A move to give a one-time credit of $29.04 to participants in the refuse collection program failed to pass Oak Park’s village board Tuesday night.
The move, designed to assuage cost concerns, still could pass, however. The motion tied 3-3, with Trustee Susan Buchanan absent because of a death in her family. The board has six trustees and one president who vote, meaning when all members are present, ties do not typically happen. The proposed credit, according to village officials, would have been equal to 12 months of the fee residents pay for the fall leaf program, the equivalent of about 58 landscape bags.
At the June 18 village board meeting, trustees decided the requirement to bag leaves for collection would move forward in the fall, despite loud public concerns about cost and the physical demands of bagging leaves. The decision ended the longtime practice of raking leaves into piles on the streets.
The proposed credit would have applied to the final quarterly water bill of 2024. Public Works Director Rob Sproule said this would return the funds to refuse-collection participants, ensuring vulnerable communities get equal benefits, rather than, for example, benefitting only those with resources to get village-provided bags.
But some trustees felt that the one-time credit wouldn’t do much.
“Doing a flat return of funds to all single-family homeowners is regressive,” Trustee Brian Straw said.
Straw, who voted against the credit, said he would rather address concerns for the vulnerable populations, such as older individuals or those with fewer funds to cover the additional expense, more directly. The $29.04 won’t target the need that the board has created, he said.
“We can and should do better than that,” he said.
Trustee Chibuike Enyia, who also voted against the credit, agreed with Straw, saying he’d rather see the money go toward the most impacted populations. The extra $29.04 wouldn’t be of much use for him, he said, but the need could be stronger for others.
“If you’re more impacted than me, I’d much rather have you have the ability to get access to those dollars if you needed them,” he said.
Not everyone was on the same page, however. Trustee Lucia Robinson was supportive of the one-time credit and calling it “ridiculous” and “unfortunate” that the board could not agree.
The credit would be intended for residents to acquire the needed supplies to comply with leaf bagging for collection. But that’s not the only way for residents to deal with their leaves this fall. They can also compost them, leave them in place or even collect the leaves in a rigid container, such as an unused extra garbage can for pickup.
A counter idea that arose during the board discussion was that the village should buy such bins for residents, instead of giving out a one-time credit. The cost would likely be similar, but the container could be used yearly.
But Robinson said not everyone wants a village-provided bin or has space for it. With the one-time credit, residents can use it how they see fit, she said.
“I just don’t think we should be micromanaging how people spend this rebate,” she said. “I just feel like it’s very Big Brother-ish to assume that we, sitting here, know what the benefit is, what the burden is, what the capability is for every single household.”
“In fairness, we’re micromanaging leaves,” Trustee Cory Wesley responded, who said he liked the idea of buying reusable bins but did vote in favor of the one-time credit.
Trustee Ravi Parakkat voted against the credit and Village President Vicki Scaman voted in favor of it.
The vote tied in Buchanan’s absence. But she later told Wednesday Journal that her gut reaction would be to vote in favor of the credit to help make the leaf collection transition successful, but added that it’s hard to make a definitive decision without listening to the discussion. She also said she’d be open to the idea of buying bins instead of the one-time credit.
“The pushback we have received has been overwhelming, overwhelmingly depressing,” she said. “I’m sick of it.”
And she’s not alone. Wesley also said Tuesday that he’s “not talking about leaves again at this board table,” adding that he “will recuse [himself], on the grounds that this is dumb.”
The amount, $29.04, is based on the $2.42 collected per customer by the village for fall leaf collection, multiplied by 12 months. The total cost for the village would have been $325,248 to reimburse residents, according to village officials. That cost would have been covered by the environmental services enterprise fund, which covers unexpected costs.
If the credit had been approved, this fund would have fewer dollars available to respond to extreme weather events or other unknown issues. But Sproule said there’s enough money to go around.
Some trustees also said they felt there are better ways to spend village money. Interim Chief Financial Officer Donna Gayden, did confirm, however, that it’s illegal to move money from the enterprise funds to the general operating fund. If the revenue in that fund exceeds expenditures by a certain percentage, the board could have that percentage used for something else, though.
According to Village Manager Kevin Jackson, the qualified uses for the environmental services enterprise fund, however, do include things like refuse and recycling services.
In terms of the physical burden, village officials said they’re working to engage with community partners and groups to ensure adequate assistance for those who need it.
Other plans to lessen the burden on residents this fall include the village buying some materials like bags to help seek compliance and rolling out the senior assistance program, as well as a volunteer portal. Since the vote tied, the discussion about ways to lessen the financial burden on leaf-bagging residents will come back.