Councilman Stenger to address Senior Housing Ruling Situation

St. Louis County Sixth District Councilman Steve Stenger called a meeting Friday, June 7 at the Oakville High School gym to talk about the 3-story building on Telegraph Road, and both bleachers and the floor were filled.

He opened the meeting by saying he intends to introduce a resolution of intention to the St. Louis County Council to reopen the St. Louis County Planning Commission hearing to change or amend the zoning that allowed the HUD housing, and he intends to do that at Tuesday’s county council meeting.

“I’m so glad we have such community support in this because we’re going to need it,” Stenger said after applause. Later in the meeting, the crowd was generally not so supportive.

Several touched on the issue of the notice of the original zoning hearing, and the fact that it was published in the St. Louis Countian, a paper only available in Oakville at the two public libraries, according to Mark Haefner. Haefner is the son of Rep. Marsha Haefner.

Stenger agreed that notice for hearings needs to be improved.

Stenger will introduce his resolution at the Tuesday meeting of the St. Louis County Council at 6:00 p.m. in the County Council Chambers,  1st Floor, 41 South Central Avenue in Clayton. He invited everyone at the meeting to come the the county council meeting to support the resolution.

For more information and video comments from the audience, go to:  

http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/councilman-stenger-to-attempt-to-overturn-hud-senior-housing-ruling?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001&evar4=picks-1-post

Dooley Rekindles Friction Among Fellow Party Members on Council

Less than a month into the New Year and budget, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley swung the budget ax and cut 26 full-time county jobs last week. The parks and public works departments bore the brunt of the job cuts; 20 jobs lost in the parks department and six lost in public works. There was also one employee let go in the revenue department, but, according to a credible source, political hire Mike Temporiti (son of John Temporiti, Dooley’s campaign manager), was spared, thus holding on to his $70,000 per year job.

In addition to the job cuts announced last week, Dooley’s other cuts call for:

 the closing of the county’s three pools two weeks earlier this year (August 1)

 reducing park maintenance, including trash pickup and restroom cleaning

 eliminating some capital equipment costs, such as trucks, tractors, and mowers

 eliminating capital projects, including replacing the playground at Bee Tree Park, a boat ramp and restroom renovations at Creve Coeur Park, and window, roof, and restroom work at Jefferson Barracks Park

The job cuts are the result of three months of bickering and in-fighting between the county executive and his fellow Democratic-controlled council members, which began at a council meeting on Halloween night of last year in which Dooley presented the council with his plan to eliminate what he claimed to be a $10 million budget gap. At that time, Dooley proposed and threatened to close and/or sell more than 20 county parks and lay off 173 employees, mostly in the parks department. In addition, he threatened to close the West County Satellite Office, as well as drastically curtail snow plowing on residential streets.

The council resisted to Dooley’s threats and the public was outraged to the point that they packed the council chambers late last fall in a two and a half hour public hearing to voice their opinions about the proposed park closings and/or threats to sell them. Later, Dooley admitted that he mishandled the budget issue and reached a truce with then council chair Steve Stenger (D-South County, 6th District). With Dooley’s actions of last week, the rift has re-kindled. Mike O’Mara (D-Florissant, 4th District), the new council chair for this year, who played a key role in stewarding the truce between Dooley and the council, reacted angrily to the news of Dooley’s layoffs. O’Mara said, “Charlie and I had an agreement that there would not be any layoffs this year, and he broke it. His promise was part of my sell to my fellow council members. I don’t know what happened since last month, but now I’ve lost my trust with my council members.” Dooley denied that he made any such promise to O’Mara. Dooley said, “I told Mike whatever we could do with that budget, we’d do. It’s unfortunate, but we can’t work within that budget without making some layoffs.”

O’Mara’s concern is that the layoffs will jeopardize a $100 million bond issue that the council recently approved to be on the ballot on April 3 to build a new Family Courts building. O’Mara said, “You think things have finally settled down, and we get this courts building on the ballot, and now a wrench gets thrown in the works again. We’re going to lose the trust of the citizens over this.”

Former council chair Stenger contends that Dooley should have first fired the eight Democratic campaign workers who got county jobs last year while a hiring freeze was in place. With regard to the parks and public works employees who were let go, Stenger said, “Our parks and public works employees bring a real and measurable value to taxpayers. But these political hires are just being carried on the payroll until the next election.” By the way, the next election is in November of 2014 and there has been speculation that Stenger may bid for the county’s top job. Dooley’s response to Stenger’s comments was that he had not considered firing the political appointees. Dooley said, “I’m not going to pit one group of employees against another. It’s never fair for any employee to be laid off who hasn’t done anything wrong, but the constraints are what they are.”

To listen to the comments from Dooley and Stenger, click on the link below to the Mark Reardon Show on KMOX Radio, entitled, “St. Louis County Council Chair Steve Stenger on County Executive Charlie Dooley laying off 27 county employees due to budget cuts.” Dooley’s comments assert that the cuts were necessary, while Stneger contends they were not, nor does Stenger understand the rationale for the cuts just three weeks into the new budget year.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/01/26/the-mark-reardon-show-attorney-general-candidate-county-budget-cuts-arizona-standoff-your-money-your-values-your-vote-busch-brewing/

At present, it appears that Dooley has but two allies left remaining among the seven members on the council. They are: Hazel Erby, (D-University City, 1st District) and Kathleen Kelly Burkett (D, Overland, 2nd District). Dooley’s long time ally, Mike O’Mara, shifted his allegiance last fall to former council chair Stenger when Dooley initiated his budget cut proposals and threats. Note that this is the first time there has been a major rift between the council and the county executive when members of both entities are of the same political party and maintain a majority on the council.

County Executive Charlie Dooley keeps making one political misstep after another.

According to Mike Anthony of the Call Newspapers, Dooley keeps making one political misstep after another again and again.

That certainly is the case with his recent announcement that 20 full-time employees from the Parks and Recreation Department would be laid off, along with four part-time positions.

Sixth District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, contends Dooley's layoffs are "completely unnecessary at this time.''

"... We are not in a cash-flow crunch. We are meeting — more than meeting — all of our current obligations," Stenger said.

Stenger, who served as council chairman last year, led the opposition to Dooley's recommended 2012 budget that called for closing 23 county parks, eliminating 175 jobs and not plowing streets of snow in unincorporated areas when accumulations are 2 inches or less, among other cuts.

The county executive's proposed 2012 budget met overwhelming opposition from residents and the County Council — even Dooley's fellow Democrats on the council.

As it turned out, Dooley backed down on his recommended budget and announced in December all county parks will remain open and snow accumulations of 2 inches or less in unincorporated areas will be plowed under a compromise he reached with the council.

All county parks will remain open "at a reduced rate,'' but Dooley said some layoffs still would be necessary.

At the time, Stenger was skeptical of the need for layoffs and he reiterated that stance last week.

Stenger also questions why the county executive is allowing career county employees to be laid off while nearly a dozen "political hires'' made by Dooley and County Assessor Jake Zimmerman remain on the payroll.

We believe Stenger has had a much better grasp of the county's finances than Dooley, whose budget numbers have fluctuated all over the place.

Just last August, Dooley proposed rolling up the county's property tax rate by 2.3 cents. Shortly after meeting resistance from the County Council — including council Democrats — Dooley announced he was withdrawing the proposal.

Dooley's constant cry of gloom and doom over the county's finances — coupled with laying off career county employees over "political hires'' — further damages what little credibility he has with county residents.

Read more about Dooley’s political missteps at:

http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-Impact-News-i-2012-02-01-258400.112112-Dooleys-employee-layoffs-unnecessary-Stenger-says.html

Dooley Crying Wolf

It's a good process. And it's a model that St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley should consider if he expects county residents to take him seriously.

Instead of leading a fair-minded discussion about revenue estimates and budget priorities, Mr. Dooley, a Democrat, spent the past couple of months crying wolf.

In August, as a prelude to presenting the budget, he told the County Council that revenue was $10 million behind last year's pace. To give police officers and other employees a much-needed raise, he said, there would need to be a tax increase. Otherwise, Mr. Dooley said, he would have no choice but to fire cops.

County Council Chairman Steve Stenger, a Democrat, objected. Mr. Stenger pointed to county documents that showed Mr. Dooley's numbers were wrong. Other council members followed Mr. Stenger's lead.

Mr. Dooley then changed his numbers. Twice.

Later, he apologized for the whole thing.

Then, in November, he submitted a new budget that also predicted calamity. He suggested that, once again, the county staff's proposed budget would have to be cut by $10 million.

This time Mr. Dooley cried WOLF! in capital letters, suggesting closing dozens of parks, laying off employees (though none from his own staff) and closing the West County satellite office.

County residents went nuts. The council stood firm and did the unthinkable. Horror of horrors, it formed a budget committee seeking actual facts.

Mr. Dooley again retreated, and now we're back where we started.

There's not really much of a budget problem. To the extent that it exists, it can be solved by thoughtful cuts, not dramatic ones intended to stir fear in the public. There will be no police officer layoffs or closed or sold-off parks.

The moral of this fable is an easy one: Numbers don't lie.

Here's what should happen going forward, regardless of who sits in the county executive's chair: The county council should be involved in the budget process from the beginning.

There is no reason the county executive and the council chairman couldn't follow the state process and agree on a revenue estimate from the beginning.

There is no reason — none at all — why the council shouldn't have a standing budget committee that does what it did over the past couple of months: Ask tough questions and force the county executive to back up his assertions and projections.

Read even more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-dooley-should-welcome-more-scrutiny-to-county-budget/article_98038b07-1bd7-594a-af25-769c1543cf40.html#ixzz1gFNSG99m

County Council Backs Down Dooley . . . Again

County Executive Charlie A. Dooley on Tuesday backed off his plan to close any county parks and said he had reached a compromise with members of the County Council to seek alternative cuts to balance the budget.

Dooley also withdrew his threats to close the county government's West County Satellite Office and to cut back on snow plowing in unincorporated subdivisions.

"I met with the council and we found some compromises that we all can agree on," Dooley said at Tuesday's regular council meeting in Clayton.

As to layoffs, he said: "That's the sad part. That's something that we still can't get away from."

Dooley said specifics for making up the $10 million budget shortfall had yet to be determined.

Mr. Dooley continues to suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. It’s just a matter of time before he comes up with something else off the wall. It’s always interesting when a politician says that the government needs to change when that individual has been part of that government for many years.

In Mr. Dooley’s case, he’s not equipped to handle problems of this magnitude. The County’s budget crisis did not happen overnight. Things like this are months and years in the making. You don’t say we’re $10 million in the hole and then turn around and withdraw your statement. Something is still very wrong here.

Tuesday marked the second time in recent months that the county executive has retreated from one of his proposals in the face of strong opposition from the council.

In September, he withdrew a call for a tax increase after Council Chairman Steve Stenger, D-South County, questioned financial statistics that Dooley had offered to support the request.

Dooley later admitted that he had supplied inaccurate financial data on the plan. He also publicly apologized and promised in the future to keep the council involved on major issues.

However, Dooley refused to characterize the latest budget development as a personal setback.

"This is not a defeat. This is a success," he said after the meeting. Duh!!! Hello.

You can read more about this fiasco along with the committee's cost-saving and revenue enhancing recommendations at:

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/compromise-on-st-louis-county-budget-keeps-parks-open/article_2e9f3e35-cd5f-5a7f-b772-3c77fe8e94ca.html#ixzz1ftGsBLFV

Dooley Takes Steps to Cut Expenses; Parks Next?

St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley challenged the credentials of County Council Chairman Steve Stenger. "Being chair of the council doesn't make you a budget expert," Dooley told Stenger, a fellow Democrat.

Dooley spoke before a special budget committee that Stenger formed in response to the county executive's announcement last month that he planned to close 23 of the county's 50 active parks and lay off scores of workers to balance the budget.

Dooley also told Stenger that the council member "did not have a plan" for addressing what the administration has characterized as a budget crisis. Stenger, a certified public accountant and a lawyer, retorted: "It's not the council's responsibility to have a plan. It's your responsibility to have a plan and your plan so far is to close half the county's parks."

Stenger accused Dooley of inflating the county's budget woes to force the council to increase taxes.

At the meeting, the county's director of operations, Garry Earls, provided updated figures on the administration's planned layoffs. Earls said 173 positions would be eliminated, about 81 of which are full-time jobs. Most of the cuts are directed at the parks department but Dooley also plans to eliminate 13 positions in the code enforcement division.

Dooley said the cuts would save $10 million and balance the budget.

The meeting featured some feuding between Burkett and Stenger.

"When this committee first started, Councilman Stenger said he would show us the money," Burkett said. Burkett has also not been able to show the money or justification. Stenger told Burkett "I don't appreciate your comments."

Stenger then asserted that $21 million in county funds were tied up in what he described as "323 funded but unfilled positions" in county government. He also said that the county filled 241 full-time positions last year at a cost of $10 million to $12 million. “I just racked up $33 million" in savings, he said.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/democrats-argue-at-st-louis-county-budget-meeting/article_2a32a584-3690-5328-8d52-e7c2789fa983.html#ixzz1fVJ5QyYi

St. Louis County parks controversy could haunt Dooley

A botched attempt at raising property taxes earlier this fall had earned St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley an unprecedented amount of criticism. Then he presented the county’s 2012 budget in early November. A proposal to close a number of parks (link includes a map of closures) and lay off employees touched an especially piercing nerve.

Citing a worsening fiscal outlook, Dooley and members of his administration have defended the proposed cuts by saying that the county must live within its means. Failure to do that, they say, will lead to more fiscal problems in the future. But some point out that Dooley’s plan is out of scale when compared to other counties with comparable parks systems. The county council’s chairman has questioned whether the cuts are necessary. And the idea to partner with local and state entities has garnered a mixed reaction.

The opposition to Dooley’s plan was clear during a standing-room-only budget hearing where detractors packed the St. Louis County Government Building in Clayton. With a majority of County Council members stating their opposition, Dooley may have to change course.

This story is published by the St. Louis Beacon.  The complete article can be found at: http://114343-county-parks-controversy-could-haunt-dooley

The following are quotes from various individuals mentioned in this article.

"It strikes at the very core at what we are as a county," Stenger said. "It calls into question for me what the possible goal and objective of this proposal could possibly be. It is so ill-conceived that it effects the very fabric of our community. It is concerning. ... This is perhaps the most ill-conceived proposal I have ever heard of, read about or even thought about.”

~~~~~

“If you look at him as sincere, you look at him as the author of the cuts,” said Dave Robertson, a political science professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. “And I think that offering a very unpopular policy prescription is going to cost you politically in the short and medium term.”

~~~~~

"If anything, we've been able to hold off the crisis associated with that for several years while we've made due with resources that we have," Earls said. "In some cases, we've had some special one-time funding, we've had some new revenue that's been in place. But our current forecast is there's no new revenue coming in."

~~~~~

"I have about 30 items that I've identified that could be looked into, at a minimum, on the expenditure side for savings," Stenger said. "We're talking about things like ... energy savings, parkings savings, some fees that may or may not be collected on adjusted services. I have a whole lot of issues I'd like to raise there."

~~~~~

"I'm always willing to work with them, but I haven't heard anything other than 'I don't like this,'” Dooley said. "Well, tell me what you do. We only have so money to spend."

~~~~~

"And maybe in times gone by, there might have been a lot of interest in (counties assuming control of the state parks)," Dolesh said. "There's very minimal interest in assuming the costs and liabilities and operating expenses."

~~~~~

“No way in hell are we closing any parks,” Sonderegger said.

~~~~~

“These problems are so serious in different places that it’s really hard to find to find a way out that is politically skillful and also solves the problem,” Robertson said. “This is one effort to do that, but it sure did backfire. … If you’re going to cut something, at least if it’s concentrated in sort of one area that geographically is limited, then you might have a better chance at getting away with it. These cuts are going to threaten parks that are popular across the county. They mobilized a pile of people in all different parts of the county.”

~~~~~

“These two things coming so close together reinforce each other and make observers think that Dooley is politically wounded and will have a hard time recovering,” Robertson said. “To recover from it, he’s going to have to appear to be much more politically savvy about the kind of impact his proposals will make than he has been so far.”

~~~~~

"They have a right to believe what they believe and I have a right to believe what I believe," said Dooley, when asked if he was at a weaker position with the council. "In the business we're in, we are not always going to agree 100 percent. Does that mean I don't like working with these individuals? That's not true. This is just one issue we don't necessarily agree on."

~~~~~

Read the full article at: http://www.stlbeacon.org/region/114343-county-parks-controversy-could-haunt-dooley

Gov. Nixon Offers Help to Dooley to Keep St. Louis County Parks Open

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/gov-nixon-offers-state-help-to-keep-st-louis-county/article_846eb5ce-084e-5c41-ae74-125d22ce3450.html#ixzz1e40bexBZ

Nixon said that he had offered assistance to Dooley. In particular, the governor mentioned Lone Elk Park, which is adjacent to Castlewood State Park. Nixon said such a state-county operation there would save money.

Scott said that the county and the state had not discussed which parks could be part of the plan, or when such a joint operation would happen.

County Council Chairman Steve Stenger has said that the threat to close the parks was actually Dooley's ruse to gain a tax increase that Stenger said the county does not need.

Dooley has denied such a tactic.

The county's chief operating officer, Garry Earls, said last month that the county hoped to share management of some parks with other governmental entities. He cited the possibilities that Lone Elk would go to the Missouri Department of Conservation; Greensfelder to the city of Wildwood; George Winter to Fenton; and Bon Oak to Dellwood.

Earls initially said that some of the parks, including Lone Elk, could be sold. However, Dooley dismissed that possibility at a special budget meeting Tuesday night.

Residents Rally Outside County Government Headquarters in Support of County Parks

Paul Hampel of the Post Dispatch in his recent article advises a crowd spilled out of the St. Louis County Council chambers and into the hallway on Tuesday demanding that the county administration rescind its proposal to close 23 parks as part of a plan to balance next year's budget.

The crowd of about 500 people, 90 of whom signed up to speak at the special budget hearing, was the largest in memory for a meeting at the county administration building in Clayton.

The turnout proved that County Executive Charlie A. Dooley touched a collective nerve two weeks ago when he sent a budget recommendation to the council that calls for closing almost half of the county's 50 active parks, eliminating 175 jobs, cutting back on snow removal in unincorporated subdivisions and closing facilities such as the government's West County Satellite Center. About 140 of the jobs to be cut are in the parks department.

Dooley, a Democrat, said the cuts would save the county $10 million and balance the 2012 budget. Parks he marked for closure include Lone Elk, Greensfelder, Fort Bellefontaine and George Winter.

The council has balked at Dooley's proposal, vowing not to pass the budget without changes. Dooley, once again, may be suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.

"Speaking for myself, I will not support a budget proposal that seeks to sell or close parks," Council Chairman Steve Stenger, D-south St. Louis County, announced to loud applause at the start of the meeting. The other council members then took turns announcing that they, too, were adamantly opposed to park closures.

Stenger has said that he does not believe that park closures or layoffs are needed in order to balance the budget. He recently established a special budget committee to examine the issue.

Dooley vowed to work with the council and the public to mitigate painful budget cuts. "But we can't continue to do what we used to do with the same amount of money," he said. Dooley did promise that no county parks would be sold.

Among the many speakers to address Dooley and the council was Kevin Ganley, a retired parks supervisor. Ganley, whose son currently works in the parks department, asked that layoffs be spread more evenly. "If layoffs are required, I think a fairer implementation is needed, and all political appointees should be the first to go," he said.

Marty Koch, of the Affton area, told elected officials that voters would not tolerate threats to parks. "If this wonderful county park system, which took so long to assemble, is split up, or sold or turned over to other government entities, I don't care who you are or what party you're in, you won't be re-elected," Koch said.

Stenger has accused Dooley of using the parks issue and the threat of layoffs and cuts in services as leverage to force the council to approve a tax increase.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/residents-urge-st-louis-county-officials-to-keep-parks-open/article_894095b8-51a4-5b1b-ac6b-a79129bf3438.html#ixzz1e3wtYpYn

St. Louis County Property Tax Increase in the Making?

Paul Hampel, St. Louis Post Dispatch

St. Louis County Council Chairman Steve Stenger said Friday that County Executive Charlie A. Dooley has been manipulating County Police Chief Tim Fitch in an attempt to get the council to pass a property tax increase.

Stenger, D-Affton, said that Dooley, a fellow Democrat, had approached him and Councilman Mike O'Mara, D-Florissant, earlier this week to ask if the council would approve a 2.3 cent property tax roll-up to cover pay raises for the police department and other county employees, whose salaries have been frozen since 2008.

"Charlie told Mike and me that he wanted to sell this tax increase to the public by using the police pay issue," Stenger said. "When we told Charlie we wouldn't support a tax increase because there's plenty of money in the budget already for a pay raise, Charlie turned around and tried to use the police to sell the tax raise to us (the council)."

Dooley said he would not be available for comment until late Friday afternoon.

Fitch confirmed that Dooley had asked him to call the council regarding the tax raise and pay issue.

"The county executive wants to do this property tax roll-up in order to enable additional revenue to do the pay raise and other things he has in mind," Fitch said.

In 2009, Dooley called a press conference to announce that he was proposing cutting the county's property tax by 3.5 cents, to 52.3 cents for each $100 of assessed valuation. The county council approved the request.

At the time, Dooley was running for re-election.

"When Charlie called a press conference two years ago to announce his tax cut, it was nothing more than a campaign stunt," Stenger said. "If he really cared about the employees, he would have got them the pay raises instead of cutting taxes.

"Charlie knows that tax raises are a poison pill. He doesn't want to take that pill himself, so he's trying to force it down the throats of the five Democrats on the County Council. If he wants to raise taxes, let him call another press conference and announce it that way."

Stenger, a lawyer and a certified public accountant, said he has examined the county budget and found plenty of room in it for a pay increase without a tax increase.

"The only thing I can surmise is that the Dooley administration wants to do more with less, instead of tightening their belts and playing by the same rules as everyone else is playing by in this economy," he said.

A poll of the county council revealed overwhelming opposition to a tax raise. Of the seven members, two of whom are Republicans, only Kathleen Burkett (D-University City) did not come out against the roll-up. Burkett declined to say where she stood on the matter.

The issue has revealed a rare rift between Democrats in the county and may mark a change in interactions between the council and the county executive.

"My fellow council members' actions show a great deal of independence and leadership," Stenger said. "Charlie, on the other hand, is not displaying the kind of leadership that I am going to follow."


Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_acc95cc8-d020-11e0-9090-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1WAYgdlnY

City of St. George One Step Closer

The city of St. George is one step closer to becoming nothing more than a history lesson.

The town’s biggest claim to fame is likely a police officer’s vulgar run-in with a young motorist a few years ago. Since then, the police department has been disbanded and some city leaders launched an effort to take the town in the same direction.

St. Louis County elections officials this week certified signatures on a petition to dissolve the town, and all the measure needs now is a formal vote from the St. Louis County Council.

County Council Chairman Steve Stenger said he supports the right of St. George voters to decide their own future. Officials say the town is so small it doesn’t have a reason — or the financial means — to exist.

The other side has alleged that taxes would rise and the neighborhood would lose its identity. If residents so vote, the area would become just another stretch of unincorporated south St. Louis County.

New Trash Program Approved for St. Louis County

St. Louis County Council members, with a 5-to-2 vote, approved a series of trash hauling contracts for the next five years. Those two dissenting votes came from Democrat Steve Stenger and Republican Greg Quinn.

Stenger said he wasn’t comfortable with all eight trash districts receiving coverage from one of two trash giants: Allied Waste and IESI.

“Our program begins to look more and more like a monopoly. It’s concerning to me,” Stenger said. “I’d really rather see a three-year contract that is up for renewal and up for oversight by the County every three years instead of every five years.”

The previous set of contracts had three years in length, but the County administration believed a longer contract would mean cheaper prices.

Monthly rates under the new contracts are down, by an average of about $2 per household, but Stenger disputes that the longer commitment is the cause.

After the Council vote, County Executive Charlie Dooley issued a statement proclaiming the lowered rates. “That’s a wonderful thing to be able to tell citizens in these tough economic times,” the statement reads. “A half decade from now, you’ll still be paying less than you are today to have your household trash hauled off.”

As one resident said, "If you think it's too good to be true, it's not. There's no way these rates will be the same 5 years from now."

Another Chapter in The Trash Boondoggle in St. Louis County

Last week, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley's administration asked the County Council to approve the transfer of contracts from Veolia ES Solid Waste Management LLC to Allied Services LLC for trash services in southwest and south St. Louis County. These areas include Affton, Lemay and Mehlville.

Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, objected to the deal. He said that if Veolia gives up the contracts, the county should seek bids from other companies rather than hand the contracts over to Allied.

"With another three districts in addition to the two it already controls, Allied will be well on its way to establishing a trash hauling monopoly in the county," Stenger said before Tuesday's meeting. "What we ought to be doing is putting these contracts out to bid right now and giving small businesses a shot at them."

It’s pretty evident the County did not have a contingency plan should one of the haulers fail. The County is now faced with an emergency situation and is faced with "reacting" rather than "acting."

Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Chesterfield, said he agreed with Stenger.

"Allied is moving toward a monopoly," Quinn said. "If we bid these districts out, there's a very good chance that residents will save money."

Council Chairwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, ordered that the proposal be put on hold so council members could examine the issue before voting.

Veolia also wants to sell its other assets in the St. Louis area to Allied, including those in Arnold, Bel-Ridge, Bridgeton, Clayton, Crestwood, Frontenac, Hazelwood, Warson Woods and Winchester.

Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, said that the county requested the contract transfers out of necessity. He said Veolia had already sold its equipment to Allied and that, as of Oct. 1, Veolia would not have the means to collect trash in this area.

"If the council members reject this proposal, I'm presuming they're ready to go out and pick up the trash," Earls said.

The finger pointing is already going on. County management appeals to the Council. The Council puts the issue on “hold” to study the situation. Garry Earls of the County passes the buck to the County Council. Citizens are grumbling. Law suits are pending. Another interesting thing about this is that Dooley’s former staff member and current campaign manager, John Temporiti, was the attorney for Allied Waste, however, Temporiti says he nor his company have represented Allied for two years.

The county said it established the 8 trash districts in response to complaints from residents in unincorporated areas about multiple hauling companies serving the same neighborhoods. Yet today, over 300 subdivisions throughout St. Louis County chose not to participate in the County’s trash program.

But the plan has generated controversy from the start. It’s loaded with too many flaws. First, there should be a law requiring all residents to have a trash service but the law should not require citizens to use a particular service. The county should leave it up to individual subdivisions or areas to select their hauler of their own choosing. This gives residents local control and freedom of choice to make any desired changes. For residents not in a specified subdivision, the County can assign a trash hauler based on haulers being used in that area.

A resident of a south county subdivision commented their subdivision trustees selected their hauler based on resident’s input, but across the road in another subdivision, the County assigned a different hauler . . . and just down the road, homes not in a subdivision are being serviced by a third hauler.

Enforcement of the regulation has come under fire as many residents are “doing their own thing” in sharing services and transporting their trash to their place of business.

Estimates of the dollars involved are way over $11 Million and growing.

Lot more information on this subject and situation is available at the St. Louis Post Dispatch site at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d6e86431-e72f-5eb1-9253-f7d6ff82d35c.html

Spending on education regarding recycling and waste management

Two members of the St. Louis County Council say John Temporiti, County Executive Charlie Dooley's campaign treasurer and former key staffer, asked them to reconsider their votes on legislation that would have benefited a company that employs his son.

Hughes was selected for the contract by the county health department, which asked for proposals for a program not to exceed $100,000. Craig LeFebvre, a spokesman for the health department, said he believed six or eight companies submitted proposals and he did not know why Hughes was selected.

Money for the contract would have come from the educational materials account in the Solid Waste Management Fund. That money is derived from the fee the county levies against waste haulers who dump their trash at the county landfill.

- - - - - - - - -

Reading between the lines . . . does this mean more money being spent on the county’s trash program that already has three lawsuits pending in the courts to determine if the program is legal?

Read the entire article at: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/6B6C0B0279B545C78625763D00094E50?OpenDocument#tp_newCommentAnchor
Or
Click Here

Subdivision Trustees Meeting Provides Answers and Information

Attendees at the Subdivision Trustees meeting on September 23 participated in lively discussions on presentations by Steve Stenger, County Councilman; Bill Rogers, Editor of SubdivisionTrustees.com website; Lieutenant James Schneider and Officer Aaron Roediger of the St. Louis County Police Department. Linda Henry, assistant to Stenger also provided important information.

Rogers opened the program with a lively discussion on the current status of the county’s trash program. He presented an overview of the highlights of the program along with the benefits and problems experienced. On the “plus” side, the program is working well for many county residents, rates have been reduced for many in the county, subdivision traffic has gone down for most areas, there’s been a large increase in recycling and trash going to landfills has been reduced.

On the “minus” side, Rogers listed the following.

> Subdivisions should not have been allowed to opt out. This allows residents to circumvent the law allowing them to select their own hauler and not use a trash service at all.

> The county has an ongoing problem in effectively communicating with subdivision trustees since there is no requirement for trustees to be registered with the county. Their mail list is entirely voluntary.

> Some residents claim discrimination since they are not a part of a subdivision. There are no effective means to allow exceptions for seniors, low income, handicap or self disposal of trash or recycling.

> Residents must pay even if they don’t use the service. Examples are someone wintering in Florida for a month, or homeowners who do not dispose of trash every week, but once or twice a month.

He suggested a pay-as-you throw program would resolve some of these problems of use and discrimination. He also pointed out that it’s impossible to satisfy everyone and that no program is perfect.

Rogers said the resolution to the current complaints and problems lies in the three suits pending in the courts. He also pointed out this is a poor way to do business. The problems are not of cost or service, but freedom of choice.

Steve Stenger delivered straight forward answers to questions dealing with the trash program, challenges being faced by the county council and the county and resources available from the county for trustees. He also answered complaints from attendees regarding summons received and others.

Stenger said it’s unlikely that any action will be considered until the pending cases make their way through the court system.

Meet Steve Stenger, County Councilman, Subdivision Trustees Meeting

Here’s your opportunity to meet and direct your questions to Steve Stenger, Councilman for District 6 in South County. Mr. Stenger will speak at the semi-annual program of the Subdivision Network Group on -

Wednesday, September 23
Tesson Ferry Library
9920 LinFerry at Lindbergh
Just east of Tesson Ferry
6:00 - 9:00 pm.

County District 6 includes Mehlville, Sappington, Oakville, Lemay, Affton, St. George, Lakeshire, Green Park, Bella Villa, Wilbur Park, Sunset Hills and others.

Issues of current interest include:

· Real estate tax assessments
· County regulations
· County smoking ban
· Pending lawsuits for trash program
· Law enforcement and police salaries

Seating is limited so plan to arrive early. This is a group discussion program and your participation is encouraged. This program is sponsored by the Subdivision Trustees Network Group. The group presents programs of interest to subdivision trustees in fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities.

Attendance is open to the public so please invite your neighbors.

For information, contact:

Bob Meyer, 314-892-6646. bjmey2@sbcglobal.net
Bill Rogers, 314-892-8632, subtrustees@swbell.net

Councilman Says County trash-district program a 'debacle.’

(The following article is from the Call Newspapers. http://tiny.cc/stltrash. Comments which have been added appear in parenthesis. )

In the wake of mounting complaints with trash-district service in south county, 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, is drafting legislation to address those issues.

Stenger said his County Council office has been inundated with calls from south county residents upset that haulers have missed pickup days. (Residents are also reporting harassment by vendors threatening the filing of liens and collection agency efforts.)

All of unincorporated St. Louis County since last fall has been part of a trash-district system in which each district is served by one county-appointed hauler. County officials established eight such districts as a way to standardize service and reduce costs through competitive bidding.

"I could devote a heck of a lot more time to tax assessments if I didn't have to pick up and clean up the mess of these haulers. So it's a real drain on especially our district." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county

But some unincorporated residents complain they no longer get to choose their own hauler while haulers who were not awarded contracts are upset that the county has taken away customers. As for south county, in which four of the eight trash districts were established, Stenger said complaints with trash service have become a "drain."

"From an allocation-of-resources perspective, the trash plan as it exists and the haulers as they have been performing are draining county resources," Stenger said. "And it's them draining. It's not the constituents. It's them. The constituents are doing what anyone would do. They are reporting problems with the system, problems with the haulers. And we are spending probably 75 percent of our time easily on these trash issues."

(A drain on county resources is a direct expense to all county residents.)

Stenger has criticized Veolia Environmental Services for failing to pick up on trash-collection days in the 7th trash district in Concord because of inclement weather. Similar problems have occurred with Allied Waste's service in the 6th trash district in Lemay and IESI's service in the 8th trash district in Oakville, he said.

"It's a debacle the likes of which I have never seen," Stenger said. "I can't believe it. And it's all of them. Primarily, we've had issues with Veolia. But it's every one of the companies we have had in south county. All three ... (It’s a pretty well known fact that all three of the national haulers undercut the local haulers to win their bid. Since they undercut the market, they must trim expenses when ever and where ever they can.)

"And that's what's so disappointing. It's hit our district the hardest. We're getting nailed. There are other things that people want me to do and things that we need in the 6th District. This trash problem is just something that just simply doesn't need to be. It could be much better."

If unincorporated residents are having problems with trash collection, Stenger and county officials request that residents leave their trash out and call their hauler.

County spokesman Mac Scott said if residents still are not satisfied after contacting their hauler, they are encouraged to call the county at 314-615-HAUL (4285). (This amounts to nothing more than finger-pointing. If the hauler doesn’t respond, call the County. If the County doesn’t’ respond, call your Councilman. If the Councilman doesn’t respond, call the hauler. It’s an unnerving circle of worthless time and events.) (Click on photos to enlarge.)

"Their contract is with the hauler," Scott said. "We're only the 800-pound gorilla looking out for the best interests of the citizens of St. Louis County." (WHAT? The resident has a contract with a hauler? The “contract” was made by St. Louis County. The County is responsible for the service, to include pricing.)

After calling the county, a county employee then will verify if the caller's address is not on a list of households that did not have trash set out on collection day. At that point, the county will dispatch an employee to see that the trash is on the curb and then advise the hauler that they have 24 hours from the time the county contacted it to pick up the trash. (Oh my gosh. And the County says their expense for the trash program is minimal. County residents are smarter than that.)

If an inspector finds that the hauler still has not picked up trash after the county's 24-hour warning, the county will assess the hauler with a fine for each such missed pickup. Stenger said haulers will be fined $10 per household for missed trash collections after the county has given the 24-hour warning.

"It appears perhaps that the haulers don't have adequate resources to serve us," Stenger said. "And maybe they're allocating their resources in different areas on different days. But I think that it's getting out of hand. And when you have one bad-weather day, you might as well forget about them. (Hello! The haulers undercut the local haulers in “buying” the business. They have adequate resources, but not at the rate they’re charging residents. In this case, bigger if far from better.)

"Obviously, one of the chief public policy concerns is public safety and health. And when you think about trash rotting in people's lawns and in their garages and on the sides of their homes, I just don't think that the public's being served." (The County continues to spout “public safety and health” but will not pursue the biggest health issue of all – SMOKING in public places.)

While Stenger is addressing these problems from a legislative perspective, the fate of trash districts still could be decided in court.

The Missouri Supreme Court last month denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas. The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.

In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.

St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. Goldman's ruling then was overturned by the appellate court.

Scott previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. (Considered? When does one not follow the law, but just considers it? St. Louis County officials continue to ignore Court rulings.)

Stenger said that his main concern with trash districts are residents who couldn't afford trash service before districts were established and now face unpaid bills and collection agencies because the service is required by the county.

"This is a major issue ... People understand it from the perspective that they have screwed-up trash service," he said. "But the multiplier effect is so enormous. It's draining. It's taking away from time that could otherwise be used doing things we need. This is something that should be taken care of already. I've never seen even the smallest municipality have this kind of trouble with trash."

Missouri Supreme Court declines to hear trash-district case; Councilman says residents should seek credit from Veolia

The following was published by the Call Newspapers, February 4, 2009
BURKE WASSONStaff Reporter
http://www.callnewspapers.com/

"It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional." — Bryan Barcom, American Eagle owner.

The Missouri Supreme Court last week denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas.

The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.

"Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up. We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now... In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county.

In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.American Eagle Waste Services, Meridian Waste Service and Waste Management of Missouri — none of which were awarded a trash district — originally sued the county in May for not providing the two-year notice.

American Eagle owner Bryan Barcom is pleased with the Supreme Court's denial. "I think it's great," he said. "It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional."

County spokesman Mac Scott said the denial of Redington's request "was not surprising" and that she would be ready to defend the county again in circuit court.

Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. His ruling then was overturned by the appellate court. "We start over again," Scott said. "(The Supreme Court) just said: 'OK, we're not going to dismiss this suit or overturn the appellate ruling. As the appellate court said, you've got to take it back to the Circuit Court and argue this thing.' This was not surprising. It was always a pretty good possibility. The Supreme Court doesn't typically overrule any decision of that sort."

Scott has previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. But Waste Management of Missouri spokeswoman Lisa Disbrow believes the denial of the county's request shows the county must follow the two-year notice. "We are in kind of a holding pattern," Disbrow said. "But we're pleased that the Supreme Court decided not to accept the case. And we believe that it confirms that St. Louis County must comply with the two-year notice provision in state law."

Sixth District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, also is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision and is looking forward to the Circuit Court's reconsideration as it will bring the County Council "one step closer to addressing this issue."

"There have been many problems we've had in the 6th District just recently with the weather and the various trash districts," Stenger said. "I'm glad to see this happen." Stenger specifically mentioned problems that residents have had with Veolia Environmental Services, which was awarded bids to serve three of the eight trash districts. He said residents have reported not having trash pickup from Veolia due to the recent winter weather.

To receive credit from Veolia for not picking up trash on designated days, Stenger advises residents to call Veolia at (314) 567-1800. "Because of the telephone calls that I've made to Veolia, we were able to secure the credit so far," he said. "But as it sits, you have to call and ask for the credit. And I just want that credit to be applied to everyone.

"Whether they call or they don't, I feel that they are entitled to their credit. And I don't want it to be a situation where the people don't get the credit if they don't call."S tenger said he also is developing an "action plan" to address issues related to Veolia's service. Veolia services the 3rd trash district in north-central county, the 4th trash district in southwest county along the Meramec River and the 7th trash district in the Concord area."

Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up," he said. "We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now. In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia."

Stenger raises more than $241,000 while winning St. Louis County Council seat

According to the St. L Post Dispatch, Steve Stenger, the Democratic candidate for St. Louis County Council member from the 6th District, raised $241,320.28 in his successful bid for the seat. He defeated Councilman John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, who was seeking a third term. (We didn't know this job paid that well)

Stenger, a lawyer living in Affton, was among candidates who filed reports on their campaign finances 30 days after the election, as state law requires.

In a reporting period between Oct. 28 and Thursday, Stenger raised $13,425. He received a donation of $2,500 from the Stone, Leyton & Gershman law firm of Clayton. The Building Trades Political Education Fund contributed as did several other skilled trades unions and Democratic Party organizations.

Stenger reported spending $214.443.37 thus far and $13,094.20 in the reporting period. Most of the money in the reporting period went to Phase 3 Inc., his campaign consultant. Stenger lent $150,000 to his campaign; the committee has repaid none of the loan.

Campisi reported raising $23,968.93 and spending $24,962.22 in this election. In a reporting period of Oct. 24 to Nov. 29, Campisi raised $6.845.65 and spent $16,150.23.

Among contributors were developers McBride and Son Management Co. and Mayer Custom Homes. Most of his spending was for printing.

In the 4th District, Councilman Mike O’Mara, D-Florissant, who won a third term reported raising $11,200 and spending $4,500 in this election. In a reporting period from Oct. 24 to Nov. 29, he raised $1,550 and spent $4,500.

O’Mara received a donation from the North County Labor Legislative Club. Most of his spending went to Roman Communications for campaign consulting.

Eugene Dokes, the Republican candidate for the seat, reported spending nothing in a reporting period from Oct. 29 to Nov. 13. Theo “Ted” Brown Sr., the Libertarian candidate, said he neither raised nor spent more than $500.

Council Chairwoman Kathleen Kelly Burkett, D-Overland, who was unopposed, said she raised $500 in this election and spent $1,798.84.

Blog: South County Truth Spot

The following is taken from the "South County Truth Spot" blog site at: http://southcountytruth.blogspot.com/2008/11/staff-election-post-mortum.html

================================

"This blog has been created by a group of South County residents to refute the misinformation propagated by local bloggers, bureaucrats, public employees, elected officials, labor unions and their shills in the media. We are a bipartisan group whose only interest is to set the record straight and act in the interest of South County taxpayers.

-The election of Steve Stenger as 6th District County Councilman is a wake up call to South County. Stenger was hand picked by County Executive Charlie Dooley to get us into line. Stenger is a millionaire carpetbagger who lent himself $150,000 to defeat John Campisi. He has no connection to South County and will only tow the line for the Clayton bureaucrats. We will be announcing an effort to incorporate a new city of Oakville in the near future. It is time that South County takes it's destiny in their own hands.

For more information, visit http://southcountytruth.blogspot.com/