Minutes from the WECA Executive Board Meeting
December 14, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by President Patricia Woodward.
Minutes: Two amendments to the minutes of the November 16, 2006 meeting were proposed:
1. In Section 1, Replacement and reorganization of Block Captains in certain areas, the third line from the end should read: “Rose will obtain new maps of Block Captain areas from the City.”
2. In Section 2, KSI – Bank of America and the October 11th Planning Commission, the second sentence should be clarified: “The Planning Commission voted that night with 6:0 with one abstention in favor of the Use Permit for the KSI project.” * made a motion that was seconded by * that the minutes be approved with the two amendments. The vote in favor was unanimous.
Treasurer’s Report: The treasurer reported that the balance of the checking account stands at $1,132.68 following receipt of $460 for newsletter ads and an expense of $150 to the Rockville Presbyterian Church for use of their facility. The T. Rowe Price account balance was $2,398.90 as of September 27, 2006. * made a motion that was seconded by * that the report be accepted as presented. The vote in favor was unanimous.
New Business:
1. Newsletter: The President discussed the need to publish a newsletter and wanted input regarding articles. Suggestions for topics included:
-an update on the Jerusalem Mt. Pleasant Church
-the trash Pilot Program
-a Town Center Update
-last spring’s Communication Project
-a letter from the president
* is awaiting word back from * regarding her willingness and availability to format the newsletter. In the meantime, * expressed a willingness to do the job if * is not available. According to the By-Laws, residents must be given notification of a General Meeting one week prior to the date. Members present agreed that it is too late to mark our January 18th meeting with Scott Ullery as a General Meeting. We will therefore aim to get the newsletter out in time for the February 15th meeting with the Chief of Police and the warden of the Detention Center.
2. Block Captains: * made a motion that was seconded by * that * be accepted as a new Block Captain for Block 2C. The vote in favor was unanimous.
3. Safety Issue: The President shared a letter that was written by a WE resident * to Emad El Shafei, Chief of Transporation of Rockville, requesting “firm and immediate measures to improve pedestrian/bicycle safety along Great Falls Road, particularly between Monument Ave. and Montgomery Ave.” This route is used by children attending Julius West Middle School. A recent incident with a bus and students in the crosswalk prompted her letter. * added that this site is one that has been selected for installation of a speed camera.
4. T Mobile Update: The Board of Appeals approved installation of a T Mobile monopole on the grounds of Julius West Middle School. Previously the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 not to recommend installation. Dr. Jerry Weast, Superintendent of Montgomery Public Schools, will made the ultimate decision, taking into account feedback from the PTSA, neighborhood associations, and other Board of Education members. A PTSA meeting will be scheduled some time in January to address the monopole issue. The West End and other neighborhood groups will be invited to attend this meeting. It is critical for residents to make calls and send letters to the Superintendent Dr. Jerry Weast and Board of Education members voicing their concerns. It was suggested that copies of letters sent to Dr. Weast and Board of Education President Mrs. Nancy Navarro. Copies of these letters should additionally be sent to all other Board of Education members. * will put this information on WECA’s website. * made a motion that was seconded by * that * write a letter on behalf of the West End, stating again WECA’s position on the monopole that was proposed for Julius West Middle School as well as the date on which the position was approved by the Executive Board. The vote in favor was unanimous.
Trash Talk: Craig Simoneau, Director of the Department of Public Works for the City of Rockville, distributed an informational brochure, “Rockville’s Pilot Refuse and Recycling Program.” He then described details of the program, including a description of the area served, samples of carts, delivery schedules, methods of collection, the impact on recycling rates, reduction of injuries to workers, and cost savings. Craig shared complaints of participants during the pilot program and how those complaints were addressed. Participants were surveyed three times (beginning, middle, and end of pilot program) and results were shared. Among the survey topics were service satisfaction ratings, cleanliness of the served areas, and cart sizing. Craig shared data from these surveys also. From the pilot program the City learned information such as the need for more variation in cart sizing, problems with service to town homes, and the need for bags for overflow trash. He then addressed questions from WECA residents present at the meeting such as:
-How will residents deal with excess trash such as that resulting from flooding, moving, etc.? Bulk pick up on quarterly basis is too little.
-How will loss of pick ups days due to holidays be handled?
-What is the savings to the City?
-Will a new program result in layoffs of current employees?
-How much do employees in the refuse department earn?
-What are the sliding scale costs based on container size?
-How will handicapped and elderly residents be served?
-Do the containers provide protection from rodents?
-What percentage of Rockville residents were surveyed?
-Why is the trash pick up program not financially solvent?
-Why are services going to be cut to one day per week given that the many residents view the current service is excellent?
-The City should provide citizens with some free bags at the beginning of the program, if implemented, as a “goodwill gesture.”
-If trash collects along the roads between pick up days, who will be responsible for moving it?
-The decision to approve permanent changes to the trash program is being made without input from the general public and additionally is being made in a hurried manner.
-Can’t the program be implemented in stages such as first go to semi-automated containers and later cut back to one day?
-What was the cost of the pilot program?
-Why were people not asked in the survey if they think that the City should move to one day pick-up?
-One day per week pick up is not adequate for families with children and/or small babies and/or cat owners who have litter to dispose of.
Note: A pilot program participant was present. She spoke favorably about the program—ease of use of the containers and adjustment to the one day per week pick up, among other issues.
Residents were encouraged to share their views and concerns with City officials.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20.