London City Council hears public opposition to outsourcing sanitation, leaves related legislation for more review

Council members on the London City Council introduced three sanitation-related items a resolution authorizing the safety service director to advertise for sanitation department bids, a resolution to advertise for trash-hauling bids, and an ordinance to adjust sanitation rates but took no final votes after lengthy public comment and requests for more information.

During the public-comment period resident Doug Piles urged the council not to "give up" city services, criticized previous transfers of water and sewer assets to Mid Ohio Water and Sewer District (which he said included city assets plus $6,200,000 in cash), and warned that contracting out sanitation would reduce local control and service quality. "You have no control when you give it up to somebody else," Piles said, calling past decisions "not work[ing] out well." He asked council to consider impacts on property owners and questioned whether trustees representing the city had advocated effectively at Mid Ohio meetings.

Another resident, Jim Boyd, addressed the three legislative items directly and urged the council to delay action. Boyd said he had not come to assign blame but to make sure decisions are informed and defensible; he asked whether council had a side-by-side comparison of keeping sanitation in-house, outsourcing, or a hybrid, and whether the council had the information needed to approve spending $1.5 million to $1.7 million in capital improvements to maintain current service levels. Boyd also cited an $8 monthly rate increase described in the record as "roughly a 36 to 38%" rise and asked whether further increases would follow. "If the answer to any of these questions I've just asked you is no, not fully, not yet, then I believe we all share the same interest and that has been slowing down just enough to close those information gaps," Boyd said. He offered to volunteer a Lean Six Sigma-style operational review and formally requested council table the sanitation legislation for a defined 60- to 90-day review period so findings could be presented publicly.

Brent McDaniels, another resident who toured the sanitation facility, told council the operation showed years of neglect and called for accountability. "I think it's time for the excuses to end and the accountability to begin," McDaniels said.

Council discussion after public comment repeatedly returned to whether the city had enough information to decide and whether the question should be submitted to voters as a nonbinding advisory election. A council member reported asking the law director for guidance on whether an advisory election is permissible and the timing; a staff summary cited Ohio Secretary of State guidance on advisory elections, including a 90-day certification window. Members noted a possible Feb. 4 deadline tied to 90 days before a primary and asked the law director to confirm whether that timing applied.

The sanitation items were introduced by title: Resolution 190-25 (authorizing the safety director to advertise for sanitation bids), Resolution 191-25 (authorizing advertising for trash-hauling bids), and Ordinance 192-25 (adjusting sanitation service rates). Sponsors named in the record included Andy Hitt and Lisa Jackman for the trash and rate items; the record does not show completed votes on these items at this meeting. Council members suggested grouping the three items for further input and, in multiple remarks, said they did not feel they had sufficient information that evening to make a final decision.

Officials and members noted some short-term continuity options if a delay occurred: the safety service director reportedly can extend current contract arrangements, and rental equipment or leases could be extended on a month-to-month basis to maintain services while council gathers more data. The law director was asked to clarify the advisory-election process and any deadlines. No formal motion to adopt the sanitation resolutions or ordinance was recorded in the meeting transcript.

Next steps: Council left the sanitation-related legislation on the agenda for further consideration and asked staff and the law director to provide the additional information requested, including legal timing for a potential advisory ballot question and a clearer cost/benefit comparison of in-house versus outsourced operations.