London City Council on Tuesday adopted Resolution 186-25 to provide near-term funding for the city's sanitation operations and continued deliberation over whether to end the curbside recycling program, leaving Resolution 159-25 on hold while staff studies alternatives.

Council President Peters said administration staff would return with details about potential recycling drop-off locations and schedules before any final action on Resolution 159-25. Safety-Service Director Steve Saltzman was described in the meeting as the staff member tasked with gathering pricing and operational options; Saltzman was not on the public comment portion of the record.

The decision matters because council members and residents said the sanitation operation faces rising costs and capital needs. Resident Dina Pierce, who identified herself as an employee of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, told the council that Ohio law requires each solid-waste management district to maintain a recycling plan and urged the city to consider long-term landfill and farmland impacts if recycling were discontinued. "If there's no recycling, that means more waste is going into the landfill," Pierce said.

Council discussion cited several cost pressures. Council members said the city pays about $1,800 a month for recycling and that staff estimated roughly half of material placed in recycling containers is contaminated, a condition the council said effectively wastes roughly $24,000 a year. Council members also described multiple capital needs for the sanitation operation cited by administration staff: upgrades to electric service and transfer-station equipment (discussed as roughly $200,000 and $150,000 in the meeting), additional trucks (referred to as "two half‑million dollar trucks") and roof and facility repairs. The council also heard from resident Raymond Anthony, who urged keeping the service in house rather than privatizing it.

Auditor comments presented a recent year-over-year increase in sanitation costs. Council members said the auditor had flagged an increase of about $88,000 compared with last year and that some additional funds had been encumbered to carry the operation through the remainder of the fiscal year. The auditor's summary was discussed but the council did not introduce a new dollar figure in open remarks beyond those items.

On procedural action, a council member moved to suspend the three-reading rule and to adopt Resolution 186-25 during the meeting. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Roll-call presence at the start of the meeting included Councilman Eads, Councilman Head, Councilman Jackman, Councilman Slope McDaniels, Councilman Salk, Councilman Treynor and President Peters; all were recorded as voting in the affirmative on Resolution 186-25.

Council members said the city will not finalize any decision about ending curbside recycling until Saltzman returns with specifics on feasible drop-off locations, hours and contamination controls. Council discussion identified two main options: (1) retain curbside recycling with added funding for sanitation operations, or (2) end curbside service and provide staffed or scheduled drop-off centers. The administration was asked to report projected costs to keep in-house sanitation services viable and to compare them with likely private contract bids.

The council did not vote on Resolution 159-25, the resolution to abolish the city's recycling program; that item remained on the agenda for further consideration after staff follow-up.

Looking ahead, council members said staff should provide clear cost comparisons, proposed drop-off schedules and contamination‑mitigation plans before any final vote to end curbside recycling. Residents at the meeting urged the council to weigh long-term landfill and farmland impacts alongside near-term budget savings.