THE TOTERS ARE COMING! THE TOTERS ARE COMING! (PART 3)

It was a short agenda but a long Council meeting on January 27^th.

There was a lot of discussion, which took place moments before a bare Council majority approved a new 5 year "automated" garbage collection contract.

Council President Cathy Murphy encouraged every Council member to speak on the record about the contract.

Every member did---except Councilman Leo Lombardo, who kept mum before casting his “yes” vote.

Below are excerpts from the discussion:

MAYOR SCOTT COLEMAN

"Two and a half years ago we looked into the program and had a lively discussion.

Since then I’ve heard from people who were disappointed that we didn’t do it.

In the past several weeks I’ve talked to several residents…last weekend I talked to over a dozen residents---no one had objections.

I am confident we are going with a great vendor."

THE “YES” VOTES:
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

COUNCIL PRESIDENT CATHY MURPHY:

"I think the automated cart (collection) system…is a reality.
It is standard in the industry.
It’s here to stay, it’s inevitable, and it’s coming to Highland Heights.
Are we going to be proactive or wait and be reactive when we have no other options?"

Murphy gave five specific reasons for supporting the contract:

"We aren’t paying for the carts…
For households that want to put out 1 bag of garbage, they don’t have to use the carts at all…

If after 60 days it (the monster 96 gallon toter) isn’t working, residents can swap it out for a smaller one (an oversized 64 gallon toter)…

(Garbage collection) service is unlimited but it has to be additional to the carts….

Recycling saves taxpayer money because of what’s not going into a landfill."

Murphy ended her remarks:

"I know there are people on both sides of the issue.
I want my fellow colleagues to know that I will still respect them.
We will roll out education plans. There are plenty of opportunities for educating the public."

COUNCILMAN CHUCK BRUNELLO

"Two and a half years ago I was in favor of it (the new garbage contract) then.
I’m in favor of it now.
I’m in favor of it because I’m tired of my little blue (recycling) bin being filled up in 2 days.

I didn’t hear any negative feedback about the (monster garbage) carts.

The sizes of our homes aren’t changing. I don’t know what happens 5 years from now when have to have them (the monster carts)."

COUNCILMAN BOB MASTRANGELO

"Over my lifetime we’ve become a throw away society….everything’s going into the garbage can.
It is our obligation as individuals and the city to make the land better than the way we got it, for future generations.

There are cost savings with this contract. We don’t have to wait 5 years to see the fruits of that.

It’s inevitable whether people like it or not.

I will be much more comfortable talking to residents and explaining it (the new contract) rather than having a discussion 4-5 years from now about why have to pay for carts.

We represent the people but we are trying to be good stewards of money for the city."

THE “NO” VOTESS:
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS

COUNCILWOMAN LISA STICKAN

"There is a desire in the city to look for an increase in recycling and to reduce costs. Everyone shares that.

I do believe there is truth in saying that (garbage) toters are the way of future.

I wish we had explored it a little bit more before passing it (the new garbage contract) tonight.

We are under a (garbage) contract now. We are not like South Euclid where their garbage contract was up. We are under a contract that people like.

We are going to educate residents, but it’s easier to do it a little bit before (taking action).

I feel that since the first reading was in January, it was a quick period of time. That’s what my hesitation is.

Since we are currently under a contract with 2 years remaining, we could continue this discussion." 

COUNCILWOMAN ANN D’AMICO

"I tend to be financially conservative.

It is hard to weigh savings for the city against an amenity that’s important to a large portion of our population, our senior population.

I am Council’s representative to the Council on Aging. They are totally unsupportive of the (monster garbage) toters.

I can’t vote right now to take an amenity away as it currently stands.

I don’t agree we necessarily will have to pay a fortune for carts down the road.

Lyndhurst has their own service, which is why they bought the (garbage) carts (for their residents).

At this point in time I am not comfortable voting for the new contract.
There is no clear plan in place to assist seniors in June when it (the new contract) starts."

COUNCILMAN ED HARGATE

"I agree with what Councilwoman Lisa Stickan said.
I’m glad to hear that Lyndhurst spent time with their residents discussing this issue (before switching to automated garbage collection).

(For us) To handle it through special meetings---that’s simply not the way to go."

RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS

Five residents spoke during the public portion of the Council meeting.

Judy Dearden of the Highland Heights Green Task Force made a repeat appearance, having spoken two weeks earlier when Council heard the first reading of the new garbage contract legislation.

Not surprisingly Dearden focused on the non-controversial aspect of the garbage contract: recycling.

What was a bit surprising, at least to my ears, was her use of  the words "we" and “we’ve”:

“The reality is that we’ve talked about economics of it (the new contract) but I haven’t heard hardly anything about the environmental aspect of it.

The recycling cart will take glass, metal and paper. 
We have no business sending these to a landfill.

We’ve addressed the issue with seniors and I believe we’ve made accommodations with the proposal.”

Resident Pam Hicks wanted to know whether she would be able to put her yard clippings out with the trash.

Service Director Thom Evans told her:

"The (new trash) program is designed as unlimited.
Once the (monster trash) toter is filled you can put other trash out as needed.
There is no requirement in Cuyahoga County to recycle yard clippings. It goes out as solid waste."

Representatives from two different Aberdeen homeowner associations questioned whether Aberdeen garages were spacious enough to store large trash carts.
They also pointed out that Aberdeen residents were subject to binding covenants and restrictions, which  limited their ability to store trash receptacles outside.

Norm Blum told Council:

"I am cognizant of cost savings that the city may have, but not everything can be measured in dollars.

I recommend Council consider the following:
A majority of (Aberdeen) garages are not spacious enough to accommodate 2 toters.

This will place undue hardship on the elderly.

As for driving, they (the toters) make for a driving obstacle course.

I advise Council to give additional consideration."

Bob Poelking commented:

“This is happening to me a little bit suddenly.

My biggest concern has been the ability to store the trash bins in garages.

For all the reasons stated we know we don’t want them sitting wherever.

That big black thing (the monster 96 gallon trash toter) I can’t figure out how to get it in my garage even for 60 days. “

Former Mayor Tom Hughes, a frequent Council meeting commenter,  took issue with more than just the size of the monster garbage toters.
He also objected to the legislative rush and the lack of transparency regarding the contract’s financial aspects:

"I am disturbed to see the reading tonight is the 3^rd reading, 15 days after the first reading for a contract that’s going to last 5 years.
I’m at a loss to know what kind of money we’re talking about because the agenda doesn’t have anything in there...

Apparently the (new garbage) contract is a done deal because there was no reason to have special meeting otherwise.

A 5 year contract involving thousands of dollars and no one has a chance to speak about it.

I don’t know what the emergency is....

This is not a one–size-fits-all situation.
You have people who don’t generate that much rubbish...

In Lyndhurst containers were all over the place…in the street, in side yards, in front yards....

You talk about saving money. Unless you give it back and lower our taxes it’s not saving me any money....

What I’m trying to say is that I think this matter needs to be removed (from the agenda). It needs to be studied...

There are 3 (Council members) who have not signed on to approve this legislation, Let’s get some public hearings....

Let me see why we need a 5 year contract, what it’s going to cost.
60 months is a long time---longer than any of you are elected for.

I haven’t read one thing in the newsletter about this.”

CHANGING THE SUBJECT:
SOME WINTER CHEER.... 

A wonderful Radford Drive snowman

The snow may be deep but oh, the sky was so blue!