Friday, April 04, 2008

Higher fees, unpaid trash bills cause stink in Berkeley

Berkeley’s trash removal service is a source of growing concern for both residents and the company providing the service. After six months on the job, hauler IESI Corp. says it is owed $127,000 because of residents not paying their trash bills. Lenny L. Neeley, district manager for solid waste services at IESI, told the Berkeley City Council that 725 Berkeley customers haven’t paid their bills. Another 418 have paid bills for only one quarter, he said. And 143 customers have not paid for all the services provided.

IESI said they want to work with the city and residents rather than proceed with the “last option” of cutting off service. Residents whose service is cut off then could be cited by the city for not having trash service, said City Manager De’Carlon Seewood. Residents at the council’s meeting Monday complained that their trash bills are higher with IESI thanthey were with the city’s previous hauler.

They also were upset about being required to pay for recycling service. A new St. Louis County law requires county residents to pay for the service, whether or not they actually use it. The St. Louis County Council is acting like a bunch of monkeys in not listening, seeing or talking about the problem to seek a viable solution.

“Why should I be giving my money for a service I don’t use?” asked Bernice V. Coleman, a city resident.
.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous8:40 AM

    This same scenerio is going to play out in the county. Just because St. Louis County mandates these actions, people are going to ignore them and fail to pay for the additional services. This will cause many households to be in default and get suspended service. What's the county to do, ticket and arrest hundreds or even thousands. The county is responsible for this mandate, the county should be responsible for making sure individuals can pay the price, as well as make sure that the required service provider gets paid.
    Suspend this nonesense until it can be corrected.

    ReplyDelete