Services Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Services Committee met on December 1, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., with Mr. Lane presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the meeting, taking two votes and hearing five public comments.

Two items were approved during the meeting: the Address & Firegate Identification/Numbering proposal and Items in Committee. Two additional items—Private Solid Waste Providers and Loading & Unloading—were deferred for further consideration at a future date.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 1, 2009:

• Ellinger
• Myers
• Lawless
• Beard
• Feigel
• Crosbie
• McChord
• Martin
• Henson
• Lane

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

Ordinance 2009 – Address and Fire Gate Identification and Numbering 9:36

Ms. Gordon moved to advance the revised ordinance on address and fire gate identification and numbering to the full Council for approval. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions.

Task Force on Solid Waste 30:16

Ms. Gordon moved to form a task force composed of LFUCG Solid Waste, representatives from each private solid waste company, council members, and additional stakeholders including Seedleaf. Mr. Lane seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions.

Public Comment

Five speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, representing private waste management companies and community perspectives on recycling and zero waste initiatives.

Private Hauler Perspectives

Mr. Kerry Loy from Republic Services 32:23 discussed the current state of recycling services, noting that recycling is subscription-based and voluntary, with approximately 25% of customer participation. He expressed openness to participating in the task force while emphasizing cost concerns and the need for incentives to encourage greater participation.

Ms. Stacey Chambers from Rumpke of Kentucky 35:45 stated that her company is implementing a residential recycling program and expressed interest in working with the urban county government to achieve zero waste goals.

Mr. Jerry Thomas from CNM Environmental 36:15 affirmed his company's support for the task force and expressed willingness to collaborate on achieving zero waste objectives, noting that CNM Environmental is actively recycling and wants to be part of the solution.

Community and Policy Recommendations

Ms. James 42:11 emphasized the need for a formal council resolution to endorse the zero waste goal by 2020. She argued that such a resolution would provide clear direction for budgeting and capital planning, and would discourage reliance on incentives for environmentally responsible behavior.

Ms. Lawless 44:24 supported using both incentive-based and enforcement approaches to increase recycling rates. She cited successful programs in other communities that combined fines with reward systems such as gift cards, and emphasized that behavioral change requires time to implement effectively.

Contested Items

The December 1, 2009 meeting included two significant areas of disagreement among council members.

Mandatory Recycling Services for Private Haulers

Council members were divided on whether to require private waste haulers to offer recycling services. The dispute centered on fairness and implementation concerns. Members raised questions about how such a mandate would apply to areas outside the urban service area, where different waste management conditions exist. Additionally, council members expressed concerns about the financial impact on both private haulers and residents who would be subject to the requirement. The vote on this matter was split, indicating that council members could not reach consensus on the appropriate approach to expanding recycling service requirements.

Incentives Versus Mandates for Zero Waste

A heated discussion emerged regarding the best strategy to increase recycling and composting participation. Council members debated whether to pursue zero waste goals through financial incentives or through mandatory enforcement mechanisms. Some members advocated for using incentive-based approaches to encourage voluntary participation in recycling and composting programs. Other members supported mandatory programs as a more effective means of achieving environmental objectives. This fundamental disagreement about regulatory philosophy—whether to encourage participation through rewards or require it through mandates—reflected broader tensions about the appropriate role of government in driving environmental behavior change.

Address & Firegate Identification/Numbering

3:00

The committee discussed a draft ordinance addressing address assignment and identification standards. Key speakers included David Lucas and Mr. Lane.

The ordinance proposed several changes to existing address and identification practices:

• Elimination of references to fire gates
• Clarification of address assignment procedures
• Requirements for contrasting colors and larger numbers on commercial buildings
• Establishment of formal processes for address changes
• Creation of an appeals process for address-related decisions

The revised ordinance was approved by the committee for referral to the full Council.

Private Solid Waste Providers

10:09

The committee reviewed the current state of private waste hauling services, including recycling and composting programs. The discussion focused on the feasibility of establishing a baseline service to support the city's zero waste goal.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Steve Feese, Ms. Gordon, Mr. Lane, Ms. James, and Mr. Myers.

Discussion Summary

The committee examined existing private solid waste provider services and their capacity to support municipal sustainability objectives. The review included an assessment of recycling and composting services currently available through private providers.

A central focus of the discussion was determining whether a baseline service standard could be established that would help advance the city's zero waste initiatives while working with private sector partners.

Outcome

The committee formed a task force to develop a comprehensive plan. This task force was charged with involving both city government and private sector stakeholders in creating a framework for private solid waste provider services aligned with the city's zero waste goals.

The agenda item was deferred, indicating that further work and discussion would continue through the task force process.

Loading & Unloading

46:37

The committee discussed challenges related to loading and unloading zones on short streets, particularly in the context of upcoming street conversions.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Ms. James, Mr. Woods, Lieutenant Richard Willoughby, and Mr. Gary Means.

Issues Discussed

The committee addressed several concerns regarding loading and unloading operations:

• Challenges specific to short streets where designated loading and unloading zones are difficult to establish
• Enforcement difficulties in managing these zones
• Lack of designated spaces for loading and unloading activities
• Conflicts between loading and unloading schedules and business delivery operations

Outcome

The item was deferred pending further action. The committee requested a comprehensive report from planning and indicated that public meetings would be held before the matter is revisited.

Items in Committee

54:42

The committee reviewed pending items during this portion of the meeting. Ms. Wallace and Mr. Schoeniger were the key speakers on this agenda item.

A pedestrian safety resolution concerning West Main and Vine Street was discussed. This item was resolved and subsequently removed from the agenda.

No further updates were provided regarding other pending items under committee review.

The agenda item was approved.