Riverside council approves change order

    The Riverside City Council voted to approve a $2,000 change order for a drainage project. The decision was made at the council?s meeting Monday night. The city is trying to provide better drainage on Railroad Street on the south side of town. DeLong Construction sent a change order to the council, asking it to pay for another intake and to raise the existing intakes near the intersection of Railroad and Washington streets to get water off the road more quickly.

    The council discussed the matter at its Nov. 1 meeting, but the council was deadlocked after a 2-2 vote to approve the payment. The council decided to wait to receive a report on the issue from city engineer Mike Hart. Hart recommended the council approve the change order. He said he was glad DeLong Construction fixed the problem as soon as it did.

    The council voted 4-1 to approve the change order. Councilor Ralph Schnoebelen was the only ?no? vote. Schnoebelen remarked that he doesn?t want to pay for so many change orders that make the project more expensive than what the council budgeted for.

    Another issue the council debated was nuisance abatement. Earlier this fall, city employees cleared bushes and other things at the home of Carolyn Hudson. She was charged $475 for the work. At the Oct. 18 meeting, Hudson said she received a letter from the city informing her of the nuisance beforehand, and that she thought she had abated it by trimming her bushes. She said the city should have tried harder to communicate with her.

    At Monday?s meeting, city administrator Tina Thomas reported that she met with Hudson, and that the two agreed they could communicate better in the future. Thomas said that Hudson?s $475 bill was given in accordance with the cost to the city in labor and equipment. Thomas asked if the council would be willing to cut Hudson?s fine in half to $238. The council voted 3-2 to cut her bill in half. Schnoebelen, Rodney Waldschmidt and Todd Yahnke voted yes, while Betty Kaalberg and Kevin Kiene voted no.  

    Schnoebelen remarked, ?I support cutting it in half considering the situation. I think we need to communicate better so people understand what needs to be done. I think that in a lot of cases, the information that goes out is kind of foggy.?

    ?How is this going to help communication?? asked Kaalberg. ?Are we going to cut everyone?s bill in half, then??

    ?I would think not,? said Thomas. ?I?m not saying the city is at fault here. I?m saying there are always opportunities to communicate better.?          

    Waldschmidt said, ?I have no problem cutting the bill in half. Two of us council members cut brush for a lady for half a day ? for nothing. But I don?t want to come across as the city saying our ordinance system is flawed.?

    ?I could go along with cutting it in half, but the ordinances are there to be followed,? said Yahnke.

    Mayor Brian McDole reminded the council that it decided at an earlier meeting that it was no longer going to use city employees to abate nuisances but rather use the judicial system.

    Yahnke said that Hudson comes to nearly every council meeting, and that if she didn?t understand what was asked of her, she could have asked the council during citizens? time.

    Just before the vote, Kaalberg warned the council of the precedent it was about to set.

?I still think we?re setting up a bad thing,? she said. ?Anybody else will ask us to cut their bill in half. People will say, ?Oh, the city will just cut it in half.? If you don?t [cut the bill in half], then you?re really going to be in trouble.?

For more, see our Nov. 16 print edition.