Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over cat-feeding and trash-hauler enforcement; single-hauler option discussed
Summary
Public commenters told council neighborhood cats and trash accumulation are harming quality of life; staff and council discussed enforcing the existing feeding ordinance, proof-of-service for haulers, tenant vs. owner responsibility, and the pros and cons of a single-hauler contract.
Public comment at the Dec. 9 Columbia Borough Council meeting focused on two quality-of-life issues: residents complained about increased cat activity and waste on private property, and another resident urged the council to address a proliferation of trash haulers and inconsistent service enforcement.
Mary Wickenheiser, the first commenter, said that problems began after people started feeding cats and told the council, "We had an ordinance that you could not feed cats." Council and staff responded that feeding is restricted except for registered TNR (trap-neuter-return) colonies and that alleged violations should be reported to the codes office so staff can verify TNR status and enforce the ordinance if needed.
A separate resident described persistent trash accumulation and confusion about which haulers serve which properties, saying property owners sometimes pass hauling responsibility to tenants and that the borough'026code is difficult to enforce when the authorized-hauler list is out of date. Staff and council discussed requiring proof of service and the borough'026ability to require owners to contract for pickup; one council member asked whether a single-hauler contract would create a monopoly, and staff replied that competitive sealed bids and multi-year contracts typically set annual rates and include contract terms to prevent arbitrary price spikes.
Key exchanges: a resident urged the council to "take a hard look at this trash ordinance" and consider a single-hauler system; Councilmember and staff back-and-forth covered citation mechanics (citations go to property owners), complaint-driven enforcement and the need to update the borough'026authorized-hauler list. At least one council member urged relying on proof-of-service inspections and annual licensing to track compliance.
Outcome: No ordinance change was adopted that night, but council agreed the issue needs follow-up and staff noted options (proof-of-service verification, updated authorized-hauler list, and potential RFP language if a single-hauler approach is pursued). Residents were advised to file codes complaints for specific properties to trigger enforcement.
