The littering ordinance was brought to the board's attention for a number of reasons, including the fact that there had been no such ordinance and a problem the city had been having with citizens allowing their grass clippings to make their way into the city's sewer system.
The main point of contention regarding the littering ordinance, brought up by Alderman Billie Clevenger, was the question as to whether or not the language allowed police to ticket individuals who put their trash out early and/or in unsecured containers, allowing for animals or wind to remove the trash from its receptacle.
"That's an act of God," said Alderman Jim Lindemann, referring to removal of refuse by the wind.
The board discussed many things before voting on the littering ordinance, including the possibility of including language to require residents to keep their trash near their house until trash day, reducing the eyesore and the possibility for the trash to be removed from its receptacle.
"The problem with that," said Clevenger, "is when I keep my trash by my house, cats get all in it, and they're not my cats. When it's out on the curb, they leave it alone. I'm not kidding."
The question was raised of whether individuals could be ticketed for a trash spill they had not yet had the opportunity to clean up, such as one that happens while they are at work.
"Oh, you'll get a ticket," said Police Chief Richard Downing.
When asked by Mayor Ray Kinney whether she believed the ordinance was too harsh or too broad, Clevenger replied, "It's too something for what we were talking about (in previous meetings)."
Kinney's only argument against the language of the ordinance was that the minimum fine for littering is $1, which he saw as too low.
The board finally passed the ordinance by a vote of 3-1 with Clevenger being the only dissenter, making it City Ordinance #507.
Hank Taber, Public Works director, said many of the water meters in Sweet Springs are running "five to 15, 20 percent slow," which means decreased income to the city for water usage fees.
"This is why DNR likes to see meters replaced every 10 years," he added.
City workers will check meters, and if they are found to be running slow, new measuring chambers will be installed into the existing meters.
As this is an old problem, around since Roxanne Hinton was mayor, Clevenger complained, "We've raised and raised the rates, when maybe this is where we should have gone from the beginning."
Kinney mentioned his desire to eventually decrease rates for water usage to Sweet Springs citizens, to which Taber replied, "Don't count on it."
A proposal to increase water connection fees was made, with Taber saying that the current fee of $100 does not cover the cost to the town of installing the piping and all other necessary components, much less the cost of labor.
Taber proposed to the board that for pipes under one inch, the price to citizens be raised to $250, for one-inch pipes, the price be raised to $350, and for two-inch pipes, generally used only by businesses, the price be raised to $1,500.
"When you get to that two-inch (piping), the price goes up dramatically," said Taber.
Taber indicated that the new prices still would not reflect the cost to the city for labor in installing new water service.
He also pointed out that properties that had once had buildings would not need new water connections if a new building were to be constructed on the site, but only a new meter.
The board accepted Taber's proposal, with Kinney saying, "Anyone who requests a figure from this day forward" will be quoted the new prices.
Also discussed was a motion by Alderman Vivian Wiley to cease the city's payment of health insurance for spouses of employees. With insurance for each of the seven employees' spouses costing the city $94.23 per month, the annual cost to the city would be $7,915.32.
"I want to know where the money is coming from," said Clevenger. "Our city's pretty well broke anyway."
The motion was passed, meaning that while the city still offers health insurance to employees' spouses, it will no longer pay for their insurance as of January 1, 2009.
A proposed repair to the city's fire truck, which would cost $4,000, was met with resistance by Kinney.
"My concern is sinking that much money into such an old truck," he said of the 1971 Chevy.
The repairs needed are for the truck's water pump, and Volunteer Fire Chief Todd Anderson said that without those repairs, no firefighters would be sent to fight a structure fire from inside the building with the hose.
Anderson told the board that he had found a used 1993 model fire truck for $55,000, much less than the $175,000 to $500,000 that a new truck could cost the city.
A motion was passed to look into leasing options for a fire truck newer than their current model.
The board lowered the speed limit in school zones from 20 mph to 10 mph, with the new signs to be put up shortly.
"It doesn't need to be posted," said Kinney, "but in my eyes, it should be."
There was talk of turning the old library into a dog pound, with Alderman Vivian Wiley somewhat in support of it.
The board eventually passed a motion to have the library's roof fixed, and tabled the discussion of turning the building into a dog pound.
The board also discussed a new income of $20,000 in "franchise fees." The money comes from the telephone tax, which City Clerk Ronda Neinhueser said has only just begun to be collected.
Though board members hope for more funds to be collected, they say they cannot expect it.
Contact Geoff Rands at marshallreporter@socket.net
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)

The dog pound discussion is extremely ill-conceived. WHO would put a dog pound in their downtown area? It would be within 25 yards of the library. It is impossible to not have noise and aroma issues. Let's build a new fire house and put the pound in back of city hall. The council could rotate cleaning and feeding, the same kind of expectations they have of the volunteer boards. Or they could actually use the contract that they have with the Concordia Vet office, which seems to be working for other towns in the area. Also the fact that we have NO pound presently, but still have dog food show up on the monthly bills, shows that our city only follows the laws they what to, on the days they want to.
Points concerning the #1-Litter Ordinance and #2-Health Insurance. #1. A litter ordinance is/has been needed...no question. The problem is, which is very common with our present "town fathers", by not thinking through the language of the definitions and only being concerned with a purpose that was NOT the original intention, it is now easier to get fined by mowing your yard than if you don't mow. There even is now confusion concerning when and or how you can set out your trash. These concerns and there will be more along these lines, are not the intention of a litter ordinance. #2. The city budget cannot keep up with the health insurance increases. Especially when they keep adding new employees. The city's savings account has continued to decrease and using those monies is heading straight to a financial disaster. If our council could learn to read or watch FOX/CNN they would know that not living within your means is a PROBLEM. Only Councilwoman Clevenger seems to have any concern about this fact.
Well, Geoff, the article printed in the paper has upset many people. It sounded pretty "sure" to everyone when he made his remark that all would indeed get a ticket. I agree that tickets in this situation are inappropriate and that something was not done by the aldermen to change the wording is another letdown for the citizens of this town. With so much injustice being done in this world, why do the Sweet Springs aldermen have to add to the hardships on our citizens?
Why?
Ahhh, again, the undying wisdom of Sweet Springs Aldermen meetings. I, for example, have my garbage put out on the curb FOR me. I cannot put it out myself, due to the fact that, I'm disabled.
I rely on the kindness of others to take out the trash whenever they come to town. Oddly enough, that is usually over the weekend. However, if any (OR all) for that matter, on the Board of Aldermen want to come by my house on Tuesday evenings and gather all my garbage from various trash receptacles around my home...then fan-freaking-tastic. Just knock...It may take a few minutes for me to answer...but, I've no doubt you'll wait (because like any public servant, you're here to SERVE ME)I apologize ahead of time for the bathroom garbage, it's especially noxious. Oh yeah, and who do I fine when the plastic flowers from the cemetery blow in MY yard? or Perhaps when those HORRIBLE teenagers TP the neighbors?? I want justice... and by God, now that I know the priorities a this fair town ... then Justice for all!! Do I hear an AMEN????
Officers are never "required" to ticket individuals. Police officers have the discretion to ticket or not.
I cannot believe that our Chief of Police would be sure and ticket a citizen whose trash got scattered by one of the many dogs running loose in this town. I think we should ticket him for every stray dog that he does nothing about. If he would do his job in the first place then the citizens of this community wouldn't have their trash scattered.