Marion may change rules on RVs, trash trucks
Staff writer
Marion residents may have to change where they park their recreational vehicles, and trash trucks may have to change how they get to the county transfer station.
Those were among items discussed but not acted upon at Monday’s Marion City Council meeting.
Having just spent more than $11,000 to repair damage to Vine St. on Marion’s far west side, council members are hoping to divert heavy trash trucks away from the street, which leads to the north side of the county transfer station.
Under consideration are weight limits that might restrict full and possibly empty trash trucks from using the street.
Similar limits are being considered for Santa Fe St., which can be used to reach the south side of the station.
“I think it would be better to get more of a dedicated route — the shortest possible, so it’s not as expensive to build,” council member Tim Baxa said.
An alternative would be widening and improving block-long Spruce St.
The alley-like street just across from Marion Die and Fixture goes north from K-256 / Main St. directly to the transfer station.
Land might need to be purchased to widen the street to allow for two-way traffic, and the road bed might need to be enhanced with additional gravel to make it more passable in rainy weather, council members said.
They and Police Chief Aaron Slater worried how weight limits on Vine, Santa Fe, or both might be enforced because the city has no equipment to weigh trucks.
Similar weight limits have been imposed on Cedar and Roosevelt Sts., allowing only for local deliveries. Enforcement has not been a problem, officials said.
Council members seemed to favor a more positive than negative approach — designating an allowed route along Spruce rather than barring heavy traffic along Vine, Santa Fe or, worse yet, Walnut St. to the east.
City administrator Brian Wells was instructed to do additional research on Spruce and possibly consult with city attorney Brian Bina about phrasing of any weight limits and bring a revised proposal back to the council at a future meeting.
Council members also urged the city to reach out to Marion County and ask for help in paying for improvements related to heavy traffic to and from the county’s transfer station.
Recreational vehicles
How to route trash trucks wasn’t the only potentially contentious issue discussed Monday night.
Council members also talked about a proposal that would limit parking of recreational vehicles on residential lots.
A draft of a proposed ordinance, including input from the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, has been floating around for some time.
The ordinance would allow no more than two boats, campers, trailers, or other similar vehicles in a yard unless they were stored in some sort of structure or fenced in a backyard.
Under the proposal, trailers and recreational vehicles could not be parked in a front-yard driveway for more than 72 hours at a time.
Trailers stored on improved parking areas behind the front of the house would be exempted from the time limit.
“I think it’s still important that we do have some guidelines on what all you can have on your property that’s not on a designated area, especially from the front of your home,” Baxa said.
City inspector James Masters said the proposed ordinance was “not as restrictive as it sounds.”
“But it kind of keeps the front of the house clean,” he said, “There’s no pulling up and unhooking your trailer and leaving it sit out on the street.”
The ordinance will be scheduled for public comment and final action at the council’s next meeting, rescheduled for 5 p.m. Dec. 8.
Vacating an alley
In other business, the council agreed to notify neighbors and schedule a hearing Dec. 22 on whether to vacate an unimproved alley south of Arnold Regier’s property at 303 Tanglewood St.
Regier also owns the lot immediately south of the alley and wants to fence the entire area for his dogs.
He is willing to install a gate and grant an easement to allow crews access to what currently is set aside for an alley.
Vice Mayor Zach Collett, who presided in the absence of Mayor Mike Powers, asked whether the question should go to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
However, zoning administrator Margo Yates said it was not a zoning issue and could be handled by ordinance.
Water tower contract
The council delayed action on a proposed $23,283-a-year contract to maintain the city’s larger water tower.
Baxa said that the contract, along with a similar $12,000 one already signed for the city’s smaller water tower, would cost the equivalent of $40 a month per residential water customer.
Residential customers pay a base fee of 40 cents less than that to cover basic costs other than water itself. Baxa expressed concern that the contract might force an increase in water rates.
City staff members were instructed to gather information on how much the city has had to spend in the past to keep the water tower in compliance and to compare this to the cost of the contract.
City clerk Janet Robinson said she didn’t recall the total cost of recent repainting of the interior and exterior of the tower.
“But I know the logos alone were really expensive,” she said.
Most of that project was paid for with COVID-19 grants.
Wells said the city planned to revisit water rates in spring after new meters are installed and the city has a better indication of actual water use.
Earlier in the meeting, Baxa questioned $3,500 in spending for software that he was told was to read the new meters.
He asked whether additional annual fees would be charged and was told by Robinson that there would be but that she did not know what they would be.