Some Greenfield residents, council members oppose adding trash collection to water bills

Members of the Greenfield Council will continue to investigate the benefits and possible savings that could result from adding trash collection onto sewer bills. Some residents of Greenfield have expressed that they do not want it added to their bills, and feel that they will end up paying more in the end. 

Greenfield Council President Betty Jackman reported to council on July 5 that the ordinance committee had met last week to discuss the possible addition, and heard from approximately 30 residents on the matter. 

Jackman said that the residents had collected 250 signatures on a petition asking council to not move forward with the action. They asked how many signatures they would need for council to stop consideration of adding the trash collection to the water bills. 

Greenfield City Manager Betty Bishop said that she told them approximately 1,200 signatures would be needed because she estimated that would be half of the voters in Greenfield. 

Jackman said she told the group that the committee would meet again in August, so that she and committee member Brenda Losey would have time to gather more information on the issue. 

Council member Harvey Everhart, during the council meeting, said that he challenged the ordinance committee to come up with 1,200 signatures of Greenfield residents who actually want the collection added to their water bills. 

Losey asked why they should do that. 

"Do we need 1,200 signatures every time we pass an ordinance as a council?" Losey asked.

"So how many signatures will it take for you to not go forward?" Everhart asked. "You're going to continue if you don't have 1,200 signatures? Of all the calls I've had and people who've talked to me, I can only count on both hands the people who want it. How do you know you have 1,200 who would be for it?"

Jackman said, "How do you know there are 1,200 against it?"

Greenfield began investigating the matter a few months ago, according to Jackman, in an attempt to eliminate properties that had large piles of trash. By adding it to water bills, she said that it would require people to have trash collection. 

One Greenfield resident, who did not give her name, addressed council June 5, and asked about the billing. She said that Jackman had indicated that they did not know who many of the property owners, due to foreclosures and banks selling off loans. She asked if they could get those names from property taxes. Jackman said those taxes were not being paid on the properties. She then asked if people were living on the properties, and Jackman said that they were vacant. 

"So they don't currently have water service?" the resident asked. 

"No," Jackman said. 

"Well, then this wouldn't solve that problem." 

Jackman said, "No, it can't fix everything."

Losey said that Leesburg and Lynchburg currently do what Greenfield is proposing. Losey said that she would find out what they pay for services. 

The resident said that her main concern was the fact that Greenfield would eliminate the choices that residents have when hiring for trash collection. She said that she was afraid that they would get locked in "under the city's umbrella and we could never go back" and that the costs would go up every year "just like our water bill."

Losey said that the costs would not go up because the contracts would be bid out. 

Council will also investigate whether or not the city would turn off water because a resident had not paid for trash collection, and other issues. Losey said that there could always been exemptions and special circumstances.

Council member William Redenbaugh asked Losey and Jackman if Greenfield residents would save any money if Greenfield went forward with this. Jackman said that she didn't know, but she hoped that they would. 

"Has that been explained to residents?" Redenbaugh asked. "Because if I could save $10 a month, I wouldn't care if it was on my trash or my water, as long as I was saving it. I have yet to hear these advantages explained to the citizens. Will it save on money? Will it save on damage to the streets? It seems to me you're going about this backward. You should have had the cost-savings first."

Everhart asked if there would be any additional costs or work to the water department if the trash was added onto water bills. Jackman said there would not be, to her knowledge. Everhart said that Greenfield recently hired an additional person to work in the water and sewer department "because they were not getting it all done."

Jackman said that tabulating the trash in with the water bill would be "just punching another button."

Losey asked what additional costs Everhart would "foresee" in the department. 

"I don't know, but it needs to be investigated," Everhart said. 

In other business: 

• Council voted 4-0 to waive the three-reading rule and pass an ordinance "to effect a Governmental Natural Gas Aggregation Program with opt-out provisions pursuant to R.C. 4929.26, directing the Highland County Board of Elections to submit a ballot question to the electors." Council member Bob Bergstrom was not in attendance. Council also voted 4-0 to waive the three-reading rule and pass a similar ordinance, but with opt-out provisions pursuant to R.C. 4928.20.

* Bishop reported to council that she attended a "re-opening celebration" at Johnson Controls on June 30. The celebration, mainly for employees, included members of their leadership team, director of operations and VP of operations. "They accomplished their goal of celebrating with their employees," Bishop said. "The reports we get weekly from Johnson Controls are very positive, all three shifts are operating, employment is around the 100 percent range and production is at 50 percent. This is ahead of the schedule we expected."