Pushback against municipal garbage continues

Municipal garbage was once again a hot topic for the Red Oak City Council.
The meeting opened with a message from Red Oak police officer Luke Mellott, who advised those in attendance that threats had been made towards some of the council members, and none would be tolerated at the meeting.
Joey Norris was first to speak, addressing the council on behalf of the Mayor’s Landfill Diversion Ad Hoc Committee. Norris that they are an informal group that has been meeting off and on for around a year, with the purpose to look at the methods for reducing the volume of things that go to the landfill.
“According to the Iowa DNR, approximately 70% of refuse in Iowa could have been diverted through recycling, composting, and reuse. We decided to focus our efforts on recycling specifically. After getting a feel for how landfill, transportation, and recycling systems, at least in our minds, work in our area, our original focus was to improve the taxpayer-funded recycling program that already exists in Red Oak,” Norris said. “However, once the curbside trash discussion came up, we decided to shift our focus to try and think about a curbside recycling program as well.”
Norris added under Iowa Code Chapter 455DE.21, a city council, which provides for the collection of solid waste by its residents, shall consider a proposed ordinance, the mandatory curbside collection of recycled materials which have been separated from other solid waste.
“I’ll leave the understanding of ordinances and what’s considered all up to you guys, but the committee’s suggestion is that the city seeks proposals for curbside recycling as well as trash. Randall Wilson, as a member of our committee, was nice enough to put together the information. It includes additional sections of Iowa Code prioritizing statewide waste reduction. I can only speak for myself, but I hope most would agree that after watching the trash mountain, that modernizing our recycling program might be appealing,” explained Norris. “I want to offer the council our committee as a resource. We have been collecting a lot of information from different communities in Iowa and the Midwest. Ultimately, the details of a curbside program will be up to you and then the haulers and their capabilities. However, we can provide rough estimates of what some of our peer communities have gone through.”
Debbie Johnson then addressed the council, stating that the proposal should not be approved.
“You as council members are here to represent us, the community. But you’re not listening to us. No is no. This should be good enough for you. Reasons for and against should not matter. Over half the residents that the current garbage proposal actually effect have said and even petitioned in writing they do not want this.
In any other voting or election process, this would be enough to build that proposal. But yet Ms. Kotter and the mayor are still pushing this. Madam Mayor and Ms. Kotter, I would ask you if you’re truly in the best interest of our community, why haven’t you proposed to the council to scrap this deal and come up with a different solution to a problem you feel exists? It’s really just another way to make the city make more money because the rental exception code adopted in 2015, 10 years later the fees have doubled and the reasons the city at that time proposed and approved this was due to problem properties. They still exist today. Another example is the apparent mismanaged city service, the current recycling containers, which you all know costs us $2.90 a month, which doesn’t add up to the $65,000 annually, which doesn’t seem like a very well negotiated contract,” Johnson commented.
Bo Harris addressed the council, stating that at a previous city council meeting the public was told Red Oak’s appearance was the number one issue on a recently completed comprehensive plan, only to later learn by one of the plan’s committee members that wasn’t true.
“It was the fifth issue of concern, yet the city is fixated on number five. We have been told there are 700 households that do not have regular scheduled garbage collection, but the city has not identified what these properties do with their trash. Some of the owners may have legitimate ways of disposing of the trash. However, the city would have us believe the owners stockpiled the garbage in plain sight on their property. Wouldn’t it be true for the city to ascertain which of these properties are in violation of the city’s code of ordinances and pursue remediation rather than pass a blanket mandatory collection ordinance that would deny citizens their freedom to choose how they recycle and who they want to haul their garbage. A majority of citizens have either through signed petitions, sent emails, and or attended a recent council meeting by city officials, stated they do not want mandatory garbage. The will of the people have been expressed. Yet the city keeps pursuing mandatory garbage collection as their cure for appearance problems. Eliminating a few bags of trash around town is not going to improve the city’s appearance,” advised Harris.
Harris added the city already had an ordinance on the books for that, and by code, the cost of enforcement was for the violator to pay.
“The cost of enforcement should be borne by the violator, not the taxpayer. The city has identified 600 nuisance violations, yet less than 10% have been identified, and less than 1%, one-tenth of 1% have court dates. Elected officials have taken oath of office to enforce the city’s code of ordinances. Ordinances that are not evenly enforced are useless. An elected official that fails to uphold the oath of office does not deserve to be re-elected next November,” explained Harris. “I would like to address the council from our side of this. Let’s not worry about the haulers or businesses or anything else. When you vote on this, you have to remember, not only are you affecting the 729 people that have already signed they do not like this or do not want this, but the rest of the people who have not signed it. You’re also going to destroy or possibly destroy 13 employees of two businesses and the businesses, and that’s their livelihood and their families. They’re all going to lose everything. So I’m asking you to keep this in mind, that please don’t blindly vote because somebody says that’s the way you should. You need to read all the facts.”
Council member Brian Bills spoke briefly on behalf of Mayor Shawnna Silvius and city administrator Lisa Kotter, stating both were acting on the municipal garbage proposal at the behest of the city council, and that complaints should be leveled at the council.
Lynette Bruce with Batten Sanitation addressed reported comments that they didn’t answer questions.
“I don’t know how you could say we didn’t answer any of your questions. This is blatantly not true. Yes, we took two hours for what we thought was a good meeting, a discussion. We don’t have answers to some things that are not clear. We gave out some answers that weren’t set in stone because of this, some because Kevin Carlisle and I need to have more discussion. And it’s not true that we are not cooperating. It seems you already have your minds made up, telling people we are being difficult. We offered to try and help clean up town, but that doesn’t seem to work either. We were just trying to come up with some ideas,” Bruce stated.
Kevin Carlisle with Town and Country Sanitation said he wanted to have conversations about the proposal directly with council members.
“When I have stood here and asked to meet with you people, the ones that vote, it’s not because I don’t want to meet with them. This is a subject that’s obviously big, and I want you to hear what I have to say. Not secondhand. I don’t think that was too much to ask. I sat in your position in Griswold. When I sat at that council, if I had 10 people come in to a meeting like this, I would really question, why are we doing this? I’m not saying we’re against it. We never said that, never said it once. I would like to talk to you personally to get your feelings, not second or third hand, but right from the horse’s mouth. I’ve emailed every one of you.  Two of you responded. Adam Hietbrink and Tim Fridolph, so anytime any of you want to visit, my door’s open, phone’s always on, email’s always on,” Carlisle said.
Debbie Seifert then addressed the council saying she was opposed to the city saying they had to agree to mandatory garbage collection, and it already seemed set in stone.
“Rumor has it, that you’ve already signed a contract for somebody that can do our trash for $16 a month. If that’s the case, you get what you pay for. If you’re going to pay for somebody cheap, you’re going to get cheap. Kevin and Lynette have been doing this for decades. If you want to do the billing for it, fine. But why do you have to put them out of business to do it?  You want these guys to lower their rates and everything, and hurt themselves and their businesses for this thing. I don’t believe any of you, because you’re going to do what you’re going to do, because you’ve got your own agenda, and I sure as heck hope you’re all voted out of office,” advised Seifert.
The council addressed Seifert’s comment that a deal had been reached, saying no contracts had been signed.
Ronald King, also addressed the council, saying he didn’t believe the government had any business telling him what to do.
“I’m capable of making my own decisions, and doing what I need to do. I went out and campaigned against you folks. I went out and I talked to probably over 100 different people. I asked them if they knew about the trash. There’s probably 10% of them who didn’t even know anything about that. Some said they said they knew, but it didn’t make any difference if you were going to shove it down their throats. But you know what I did find out? Of all those people I talked to, every one of them wanted to keep their garbage person they had, and they wanted to do it just as they are doing. They didn’t realize that you’re going to split this in half, and maybe they were going to lose their garbage person they had,” King said.
Councilperson Sharon Bradley then addressed the crowd following the public comment. Bradley said she’d been hearing a lot of opposition to the proposed garbage pickup policy.
“I have been on the Comprehensive Plan Committee for two years. Two of the things that we’re very, we really want to work on is the citywide cleanup, and also it was for mandatory garbage pickup. My feeling from all of you and the people that I have heard from, which I feel very responsible for, are opposed to it. When I came back to the city, I saw a real need for the citywide cleanup. I was in property management for 30 years. Not residential, but medical property management. I came back and I thought, this city really needs to be cleaned up,” commented Bradley. “But the right way to do it isn’t to be negative. So as citizens, we have to take the responsibility to clean up our city without throwing darts at the government or city council people or whatever. I would propose that we don’t do the garbage. I think we should do a citywide cleanup three or four times a year, which would add to your water bill, maybe three or four dollars. I think we can clean the city up if we go that direction. We haven’t made a decision to do this at all. And I propose to the council that we go to the citywide cleanup instead of the mandatory garbage cleanup.”
Mayor Shawnna Silvius said she wanted everybody to remember the whole purpose behind why the city was doing this is to clean things up and to help people find pride back in all neighborhoods of town.
As we are promoting our community and trying to attract people to not only visit here, but to live here, that they have a beautiful place to come to. So that was the whole idea here, cleaning the properties up. And the challenge that we have with our nuisance code is it does in fact cost taxpayers a lot of money for each of the things that we’re doing. From our attorney’s perspective, the process that we have to follow, it does cost a significant amount of money. It also causes issues on the streets. So those were challenges that were part of why this even came forward,” explained Silvius.
Tim Fridolph said that he has been, from the beginning, willing to look at every avenue.
“I wanted to explore all options, including a curbside pickup. And there’s nothing wrong with that. We should be able to look into all different avenues to make the best decision that we can if there’s any decision to be made. But the attacks, the name calling, the mudslinging, it’s appalling because nobody’s ever actually asked me what I thought. I’ve just been grouped in with what everyone seems to think the city is going to do when in fact we haven’t done anything except try to get information,” said Fridolph.
Fridolph added he has never been against working with the local haulers to make an initiative like this possible.
“We have ordinances on the books that regulate sound. We have ordinances on the book that tell you when you can and cannot set off fireworks. We’ve got ordinances all over the place of regulating daily life within a municipality. It is not unreasonable to look at one that says we think all of our residents should have to have their garbage removed on a weekly basis. That’s not unreasonable. I’ve tried to look at it very objectively from both sides. From those that do support it and they are out there, they’re not as vocal and they choose not to be because they’ve seen how people are treated when they are. So that goes back to my call for civility in all of this. Why can’t we just be civil to each other? I’m a business person. I am a volunteer. I am a consumer of goods and services within this city,” advised Fridolph. “If I misinterpreted something in your email, Kevin, that was inviting me to the table somewhere, I apologize, because I’d have been more than happy to do so if the invitation was given. I responded to every inquiry that I’ve gotten about this in a respectful manner because that’s how I choose to present myself. I’m not opposed to what Sharon is saying at all. And again, I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have some type of weekly pickup. I think it’s a good thing because that’s being a responsible neighbor. Why should my negative way of life negatively be to the detriment of my neighbor? I don’t agree with that. And that’s part of what ordinances are for, to help us mitigate those things. But again, no decision has been made. And people are being physically threatened. It is not okay. This is not okay, and it’s an embarrassment to the community.”
No further action was taken.