Highland Heights’ Community Park. (That plan certainly reveals what a low
priority tennis holds for “Wildcat Park” supporters, doesn’t it?)
While it’s nice to be neighborly, such an arrangement would clearly require some serious discussion and negotiation. There’s a lot of questions that would need to be answered, such as:
- Who would pay for tennis court upkeep and improvements?
- Will Highland Heights residents be denied access to the tennis courts during the high school fall and spring tennis seasons?
- And will Highland Heights residents be expected to pick up the tab for both security and liability coverage during school-related tennis activities at the Community Park?
It’s pretty mind-boggling that the architect would present a
plan for “Wildcat Park” that hinges on using
Highland Heights’ recreational facilities when the
possibility of doing that hasn’t even been discussed with Highland Heights
Council.
At a Sunday budget meeting, Mayor Coleman said that the architect
misspoke, but he also added,
“The (high school) courts will be down, but that is not their long-term plan (to use Highland Heights’ tennis courts).”
Despite the mayor’s reassurance, the reality is that no
tennis courts appear in the “Wildcat Park” plans approved by Mayfield Village
last week.
Fortunately there should be plenty of time to figure this
all out. According to several recent stories, the first phase of the Wildcat
Park project alone will cost $3.5 million, but only $300,000 in cash and
$100,000 pledges has been raised so far to pay for that work.
Tidbit from Last
Week’s Groundhog Day Celebration:
The mayors and Mayfield School representatives get together
once a year on Groundhog Day. I found
this tidbit from their most recent gathering quite interesting. As reported in Patch, retiring Mayfield
School Superintendent Phil Price,
“… asked (the) mayors what they would like to do if money was no object.
(Mayfield Heights Mayor) Costabile had two wishes, one was to address all storm water management issues and the other was to develop a place along Mayfield Road that could provide recreation for people of all ages and serve as a downtown.
That answer was echoed by (Gates Mills Mayor) Riley and (Highland Heights Mayor) Coleman.
Riley said the Gates Mills community center is starting to show its age, while Coleman said a downtown area would be nice in Highland Heights. But Coleman also wished for higher ground so there would be no more storm water issues.”
Osborne/Get-Go:
More Hurry Up And Wait
On January24th, developer
Lance Osborne told Council that he hoped to have a draft development
agreement for his proposed mega “Get-Go”
project in hand within the next few days or by Monday January 30th
at the latest.
Hearing that, Council agreed to put Osborne on the agenda for its February 7th Committee of the Whole meeting.
Council President Cathy Murphy also made clear, however, that in addition to the development agreement,
Hearing that, Council agreed to put Osborne on the agenda for its February 7th Committee of the Whole meeting.
Council President Cathy Murphy also made clear, however, that in addition to the development agreement,
“What we want to discuss on February 7 is the ballot language (for a “Get-Go” related zoning issue). You have asked for our support. We’ve discussed with you that we want a component (of the zoning issue) to be independent approval by Ward 4. We have asked the law director to come up with some language…on how that might be accomplished. And we will discuss that as well…It is very critical, crucial and important to us that Ward 4 have independent voice on it.
The hope is that there can be some accord that is reached as far as that is concerned…If we have that and a development agreement, Council will look with favor on providing you with assistance on the ballot issue.”
When February 7th rolled around, Osborne---and
his proposed development agreement---were no-shows. Murphy reported that
Osborne told her that he wasn’t ready to continue the discussion.
Council went forward with its planned discussion of possible
zoning issues anyway.
Law Director Tim Paluf’ recommended putting an issue on the ballot that would rezone the front portion of the Catalano’s property from Local Business to Motor Service.
That approach would be most consistent and compatible with the city’s current zoning code and would require both city-wide and Ward 4 approval.
Law Director Tim Paluf’ recommended putting an issue on the ballot that would rezone the front portion of the Catalano’s property from Local Business to Motor Service.
That approach would be most consistent and compatible with the city’s current zoning code and would require both city-wide and Ward 4 approval.
Councilman Bob
Mastrangelo----an outspoken supporter of both Osborne and his proposed mega
Get-Go development plan---declared,
“I am dead set against a lot split. …There will be variances and set back issues. It will open a whole can of worm. We are kidding ourselves to think that Giant Eagle will agree. They are not just going to let anything like that happen. We are kidding ourselves if we think they (Giant Eagle) will agree to a lot split to let Ward 4 vote… Looking at it from their point of view, they can be held hostage..”
Murphy didn’t buy Mastrangelo’s concerns about the need for
variances.
“That would be understood, and we could put that into the development agreement.”
To be continued….
Frack Gas Wells
Coming To Highland Heights Park?
The agenda for the February 14th Council meeting
contains this item:
Proposed Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a lease with Bass Energy Incorporated for the installation of two (2) gas wells in the Municipal Park in order to resolve a pending lawsuit. (Mayor Coleman and Council as a Whole)
That’s a Valentine’s Day gift for Bass Energy, the drilling
company that sued the city several years ago.
That agenda item is very bad news for the 3,607 Highland Heights residents who voted in 2008 to keep gas wells out of the Community Park.
