08-14-72 Council Special Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) AUGUST 14, 1972 that since he did not have a copy of the ordinance which was read tonight, he was not clear on some of the provisions. He said he is as interested as anyone in keeping the City of South Bend clean. He said sometimes financial circumstances keep people from hiring trash haulers and he said he was opposed to adding the trash bill to the water bills. City Attorney Charles A. Sweeney, Jr. said that it was his recollection that the Council had already held the public portion:of'the public hearing on two of the refuse ordinances and had then tabled them for the Council portion. Councilman Miller said that this was true but that the Council was now going to open all three ordinances for public hearing. Mr. Cohen continued that he would oppose using Street Department equipment and personnel for any part of the refuse removal program as they must be used full time on the street programs. He said certain areas, like the Ohio - Keasey area, have a much greater problem than others and the answer to the problem is enforcement of the law not passing new ordinances. He said three mayors have tried to find solutions to the trash prob- lem. He said senior citizens who have very little trash would not be treated fairly by these ordinances and that the Council is discriminating against men who have an investment in a packer truck. Mrs. Frederick Mutzl, 320 Parkovash, a member of the Fair Tax Association, said that of the three ordinances presented, she likes the last one presented the best. She said two things are not clear, one the cost to the homeowner and the income for the hauler. Councilman Parent said that the maximum rate would be set by the Council and the hauler's income would depend upon the number of routes he had. Mrs. Mutzl said that the ordinance would be difficult to enforce. She said there is an ordinance against high weeds now but there are many areas where the weed problem is ignored. Mr. Kenneth Buhle, representing Teamsters Local #364, said that there has already been considerable debate on the ordinances, but he would like to express his opposition to the two ordinances presented earlier and to the one which had second reading tonight. He said there is no indication that the problems in South Bend are caused by the method of pick -up. He urged the Council to defeat all three ordinances. Mr. John J. Roper, Attorney, spoke against all three ordinances. He based his opposition on the effect the ordinances would have on the pri- vate trash.hauler - the one -man, one -truck concept. This man earns all his living from this one li truck and fears being completely eliminated from an opportunity to make his living. This man cannot compete with a large firm which will bid for routes and have performance bonding power and which can use sophisticated advertising brochures and a public relations program to get his customers. He said the city would find it much easier to bid to one firm rather than to 30 or 40 individuals. He said the small, independent hauler is one of a group of vanishing Americans, like the small farmer and the independent grocer. He said the question is "Do the ends -- collecting trash, improving sanitation, etc. - justify the means ?" He asked that the Council guarantee this one man with one truck a future. Without him, without his values and spirit, the city will be much sadder and a lot less wiser. Mr. George Herendeen, Attorney for the Independent Trash Haulers, spoke in opposition to all three ordinances. He said there is no indication that the homeowners are disenchanted with the service being rendered by the independent haulers. He said when this is the case, the homeowner can "can us ". He said the independent haulers are solicited daily by householders to perform this service. A homeowner might not want to face up to the obligation of keeping his property clean but the Council could resolve this problem by removing the trash of people who will not do it themselves. He said the city should be given the power to do what the people won't do. He said when a situation exists, such as a speedway on a city street, it is remedied by complaints. Enforcement of the law provides the remedy. He said that Councilman Parent had been wise to recommend that the Council pass the penalty section of one of the ordinances. He also said that city equipment and city workers are not being used to full capacity in the Sanitation Department. Some of the city workers work for independent haulers later in the day, rather than being occupied a full day by the Sanitation Department. He said representatives of the independent haulers are willing to participate with the city administration and a committee of the Council or with any one else to ultimately get a comprehensive plan. Mr. Herendeen said that he would recommend favorably Councilman Parent's proposal to adopt the penalty clause and asked that the Council vote no on.any and all other sections of the three ordinances. Miss Virginia Guthrie, Executive Secretary of the Civic Planning Association, said that she had noted that the City Engineer had said that it would not be possible to put any of these plans into effect next year. She said that the ordinances call for an effective date of January 1st and asked where these items are in the 1973 budget and how the city would collect the funds. She said that there will be an automatic increase in sewage rates next January 1st and asked if this plan would increase the water rates even more. Councilman Parent said that the statement that Mr. Richardson had said the plan could not be implemented next year was Mr. Parent's mis- interpretation of the remarks. Mrs. Lee Swan, 2022 Swygart Street, said that she has mixed emotions about the trash plans. She said that, in her attempts to get an independent hauler to pick up her trash, she found that it was impossible to get one over a period of several months. She said that she received promises and apologies but no service. She said that in December, 1970, the County passed an Air Pollu- tion Ordinance and there has not been one case of enforcement. She asked what powers of enforce- ment the ordinances provide. Councilman Nemeth said that basically where trash and garbage accumulates, the property owner would receive a notice to clean it up and so many days to do it. If they failed to do it, the city uo uld go out and clean it up and bill the property owner on their water bill. Mrs. Swan objected to placing the billing on the water bills and Councilman Nemeth asked her if she had any alternative suggestions. She said that she did not but that Mishawaka has added it to the property assessment. Mrs. Ann Wlodarski, of the Fair Tax Association, asked "If the proposal passes, can we strike the entire budget item for the Sanitation Department ?" Councilman Newburn said that, in time, that is the expectation. Mrs. Wlodarski said that it would appear the city would need quite a billing staff to implement the program. Mrs. Conchita Washington, 749 S. Sheridan Street, said that she was not speaking as a representa- tive of any group. She said that there is no way any of the ordinances can be implemented with- out denying some person's rights to make a living. If a home owner or dweller is not keeping his residence clean, then the law is not being enforced. She said that, after talking with a Councilman, a weed situation which had existed for many years was finally being taken care of. She said weeds contribute to the throwing of debris and provide areas for crimes to occur. She said she does not see why it takes four ordinances to amend one issue. She said that the Mayor campaigned on the right of free enterprise and keeping the trash haulers independent and evidently these were just campaign promises. She said the ordinances would take tax - paying citizens off the tax rolls and put them on the welfare rolls.