Dooley on the Run: Talkin Trash

Although it’s been just two weeks since St. Louis County lost its battle in the trash haulers lawsuit in which Judge Barbara Wallace ordered the county to pay out $5.9 million to three haulers, some high-ranking county officials seem to fanaticize that they will be granted a “second chance day” in court, that the court will overturn its judgment in favor of the county, and that they will all live happily thereafter, as if in a fairytale.

Now that St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Barbara Wallace has ruled against the county, Garry Earls, the county’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) said that the county will appeal the judgment. Mr. Earls said, "I'm disappointed that the court determined that there was something about it that merited

Garry Earls

sending money back to these trash hauler companies. These were the losing bidders, by the way, for the trash hauler district contracts." Earls, who seems to be the county’s self-proclaimed legal analyst/law professor also said, "We think we have a good case for just overturning the whole judgment, and certainly we'll pursue that as far as we can go. Even if we do end up paying the entire judgment, the residents of unincorporated St. Louis County have still saved money."

Note that the arrogant county officials always seem to come up with a good line that they’re always saving county residents money even when they’re costing the residents millions with their bombastic mistakes. To coincide with Earls rationale, Patricia Redington, the seasoned county counselor, has repeatedly argued that the state statute did not apply to the county because it is a charter county, however courts’ didn’t buy that bill of goods from her either.

 In its case against the haulers, the county never presented any witnesses and the county also admitted that the required two-year notice via certified mail was never provided to the haulers, thus yet another instance of the county’s arrogance with regard to defiance of state law.

On the flip side, Jane Dueker, the attorney for the prevailing trash haulers has a different assessment of this contentious issue. Dueker said that “(County officials) kept saying the law didn't apply to them. They were wrong, and the courts found that they were wrong. They're still exhibiting that sort of arrogance now.” She also said that "This entire judgment was avoidable, completely, easily, cost-free avoidable." But, the county didn’t listen. And, they’re still not listening today. By appealing the judgment for damages, the county runs the risk that the trash haulers could be awarded even more in damages, as Dueker said that the interest on the $5.9 million judgment will accrue daily at a 9-percent annual interest rate, so the meter is running and the dollars are adding up.

  At every stage of the case the haulers tried to settle with the county, but their offers were rejected by county officials, according to Dueker. As such, Dueker said, "Before we filed suit, I sat there with Garry Earls and Pat Redington and said, 'I'm going to sue you, don't do this. Just give the notice.

Pat Redington

And they wouldn't do it. It's pretty rare that I see a legal case that is this one-sided, and they just keep stalling and stalling."

 Dueker also disputes Earls contention that the case is still open by stating that the Missouri Supreme Court has already ruled on the merits of the case, thus the decision with regard to the county’s fault is final and that the only remaining issue in question is the amount of damages that the county will eventually have to pay the trash haulers. Of course, the county will continue to stall and prolong the inevitable for as long as possible with any legal maneuvers at their disposal, but at some point they’re going to have to pay the haulers.

Bryan Barcom, owner of American Eagle Waste Industries and a plaintiff in the case, said "I don't want to sound like an excitement killer about getting awarded $593,000, because that's a lot of money. Don't misconceive that. However, no one looks at the fact that we lost $2.5 million a year for the last five years, and we are unable to grow our business in unincorporated St. Louis County."

Like many other St. Louis County residents, Barcom contends that the issue of the trash districts should have been decided by a vote of the people. But, St. Louis County officials and their advisors claimed that a referendum would cost too much money. Barcom counters by stating that “Would it have cost $5.9 million to put it on the ballot? "I don't think it would've."

Although this case is not completely settled yet, St. Louis County officials need to come to the realization that they lost this case and are going to have to pay the haulers. Therefore, the two key questions to be resolved are: When and How Much?

The complete news story by Gloria Lloyd with the Call Newspapers.

County Council Hears Opposition Transfer of Contracts but Votes to Approve

At the Council weekly meeting on September 28, the St. Louis County Council heard from 11 residents who voiced strong opposition to the county’s controversial trash districting program and the proposal before the council to transfer three trash district contracts to Allied Waste, which would result in moving much closer to a monopoly with only two haulers (Allied and IESI) remaining as the “designated” haulers for the eight trash districts. The proposal was a result of Veolia ES exiting the St. Louis market and selling all of its assets to Allied Waste.

After listening to the opposition, the council voted 5 – 1, to approve the transfer, with one member (Greg Quinn, 7th District, R-Ballwin) absent. The dissenting vote came from Steve Stenger (D-Affton), the 6th district councilman from South County, who said that he voted according to the consensus among his constituents, as well as in the best interest of all county residents. Stenger’s district is the largest unincorporated area of St. Louis County and includes four of the eight trash districts.

The transfer of contract issue presented the county council with a dilemma in that the county administration and the majority of the council asserted that there was not enough time to seek bids on the remaining contracts, and the administration warned that a public emergency would result if the council did not approve the proposal.

The broadcast of the September 28 county council aired on Saturday, October 2. However, there was a technical problem and the tape stalled midway into the public forum segment of the meeting, so nearly half of the speakers were not heard, as well as the remainder of the meeting. The problem was reported to the St. Louis County Council and Charter Cable, and a response from both entities was requested.

Due to the technical problem with the broadcast, perhaps the most important speaker was not heard. That individual was Bryan Barcom, owner of American Eagle Waste Industries, who happens to be one of the winning plaintiffs in the trash haulers lawsuit. Bryan’s address to the county council is as follows:

“Bryan Barcom, American Eagle Waste, 7717 Alabama.

I have two things that I want to ask tonight, and the first one is to Mr. Dooley.

About two and a half, almost three years ago, me and my brother, Mike Barcom, which were partners in American Eagle, met with Charlie Dooley, Garry Earls, and Sheryl Hodges. And, when we sat down and met our first question was, let’s put this to a vote, let the people vote, and if they vote, then we’ll honor whatever the citizens’ vote in St. Louis County.

We’ve been to numerous meetings; we knew there wasn’t an overwhelming majority of people that wanted this. And out of Mr. Earls mouth and Mr. Dooley’s mouth is this is going to cost the citizens, or this is going to cost too much money to put it on the ballot. Well, three years later, what’s it going to cost the county now? A good head would have said we’re going to put this to a vote and we’re going to make sure. I don’t care what district three or anybody else wanted.

We had meetings, and hundreds and hundreds of people came and told you that they did not want this program. We told you that the Missouri state constitution didn’t allow you to have this program and we told you that your charter didn’t allow this program without a vote.

Second thing is, for Ms. Redington, is she went to the Court of Appeals and she told the judges at the court of appeals that they did not have the right to incorporate these trash districts, that they were giving the citizens an opportunity to get the best price and the best service. And, if all of you remember, I come here that night and told you that I’m coming back and I’m taking the customers back, because St. Louis County doesn’t have the right; they just give the people the opinion, or the option.

So, four of you on this panel decided that we were going to follow Mr. Dooley and Mr. Earls in a program and says all of a sudden we’re going to change this legislation and if you do we’re going to fine you.

So, what we need to understand here as a member of this council; you didn’t do anybody in St. Louis County that’s a taxpaying citizen any benefits by not understanding what you’re doing. You’re up here to represent, not your district, but every single person in St. Louis County. And, you failed, and you failed real big! And, then you want to make us be the bad guys to say that we’re out for money. We’re not out for money, what we’re doing is we’re stopping every single government entity from Missouri to wherever, that you’re going to follow the law. And you’re going to follow it or your going to pay, period! Thank you.”

Please feel free to pass this communication on to others who may be interested and to those who do not have internet access. Also, anyone interested in joining the protected e-mail distribution list should send his/her name, e-mail address and subdivision/area of residence to gregporter@prodigy.net.

Fox News presented this interview with County officials.
http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-you-paid-for-it-trash-pick-up-092910,0,7291893.story

Lawsuit Making Its Way Through the Legal System

Two residents and a waste hauler filed a lawsuit the end of August against St. Louis County that seeks voter approval of eight trash districts established in unincorporated areas. They say the trash districts were improperly established because they were not approved by the voters of each district as required by the County Charter.

American Eagle Waste Industries along with south county resident, Brett Buchanan, and north county resident, Greg Porter, filed suit Aug. 22 in St. Louis County Circuit Court. They allege in the suit that the county "has directly violated the command of its own governing charter by imposing upon its citizens in unincorporated areas a mandatory trash-district program and service charge without an authorizing vote by the citizens in each district, as required by the charter.”

(Attorney Lester Stuckmeyer addresses reporters. From left, are: Bryan Barcom of American Eagle Waste, Greg Porter of north county and Brett Buchanan of south county. Click on Photo to enlarge)

County officials have denied claims that trash districts must be created by a vote of the people in each district. Attorney Lester Stuckmeyer along with fellow attorney Robert Schultz, now is representing American Eagle, Buchanan and Porter in their suit against the county.

The county has established eight trash districts in unincorporated areas with one trash hauler per district. While one district already has been implemented in north-central St. Louis County, the seven remaining districts will take effect Oct. 1 in unincorporated areas. A total of 311 subdivisions — or 26.92 percent of total households in unincorporated areas — petitioned the county to opt out of trash districts.

County officials contend that having one hauler per district will result in a more uniform brand of service and lower prices.

Some waste haulers and residents have criticized the move because county officials also have stated that districts likely would force some small haulers out of business due to a lack of competition.

American Eagle owner Bryan Barcom estimates that his company will lose "60 to 65 percent" of more than 22,000 households under contract in St. Louis County when the seven remaining trash districts are effective. He believes this will result in a $3 million annual loss for his company. With these factors in mind, Barcom said he entered into this lawsuit "to save our business and to ensure that our employees have a place of employment."

American Eagle joined with two other waste haulers to file a previous lawsuit this year against the county, but the Missouri Supreme Court rejected those haulers' request for a writ of mandamus. This came after American Eagle, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri appealed a June 25 dismissal from Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman.

The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals on June 27 also denied a request for a writ of mandamus submitted by the waste haulers.

Stuckmeyer contends that the County Charter requires voters in each proposed district to vote on their establishment. "If you look to the county and what their defense was on the first lawsuit, it was: 'No, no, no, the state statute doesn't apply to me. We're a charter county. We're a charter government. Our charter is the rule,'" Stuckmeyer said.

"Well, we're saying: 'Here's your charter.' It clearly states that if you create trash districts and in those trash districts you pay for them with a service charge, i.e. you have to pay the charge for the service, that each of these districts are required to have a vote ... So the county can't have it both ways."

When asked if the ultimate goal behind the lawsuit is to get citizens in each proposed district to vote on them, Stuckmeyer said, "That would be great. If tomorrow the county government said: 'OK, we'll put it to a vote,' I would accept whatever outcome came out of that vote. If the people in the districts voted and said they wanted it, everybody would be fine ... It's hard to accept that you're being forced to do something without having a say in it."

Until the county puts trash districting to a vote, Stuckmeyer maintains that the county is not only unresponsive, but "afraid of its own citizens."

"What does it hurt to give them the right to vote?" Stuckmeyer said. "What are they afraid of? They're afraid of stinging defeat in the face of opposition that they know is there. Look to the opt-outs just to tell you. They're afraid of the people. County government is afraid of its own citizens."

An online survey found 1 in 4 people regularly retreats to a spare room or sofa to get a good night's sleep.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/09/12/lw.sleep.alone.when.married/index.html

The Amazing Waste of St. Louis County

The following are excerpts from a very interesting article from "St. Louis Magazine" June 2008. You may want to skip the sections below and go direct to the entire article on the web site at: http://tinyurl.com/4gkdhe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trash has always been an ugly nuisance to be left at the curb and dealt with by someone else, but a hot mess of controversy in the county has thrown it right back in everyone's face. And what a crazy, complex, fascinating mess it is.

Given the subject matter, "a mess" would seem like the most literary way to describe the state of trash hauling in St. Louis County, but then again, it wouldn't really be accurate. "An overly complex and multilayered system of public and private interests" might be more appropriate.

The county does not provide trash service of any kind. Its Solid Waste Managment Program, which falls under the purview of the Department of Public Health, has fewer than 10 employees, who spend most of their time conducting random compliance checks of trash haulers' trucks, inspecting the two active landfills and four transfer stations in the county and responding to your complaints about the guy next door whose idea of "lawn ornaments" more closely resembles household trash to anyone with a less creative interpretation of the term.

Because the county has no municipal trash system in place, that means it's up to its 91 municipalities to find a way to dispose of their own trash. Five provide trash-hauling service through their public works departments (Brentwood, Kirkwood, Normandy, University City and Valley Park), leaving 86 municipalities for private haulers to fight over. As of April, 75 of the remaining cities, villages and townships had contracts with private haulers to dispose of residential waste within their borders.

In some cities, like Frontenac, which contracts with Veolia Environmental Services, trash pickup is provided "free of charge"; "free," of course, being a relative term when city taxes are involved. In others, like Overland, residents pay Allied Waste directly, $53.88 every quarter.

Residents in the 11 remaining municipalities (Bellerive, Country Life Acres, Florissant, Huntleigh, Kinloch, Ladue, Riverview, Sunset Hills, Town & Country, Wellston and Westwood) can choose their hauler. And they've got plenty to choose from: 22 private haulers have a license to work inside the county.Until this spring, service levels varied from one municipality to the next: Some got once-a-week pickups for trash, recycling and yard waste. Others got twice-a-week trash pickup, once-a-week recycling and yard waste collec­tion if they wanted to pay extra. Some had trash and yard waste service but had to take any recyclables to their local recycling center.

Bryan Barcom at American Eagle Waste does think that any legislation that could ultimately put him out of business is, at the very least, unconstitutional. The bids for the first district were opened in late March, and the low bidder was Veolia Environmental Services, the waste-management division of an international company that operates everything from water-treatment plants to public transportation systems. Its bid for District 3 was $11.60 per month. Barcom says he's barely paying the bills by charging his South County customers $18 a month. "I can't bid at $11.60 and be profitable," he says. "It's not even an option to do that."

"We're going to make our best effort to make this thing work," he says. "The county enforces this great recycling program, and then they take a page out in the Suburban Journal that says, 'If you don't want this recycling cart, call this number, and we'll come and pick it up.' Why not take a full-page ad out and say, 'Please utilize this container to the best of your ability, because you will be charged for this service, whether you use it or not'?" He shakes his head. "It seems like they do everything ass-backwards."

Read the entire article at: http://stlmag.com/media/St-Louis-Magazine/June-2008/The-Amazing-Waste/

$10 Million And Counting: St. Louis County’s Trash Program

Estimates for the amount of money being spent on St. Louis County’s trash program are now in the $10 million range . . . and growing. The County Council approved a trash and recycling program in December 2006, however, 16 months later the program is still not in operation. The program continues to be a moving target with procedures, rules and start-up dates changing every month or two.

The last known start date was April 1, 2008, however, a pilot program was recently announced for trash District 3 to start July 1. At the same time, County officials say they will award contracts for the other seven districts in May, well before the “pilot” is completed. Observers are questioning if the “pilot” is really a “pilot” or if a contract has already been finalized for this district. The “pilot” hauler is Veolia.

As overall expenses continue to mount, the County Council and County officials continue to ignore the pleas and advice of attorneys, state legislators, trash company officials, subdivision trustees, citizens and others to halt the program until all problems can be addressed.

Expenses for the program fall into a number of categories. More than 100,000 recycling bins have been distributed throughout St. Louis County. At a cost estimated at around $40 each, the total cost is over $4 million. Thousand of the bins are not wanted by residents and are being returned to the County.

Some trash companies have increased their staff just to handle administrative functions such as answering the telephone to provide information to their customers. Many have purchased additional trucks to handle the recycling services that are yet to start.

Tens of thousands of man hours have been spent focused on the trash and recycling program. County officials and the County Council have spent countless hours debating the value of the program. Trash haulers have been training and adding staff and purchasing necessary equipment.

Countless meetings have been held by the county and subdivision associations. New organizations have been formed to oppose the program while others have been formed to track the news and information on the legislation and growing problems

State representatives have prepared legislation to cancel the program and are now spending state funds for their time and materials.

Bryan Barcom, owner of American Eagle haulers, urged the county to delay bidding for seven remaining trash collection districts until officials see how the first one works out. Barcom questioned the validity of the bid and the evaluation process of the county in selecting Veolia.

Barcom also questioned the competency of Veolia which was recently awarded the bid for trash hauling services for Trash District No. 3 located in the 2nd Council District. He noted that Veolia had lost trash hauling contracts with three local municipalities – Shrewsbury, Des Peres and Wildwood. He expressed the hardship this would place on independent companies to survive in this market with regard to the acceptance of the $11.60 bid from Veolia.

Mr. Barcom asked that the County Council not move forward with awarding any additional bids for trash hauling. He also questioned the lack of information available in the community to educate the residents concerning the Waste Management Code recycling requirement. It’s not uncommon to hear a county resident say if they don’t like the service provided, they will change to another carrier. Unfortunately, they will not be allowed to do so per the County regulation.

Barcom read a statement from Mayor Lowery, Mayor of the City of Florissant, with regard to the City of Florissant’s position on this matter. The Mayor has advised residents of Florissant not to pay any fees for recycling charges. He said the citizens of Florissant have been calling their city hall to complain about the trash hauling and recycling fees which were being mandated by St. Louis County.

Barcom related that he is still waiting for information from the Health Department regarding one of his three (3) questions he posed to the Health Department two weeks ago at the March 18, 2008 County Council Meeting. The unresponsiveness of the county on important questions being asked by trash haulers and subdivision trustees appears is widespread. This is NOT an insolated incident.

Doug Smith, a trustee in a Sappington area subdivision, says he has been waiting for a response on another matter regarding salaries of St. Louis County Police personnel. He directed a letter to County Executive Dooley on March 19 on this matter and specifically requested some type of a response. He’s heard nothing as of April 8.

Celeste Witzel expressed her concern to the Council at their April 1 meeting regarding the impact the trash districting will have on the independent trash haulers. She was surprised that the County Council has set up a program to force companies out of business.

Kurt Witzel, of Oakville in South County, inquired if there is a way that questions posed to the County Council could be answered in a public way, suggesting the website as a mechanism for responses.

He also questioned if there was a computer chip contained in the trash bins for tracking purposes. Dr. Gunn of St. Louis County responded that there is a barcode located on the trash containers for the Department of Health’s record keeping purposes. Unfortunately, a check of the recycle bins does not reflect the commonly used bar code but a computer chip device that can be used for tracking and identification.

The major problem with the County’s trash program is not the mandatory recycling or the increased fees to pay for the service or the minimum levels of service, but the forced used of certain trash haulers through use of trash districts. It fosters a move producing a monopoly. Residents should be allowed to select their trash hauler of choice and let the market determine the costs for services. Right now, St. Louis County is paying tens of thousands of dollars in man hours every month - with no end in sight.

Ten Million Dollars (and counting) is a lot for a program that’s not wanted by the majority of county citizens.