Showing posts with label County Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label County Council. Show all posts
Thursday, July 25, 2013
South County Not Alone in Protesting Senior Living Construction
The Town and Country and Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously turned down a proposal by Allegro Senior Living to build a 150-unit, luxury senior living development Wednesday night after hearing from dozens of residents who were vehemently opposed to the project.
The commission will make its recommendation to the Board of Alderman, citing seven reasons it opposed the proposal. Among these, the commission said there was "no public need" and that neighbors’ property values would be damaged.
Nearly 200 people came to City Hall for the commission’s meeting and most of those who spoke indicated that they didn’t want the project proposed for about 12 acres east of Mason Woods Village, at Clayton and Mason roads, to go forward.
"I haven’t heard any citizen yet speaking in favor of this," Bernard Zyk said. "The citizens have their imaginary pitchforks out."
( Love Investment Co.) and Allegro Senior Living were seeking a rezoning and approval of a preliminary site development plan for complex.
Residents expressed concerns about traffic, noise, effects on property values, and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Many also said they wanted to preserve 1-acre residential zoning.
Several opposed a proposed special sales tax for a Community Improvement District to help the developer defray costs.
Residents were elated at the commission’s decision.
More at:
Friday, June 14, 2013
St. Louis County Council OKs added $29.5 million in courthouse funding
In wondering last Sunday whether the inflated cost of a St. Louis County Courts project — from $100 million to nearly $130 million — was due to incompetence or deceptiveness, we overlooked another possibility.
Political influence.
Consider this timeline: On May 7, Alberici Construction, a bidder on the courthouse project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley. That same day the County Council chairman and vice chairman, Kathleen Kelly Burkett and Hazel Erby, signed pledges at the request of officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to be silent about the plan to spend extra public money on the project.
On May 22, Clayco Construction, which is teamed with Alberici on bidding for the project, made a $10,000 campaign contribution to Mayor Francis G. Slay. That same day, Mr. Slay’s campaign turned around and made a $10,000 campaign contribution to Mr. Dooley.
The evening before, on May 21, the County Council had approved a request from officials in Mr. Dooley’s office to spend an additional $29.5 million on the project, even though voters had approved spending only $100 million on the project a year earlier.
Spokesmen for Mssrs. Dooley and Slay assured us the donations had nothing to do with the request for more money for the project. That was reassuring, because we’d hate to think that the mayor — who doesn’t come up for re-election until 2017 — had opened a money laundromat.
“Obviously not,” said Mac Scott, a spokesman for Mr. Dooley.
“Not in any way,” said Richard Callow, a campaign spokesman for Mr. Slay.
So why did Mr. Slay contribute exactly the same amount his campaign received from Clayco Construction to Mr. Dooley on the very day he got Clayco’s donation?
“The mayor strongly believes that Charlie Dooley is good for St. Louis County,” Mr. Callow said.
Under Missouri’s current anemic campaign ethics laws, these contributions are legal. Committee-to-committee pass-throughs, done to fuzz up the source of money, happen all the time. Campaign money buys influence.
The other front-runners for the project — McCarthy Building Companies and KCI Construction Co. — do not show up on campaign reports as having made contributions to either Mr. Slay or Mr. Dooley this year.
The Clayco-Alberici team’s contributions do not guarantee that those companies will win the bid, either. Indeed, the companies may merely be showing their support for the enlightened policies of Mr. Slay and/or Mr. Dooley. But the timing is curious.
Garry Earls, the county’s chief operating officer, sought confidentiality from the parties involved in the attempt to approve an additional $29.5 million in special obligation bonds. That lack of transparency raises suspicions about other aspects, including the campaign contributions.
Voters had already rejected a more extensive $120 million project in 2008 to build a new St. Louis Family Court Building, refurbish the existing main courthouse and perform various other building projects.
When they were presented with a proposition in April 2012 to spend $100 million to build the Family Court building and do some long-delayed and necessary work on the main courthouse, voters approved it.
Last year’s proposition did not require a tax increase, which the earlier proposal would have. Mr. Earls said that if the county had sought $130 million for the project last year, it would have required a tax hike.
That is the key point. The same county officials who in 2010 said the budget was so stressed that they’d have to close parks and cut jobs, were reluctant to ask voters to approve higher taxes in 2012.
So they asked for less money than it now turns out is needed. Mr. Earls said it was an honest mistake; the work turned out to be more expensive than anticipated. On the other hand, allowing for inflation, it’s about the same as the 2008 project that voters turned down.
Read the rest of this story at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-campaign-money-and-that-higher-cost-st-louis-county/article_14e5e748-14d7-5dae-a6b3-ca6f6d361fff.html
Compliments of Post Dispatch.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
When Does Senior Center Construction in Oakville Stop?
After the recent decision by the St. Louis County Council to reconsider the zoning for the senior center complex on Telegraph Road, Oakville residents want to know: When will construction stop?
The answer? Probably not anytime soon.
National Church Residences, the Ohio-based company developing the center with Housing and Urban Development funding, is legally permitted to continue with construction unless the St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Commission re-zones the property, which could happen later this month, or unless a lawsuit forces them to stop, said county councilman Steve Stenger.
"For construction to stop, it has to happen through legal action, through an injuction," Stenger said. "That's the only thing that can stop actual construction."
National Church Residences, the Ohio-based company developing the center with Housing and Urban Development funding, is legally permitted to continue with construction unless the St. Louis County Planning and Zoning Commission re-zones the property, which could happen later this month, or unless a lawsuit forces them to stop, said county councilman Steve Stenger.
"For construction to stop, it has to happen through legal action, through an injuction," Stenger said. "That's the only thing that can stop actual construction."
Saturday, June 08, 2013
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
“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
Friday, December 23, 2011
County Officials Can't Agree on District Boundaries
Three St. Louis County Council members and four voters filed suit Thursday in federal court here, asking a judge to redraw election districts before February.
The suit, filed against the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, follows the failure of the county's Reapportionment Commission to redraw the district boundaries last month. The boundaries are supposed to be redrawn by the seven Democrats and seven Republicans to equally divide the population as reflected in the 2010 Census.
Neither side could agree on the size of the 5th District.
The suit says that with districts in limbo, potential candidates can't decide whether and where to run for office. The suit asks a judge to come up with a plan before Feb. 28, the first day candidates for the county council can file for election.
The suit was filed by three Democratic council members — Patrick Dolan, Michael O'Mara, and Steven Stenger — and voters Mary Sanders, Vincent Sansone, Jasmina Vajzovic and Keith Walston.
The commission hasn't been successful in redrawing the boundaries since the 1970 census.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/suit-asks-a-judge-to-draw-new-st-louis-county/article_39b24da8-2d86-11e1-b287-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1hNsIA4pb
The suit, filed against the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, follows the failure of the county's Reapportionment Commission to redraw the district boundaries last month. The boundaries are supposed to be redrawn by the seven Democrats and seven Republicans to equally divide the population as reflected in the 2010 Census.
Neither side could agree on the size of the 5th District.
The suit says that with districts in limbo, potential candidates can't decide whether and where to run for office. The suit asks a judge to come up with a plan before Feb. 28, the first day candidates for the county council can file for election.
The suit was filed by three Democratic council members — Patrick Dolan, Michael O'Mara, and Steven Stenger — and voters Mary Sanders, Vincent Sansone, Jasmina Vajzovic and Keith Walston.
The commission hasn't been successful in redrawing the boundaries since the 1970 census.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/suit-asks-a-judge-to-draw-new-st-louis-county/article_39b24da8-2d86-11e1-b287-0019bb30f31a.html#ixzz1hNsIA4pb
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Dooley: "We will do a better job"
County Executive Charlie Dooley pledged in an interview after the vote to keep the County Council and the citizenry better informed about the county's finances and budget in 2012.
"We will do a better job of communicating with the County Council, and being open and transparent, " Dooley said. "Everyone will know where we are. We have challenges but also opportunities."
Dooley said the budget "kicks the can" of some budget problems down the road. "In my lifetime, the economy has not been this bad," Dooley said.
Dooley proposed on Tuesday a standing County Council committee to meet biweekly or monthly to discuss the status of the budget all year.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/after-difficult-prelude-st-louis-county-council-approves-budget/article_edc8678f-8adc-5be4-b292-c35ecd9f9b17.html#ixzz1hBechpH0
"We will do a better job of communicating with the County Council, and being open and transparent, " Dooley said. "Everyone will know where we are. We have challenges but also opportunities."
Dooley said the budget "kicks the can" of some budget problems down the road. "In my lifetime, the economy has not been this bad," Dooley said.
Dooley proposed on Tuesday a standing County Council committee to meet biweekly or monthly to discuss the status of the budget all year.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/after-difficult-prelude-st-louis-county-council-approves-budget/article_edc8678f-8adc-5be4-b292-c35ecd9f9b17.html#ixzz1hBechpH0
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
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 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
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
St. Louis County board fails to agree on voting districts
The Post Dispatch writes:
The St. Louis County Reapportionment Commission failed on Tuesday night to draw new council district boundaries to conform to the 2010 census, leaving the decision in the hands of a federal judge.
The last time a redistricting commission — seven Democrats and seven Republicans — succeeded in drawing the seven council district boundaries was after the 1970 census. Federal judges established the boundaries after the last three population counts.
Both parties submitted maps for consideration.
The sticking point this time involved the 5th District, in the southwestern part of the county.
The Republican map produced a bulge in the 5th District by including Ladue and Frontenac.
Francis "Butch" Miller, the commission's Democratic chairman, said that the Republican motives were political.
"By putting Ladue and Frontenac in the 5th, which just elected a Democrat (Pat Dolan) to the County Council, you're trying to make that district more Republican," Miller, a lawyer with the Clayton firm of Gallup, Johnson and Neuman, told his Republican counterparts at a meeting at county government headquarters in Clayton.
The Republican chairman, former state Rep. Allen Icet of Wildwood, said Ladue and Frontenac were among several cities, including Crestwood and Creve Coeur, that his party had tried to situate entirely within single council districts at the request of residents.
"Based on public comments, citizens thought it was a good idea for municipalities to reside within one district and not be split amongst two or more," Icet said.
"That makes sense from the standpoint of elected officials, such as the mayor, who can address concerns to one councilman rather than multiple ones."
The Republican members asserted that the Democratic map, which made few changes to the current one, was designed to protect the Democrats' 5-2 majority on the council.
A last-minute Republican motion to have the commission meet today to consider a compromise map for the 5th District failed.
The deadline for approving the new map is Thanksgiving, but the commission will take no further action before then.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-county-board-fails-to-agree-on-voting-districts/article_ba2be4b3-2c14-52f7-a48e-20097ba55ad2.html#ixzz1eY1R89wm
The St. Louis County Reapportionment Commission failed on Tuesday night to draw new council district boundaries to conform to the 2010 census, leaving the decision in the hands of a federal judge.
The last time a redistricting commission — seven Democrats and seven Republicans — succeeded in drawing the seven council district boundaries was after the 1970 census. Federal judges established the boundaries after the last three population counts.
Both parties submitted maps for consideration.
The sticking point this time involved the 5th District, in the southwestern part of the county.
The Republican map produced a bulge in the 5th District by including Ladue and Frontenac.
Francis "Butch" Miller, the commission's Democratic chairman, said that the Republican motives were political.
"By putting Ladue and Frontenac in the 5th, which just elected a Democrat (Pat Dolan) to the County Council, you're trying to make that district more Republican," Miller, a lawyer with the Clayton firm of Gallup, Johnson and Neuman, told his Republican counterparts at a meeting at county government headquarters in Clayton.
The Republican chairman, former state Rep. Allen Icet of Wildwood, said Ladue and Frontenac were among several cities, including Crestwood and Creve Coeur, that his party had tried to situate entirely within single council districts at the request of residents.
"Based on public comments, citizens thought it was a good idea for municipalities to reside within one district and not be split amongst two or more," Icet said.
"That makes sense from the standpoint of elected officials, such as the mayor, who can address concerns to one councilman rather than multiple ones."
The Republican members asserted that the Democratic map, which made few changes to the current one, was designed to protect the Democrats' 5-2 majority on the council.
A last-minute Republican motion to have the commission meet today to consider a compromise map for the 5th District failed.
The deadline for approving the new map is Thanksgiving, but the commission will take no further action before then.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-county-board-fails-to-agree-on-voting-districts/article_ba2be4b3-2c14-52f7-a48e-20097ba55ad2.html#ixzz1eY1R89wm
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Panel outlines population shifts in St. Louis County's council districts
By Jo Mannies, Beacon political reporter
http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/111565-panel-outlines-population-shifts-in-st-louis-countys-council-districts
Four of St. Louis County's seven council districts have lost population during the past 10 years, which will force changes in all the boundary lines in the next few months. The four: the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th districts.
The 14-person commission charged with drawing those lines laid out the numbers during Monday night's first public hearing on the matter, held in the County Council chambers in Clayton. Only a handful of people showed up, with only one offering comments.
The largest percentage loss -- 7.7 percent -- took place in the 1st council district, which takes in the near north St. Louis County suburban communities of Jennings and Wellston, among others. Next comes the neighboring 2nd District (loss: 4.3 percent), which takes in such northwest St. Louis County communities as Maryland Heights, St. Ann and Overland.
The 4th District -- which includes Black Jack and part of Florissant -- lost 3.6 percent. The 5th, which spans from University City south and west through Shrewsbury and Webster Groves, lost 1.9 percent.
Not surprisingly, the biggest gain over the last decade -- 3.8 percent -- was in the county's 7th District, which takes in far west St. Louis County and the communities of Wildwood and Chesterfield. The 3rd District, which takes in central-west communities such as Creve Coeur and Kirkwood, grew 1.4 percent. The remaining 6th District, in far south St. Louis County, remained stable, growing just .3 percent.
Read more at: http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/111565-panel-outlines-population-shifts-in-st-louis-countys-council-districts
http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/111565-panel-outlines-population-shifts-in-st-louis-countys-council-districts
Four of St. Louis County's seven council districts have lost population during the past 10 years, which will force changes in all the boundary lines in the next few months. The four: the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th districts.
The 14-person commission charged with drawing those lines laid out the numbers during Monday night's first public hearing on the matter, held in the County Council chambers in Clayton. Only a handful of people showed up, with only one offering comments.
The largest percentage loss -- 7.7 percent -- took place in the 1st council district, which takes in the near north St. Louis County suburban communities of Jennings and Wellston, among others. Next comes the neighboring 2nd District (loss: 4.3 percent), which takes in such northwest St. Louis County communities as Maryland Heights, St. Ann and Overland.
The 4th District -- which includes Black Jack and part of Florissant -- lost 3.6 percent. The 5th, which spans from University City south and west through Shrewsbury and Webster Groves, lost 1.9 percent.
Not surprisingly, the biggest gain over the last decade -- 3.8 percent -- was in the county's 7th District, which takes in far west St. Louis County and the communities of Wildwood and Chesterfield. The 3rd District, which takes in central-west communities such as Creve Coeur and Kirkwood, grew 1.4 percent. The remaining 6th District, in far south St. Louis County, remained stable, growing just .3 percent.
Read more at: http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/111565-panel-outlines-population-shifts-in-st-louis-countys-council-districts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
County Council Approves New Trash Hauling Rates
With prices rising on everything from food and gas to utilities and insurance, here’s some good news—if you live in unincorporated St. Louis County, your rates for trash service will be going down but many county residents find that hard to believe these rates will still be good 5 years from now as promised.
The lower rates will impact unincorporated areas of the county, including areas surrounding Eureka, Fenton, Manchester and Town and Country, Affton, Lemay, Mehlville, and Oakville.
The St. Louis County Council accepted bids from IESI and Allied Waste for trash service contracts for the county’s eight trash districts. In March, the council approved extending the length of contracts with its waste haulers from three to five years in hopes of receiving better rates.
In trash districts south of Highway 40, homeowners can expect to save between $30 and $52 a year when the new contracts begin Oct. 3. Additionally, residents will no longer have to pay a monthly rental fee for their recycling carts with the new contracts.
Currently, IESI provides service to Districts 1, 2 and 8 and Allied provides service to Districts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Under the new contracts, ISEI will provide service to Districts 2 and 4 and Allied will provide services to the remaining districts.
The council voted 5-2 to approve the bids in each of the eight trash districts, stated minutes from the May 10 meeting. Council members Steve Stenger, District 6, and Greg Quinn, District 7, cast the opposing votes in each decision.
Stenger and Quinn also voted against extending the length of the contracts for the county’s haulers. Stenger had said he was concerned that longer contracts would make it more difficult for smaller hauling companies to compete. At least they won't be able to compete for the next 5 years.
In 2008, the county established eight trash districts as part its waste management code. The creation of the districts enabled the county to negotiate contracts with haulers and provided for unified waste collection, recycling and bulky trash pickup services for residents.
Prior to that, residents in unincorporated portions of the county could choose their own haulers, which resulted in several different trash trucks driving through the same neighborhoods at various times.
Controversy followed the change, and sparked several lawsuits from residents who were opposed to the county choosing their hauler. The lawsuits are currently pending in the courts and could throw out the trash program entirely. The regulation passed by the county prohibits all other trash haulers from doing business in St. Louis County which many feel is unconstitutional.
Comments from Readers:
"I find it hard to believe these rates are guaranteed for the coming 5 years. I'll be glad to eat my words 5 years from now if they are the same."
"Can a government agency legally block companies from doing business in the county? Are other trash haulers prohibited from doing business here? That just doesn't sound right."
"This issue has gone up thru the courts and some issues are pending before the Missouri Supreme Court. This whole issue just doesn't smell right."
The lower rates will impact unincorporated areas of the county, including areas surrounding Eureka, Fenton, Manchester and Town and Country, Affton, Lemay, Mehlville, and Oakville.
The St. Louis County Council accepted bids from IESI and Allied Waste for trash service contracts for the county’s eight trash districts. In March, the council approved extending the length of contracts with its waste haulers from three to five years in hopes of receiving better rates.
In trash districts south of Highway 40, homeowners can expect to save between $30 and $52 a year when the new contracts begin Oct. 3. Additionally, residents will no longer have to pay a monthly rental fee for their recycling carts with the new contracts.
Currently, IESI provides service to Districts 1, 2 and 8 and Allied provides service to Districts 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Under the new contracts, ISEI will provide service to Districts 2 and 4 and Allied will provide services to the remaining districts.
The council voted 5-2 to approve the bids in each of the eight trash districts, stated minutes from the May 10 meeting. Council members Steve Stenger, District 6, and Greg Quinn, District 7, cast the opposing votes in each decision.
Stenger and Quinn also voted against extending the length of the contracts for the county’s haulers. Stenger had said he was concerned that longer contracts would make it more difficult for smaller hauling companies to compete. At least they won't be able to compete for the next 5 years.
In 2008, the county established eight trash districts as part its waste management code. The creation of the districts enabled the county to negotiate contracts with haulers and provided for unified waste collection, recycling and bulky trash pickup services for residents.
Prior to that, residents in unincorporated portions of the county could choose their own haulers, which resulted in several different trash trucks driving through the same neighborhoods at various times.
Controversy followed the change, and sparked several lawsuits from residents who were opposed to the county choosing their hauler. The lawsuits are currently pending in the courts and could throw out the trash program entirely. The regulation passed by the county prohibits all other trash haulers from doing business in St. Louis County which many feel is unconstitutional.
Comments from Readers:
"I find it hard to believe these rates are guaranteed for the coming 5 years. I'll be glad to eat my words 5 years from now if they are the same."
"Can a government agency legally block companies from doing business in the county? Are other trash haulers prohibited from doing business here? That just doesn't sound right."
"This issue has gone up thru the courts and some issues are pending before the Missouri Supreme Court. This whole issue just doesn't smell right."
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
County wants state high court to intervene in trash-district suit
Haulers claiming damages total more than $23 million. EVAN YOUNG
Staff ReporterApril 20, 2011 -
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-04-20-252327.112112-County-wants-state-high-court-to-intervene-in-trashdistrict-suit.html
St. Louis County is asking the state high court to intervene in a lawsuit filed by three waste haulers who claim the county owes them $23.2 million in damages.
County Counselor Patricia Redington last week petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition against the county circuit court of Judge Barbara Wallace and the three haulers suing over the county's trash-district program.
The move comes ahead of a May 31 trial to determine damages owed the haulers, who filed suit nearly three years ago over the county's failure to provide two years' written notification it was establishing eight trash districts in unincorporated areas, as required by state law.
Redington told the Call the county believes the circuit court has "exceeded its jurisdiction."
"We're saying this case should be dismissed and we would like the (state) Supreme Court to take that up now rather than make us wait and go through an appeal," she said.
For the rest of the story and more, go to:
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-04-20-252327.112112-County-wants-state-high-court-to-intervene-in-trashdistrict-suit.html
Staff ReporterApril 20, 2011 -
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-04-20-252327.112112-County-wants-state-high-court-to-intervene-in-trashdistrict-suit.html
St. Louis County is asking the state high court to intervene in a lawsuit filed by three waste haulers who claim the county owes them $23.2 million in damages.
County Counselor Patricia Redington last week petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition against the county circuit court of Judge Barbara Wallace and the three haulers suing over the county's trash-district program.
The move comes ahead of a May 31 trial to determine damages owed the haulers, who filed suit nearly three years ago over the county's failure to provide two years' written notification it was establishing eight trash districts in unincorporated areas, as required by state law.
Redington told the Call the county believes the circuit court has "exceeded its jurisdiction."
"We're saying this case should be dismissed and we would like the (state) Supreme Court to take that up now rather than make us wait and go through an appeal," she said.
For the rest of the story and more, go to:
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-04-20-252327.112112-County-wants-state-high-court-to-intervene-in-trashdistrict-suit.html
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
St. Louis County Trash Bids Leave a Lot to be Desired. Why do Some Residents Pay Much More than Others?
Householders in four of St. Louis County's eight trash collection districts are likely to pay less five years from now for basic service than they do today. The savings range from $1.44 a month to $2.20 a month depending on the district.
The savings would be a result of hauler bids for five-year contracts. Allied Waste Services submitted the apparent low bids that would win the contracts in all four districts. The new contracts would take effect in early October.
How do you spell MONOPOLY? Something just doesn’t smell right. Gasoline prices are going out of sight and gas is one of the main expenses of a trash hauling company - so the trash hauler (Allied Waste Services in this case) drops their rates by 23% in North County and wins all four trash districts.
In the 1st trash collection district mainly in far north St. Louis County, householders now pay $13.14 a month for basic service. If the county confirms the bids, the amount would drop to $10.10 a month in October and rise to $11.15 in October, 2015.
In the 3rd district in the area generally between St. Ann, Overland, Creve Coeur, Chesterfield and Maryland Heights, the figures are $12.31 a month now; $9.35 a month in October and $10.32 a month in October, 2015.
These figures are interesting. Why is trash hauling 7% less expensive in these areas as compared to North County? Are North County residents getting ripped off in the process?
And is hauling trash in South County really more expensive than hauling trash in Affton? Like 6% more expensive?
In the 5th district in Affton, the figures are $13.29 now, $10.05 a month in October, and $11.09 in October, 2015. In the 7th district in south St. Louis County, the figures are $13.28 a month now, $10.73 in October and $11.84 in October, 2015.
Allied's prices were in some districts more than $2 a month lower than the nearest competitor. Other bidders for all four districts were IESI, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management. Christian Environmental Services submitted bids for the 3rd and 5th districts only.
The average rates being offered by Allied, come October, are around $10.05 (with a high of $10.73 to a low of $9.35 come October). If the nearest competitor is more than $2 per month higher, that’s a difference of over 20% more. This raises the question if the lowest bidder is actually the best choice when it comes to quality, customer service, responsiveness, etc?
The contracts do not permit haulers to add fuel or administrative surcharges.
About three years ago, Allied won contracts for the 5th and 6th districts. Last year, the company bought the residential hauling assets of Veolia Environmental Services and took over that company's contracts in the 3rd, 4th and 7th districts. IESI now serves the 1st trash district.
The trash districts have been controversial, especially in south St. Louis County. Opponents have filed four lawsuits against them. Some other haulers refused to bid on the county contracts due to the pending legal cases. Haulers and/or St. Louis County may be required to refund trash charges back to county residents. A court decision is due soon.
Much of the opposition has been in the St. Louis County Council's 6th District in south St. Louis County represented by St. Louis County Council Chairman Steven Stenger, D-Affton.
The savings would be a result of hauler bids for five-year contracts. Allied Waste Services submitted the apparent low bids that would win the contracts in all four districts. The new contracts would take effect in early October.
How do you spell MONOPOLY? Something just doesn’t smell right. Gasoline prices are going out of sight and gas is one of the main expenses of a trash hauling company - so the trash hauler (Allied Waste Services in this case) drops their rates by 23% in North County and wins all four trash districts.
In the 1st trash collection district mainly in far north St. Louis County, householders now pay $13.14 a month for basic service. If the county confirms the bids, the amount would drop to $10.10 a month in October and rise to $11.15 in October, 2015.
In the 3rd district in the area generally between St. Ann, Overland, Creve Coeur, Chesterfield and Maryland Heights, the figures are $12.31 a month now; $9.35 a month in October and $10.32 a month in October, 2015.
These figures are interesting. Why is trash hauling 7% less expensive in these areas as compared to North County? Are North County residents getting ripped off in the process?
And is hauling trash in South County really more expensive than hauling trash in Affton? Like 6% more expensive?
In the 5th district in Affton, the figures are $13.29 now, $10.05 a month in October, and $11.09 in October, 2015. In the 7th district in south St. Louis County, the figures are $13.28 a month now, $10.73 in October and $11.84 in October, 2015.
Allied's prices were in some districts more than $2 a month lower than the nearest competitor. Other bidders for all four districts were IESI, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management. Christian Environmental Services submitted bids for the 3rd and 5th districts only.
The average rates being offered by Allied, come October, are around $10.05 (with a high of $10.73 to a low of $9.35 come October). If the nearest competitor is more than $2 per month higher, that’s a difference of over 20% more. This raises the question if the lowest bidder is actually the best choice when it comes to quality, customer service, responsiveness, etc?
The contracts do not permit haulers to add fuel or administrative surcharges.
About three years ago, Allied won contracts for the 5th and 6th districts. Last year, the company bought the residential hauling assets of Veolia Environmental Services and took over that company's contracts in the 3rd, 4th and 7th districts. IESI now serves the 1st trash district.
The trash districts have been controversial, especially in south St. Louis County. Opponents have filed four lawsuits against them. Some other haulers refused to bid on the county contracts due to the pending legal cases. Haulers and/or St. Louis County may be required to refund trash charges back to county residents. A court decision is due soon.
Much of the opposition has been in the St. Louis County Council's 6th District in south St. Louis County represented by St. Louis County Council Chairman Steven Stenger, D-Affton.
Wednesday, March 02, 2011
St. Louis County gives tentative OK to longer trash contracts
Here we go again. Another lawsuit in the making?
The St. Louis Post Disipatch reports the St. Louis County Council on Tuesday voted 4-3 to give tentative approval to lengthening to five years from three the contracts for haulers in trash collection districts in the unincorporated area.
The current three-year contracts in the eight districts expire Sept. 30. Officials plan to complete this spring specifications for the bidding and seek bids next summer for new contracts for districts whose haulers now serve 80,366 households.
Officials say longer contracts could save households money and give haulers more time to pay for equipment. Some sources say any savings to residents would be minimal. "Why not 7 years or 10 years? Would the 'savings' be any greater?" added one resident.
Councilman Greg Quinn urged the council to delay action because of lawsuits challenging the districts.
The County Council chairman said last week he "vehemently" opposes a proposal from the administration that would lengthen the term of the county's trash-district contracts.
Chairman Steve Stenger, D-south county, said he planned to vote against the measure, which would increase the duration of the trash-district contracts to five years from three years.
Council Vice Chairman Mike O'Mara, D-Florissant, is the bill's sponsor. In 2008, the county established eight trash districts in unincorporated areas and awarded three waste haulers contracts to serve them exclusively. The contracts will expire Sept. 30.
Officials in County Executive Charlie Dooley's administration believe the next round of agreements should be longer to save residents money.
The St. Louis Post Disipatch reports the St. Louis County Council on Tuesday voted 4-3 to give tentative approval to lengthening to five years from three the contracts for haulers in trash collection districts in the unincorporated area.
The current three-year contracts in the eight districts expire Sept. 30. Officials plan to complete this spring specifications for the bidding and seek bids next summer for new contracts for districts whose haulers now serve 80,366 households.
Officials say longer contracts could save households money and give haulers more time to pay for equipment. Some sources say any savings to residents would be minimal. "Why not 7 years or 10 years? Would the 'savings' be any greater?" added one resident.
Councilman Greg Quinn urged the council to delay action because of lawsuits challenging the districts.
The County Council chairman said last week he "vehemently" opposes a proposal from the administration that would lengthen the term of the county's trash-district contracts.
Chairman Steve Stenger, D-south county, said he planned to vote against the measure, which would increase the duration of the trash-district contracts to five years from three years.
Council Vice Chairman Mike O'Mara, D-Florissant, is the bill's sponsor. In 2008, the county established eight trash districts in unincorporated areas and awarded three waste haulers contracts to serve them exclusively. The contracts will expire Sept. 30.
Officials in County Executive Charlie Dooley's administration believe the next round of agreements should be longer to save residents money.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Residents Ticked Off at County Officials About Trash Program; Comments From Readers of Post Articles
St. Louis County residents have been vocal in their dislike and distrust of the county’s trash program. The following are just a few of the comments expressed in the Post Dispatch comments section at:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a576c829-4dbb-5054-bf93-6b4087dda664.html?mode=comments
1. Beenthereseenthem said on: September 26, 2010, 7:15 pm
I've worked for the county for years. Everyone there knows Charlie Dooley couldn't put the right shoes on the right feet without Gary Earls and John Temporiti's permission and direction. Pat Reddington does whatever they tell her to do and she is totally out of touch with reality. If I were an investigative reporter, I'd check out their connections with those that were awarded the contracts in not just this matter but all contracts that have been given out in their administration!!!!!
2. dblittlefeet said on: September 25, 2010, 11:01 pm
Not only were we forced to use a trash service we did not choose--they suck on top of it. They have the worst service I have ever had. From the haulers all the way up to Dooley. Can’t wait for November to say good bye Mr. Dooley!! I have had to appear in court three times already--but they will never get a penny from me. I cancelled service and have more of a bill for one year of cancelled service than I did for 3 years of trash service from American Eagle.
3. Johnd38 said on: September 25, 2010, 11:19 am
Dooley is history in November & Bad History as well. Poor excuse for a "leader". When will people wise up & quit electing these incompetents? Good riddance. Shame that bonds for job performance aren't required & taxpayers will not only get to pay for his criminal activity, but also will have to pay retirement benefits for him too.
4. 7d7 said on: September 25, 2010, 10:26 am
While County voters can't make this lawsuit go away, they can on November 2 to address its cause: County Executive Charlie Dooley.
It was Dooley who used his office to ramrod the County's seizure of contracting authority for trash hauling from its citizens. It was Dooley, and his appointees, who exposed County taxpayers to the lawsuit.
It is Dooley who is now behind transferring without bid contracts for three of the eight districts to Allied. Dooley must go!
5. MOVALFAN said on: September 25, 2010, 10:25 am
The concept behind the trash districts is solid. Its implementation has been a travesty. But then what did you expect from this bunch of St Louis City Democrat machine thugs. This is how they 'roll' in machine politics. Once Dooley was selected he gradually brought in the old Schoemehl crew that destroyed the city during that administration. You can see their legacy in the city to this very day. Do you like what you see there and want the same future for the County? Vote Corrigan!!!!
6. thiatt_II said on: September 25, 2010, 10:17 am
There is a good chance that some of you are right and Dooley was trying to help a north county business. AW, which is located in North County and has the business in either all or most of the districts, also has the worst customer service. I know several people that work for different trash companies and hearing what they do in their job is very different than the service that AW employees have ever given.
7. dobeman said on: September 25, 2010, 10:06 am
This should do it for Dooley. It's good bye and good riddance, Charlie! Enough of the crooked North County politics; people are fed up. This should make it a cake walk for Mr. Corrigan. You mess with people's bread and butter and you are out the door!
8. jjk said on: September 25, 2010, 10:01 am
I think AAA rated Charlie Dooley just got downgraded to junk bond status.
9. teg132 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:27 am
ADVICE TO CORRIGAN: Go crawl under a rock until the election is over. This idiot you're running against will bury himself, so don't take any chances. Stay cool and under the radar......let Dooley dig his own grave just by being himself.
10. teg132 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:22 am
Rightthinker4's comments are likely close to fact concerning your county buffoon's ties to north-county trash haulers! That angle should be fully investigated, and if it is found that the North County haulers were given any preferential treatment whatsoever, their contracts should be cancelled. Then a private negotiator should work out a deal with the haulers who were harmed, so that this entire problem goes away, at considerably less cost than otherwise. THIS DOOLEY GUY IS A J O K E.
11. Taxman2 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:13 am
Every municipality in St. Louis County had to follow this law when they switched to one trash hauler. How Dooley/ Redington thought they could get away doing it differently is asinine. This will cost the County hundreds of millions in damages. There is a good chance that the first thing that the new County Executive, Mr. Corrigan, will have to do is to file for bankruptcy.
Read more comments at:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a576c829-4dbb-5054-bf93-6b4087dda664.html?mode=comments
&
http://www.stltoday.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=st.+louis+county%2C+trash
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a576c829-4dbb-5054-bf93-6b4087dda664.html?mode=comments
1. Beenthereseenthem said on: September 26, 2010, 7:15 pm
I've worked for the county for years. Everyone there knows Charlie Dooley couldn't put the right shoes on the right feet without Gary Earls and John Temporiti's permission and direction. Pat Reddington does whatever they tell her to do and she is totally out of touch with reality. If I were an investigative reporter, I'd check out their connections with those that were awarded the contracts in not just this matter but all contracts that have been given out in their administration!!!!!
2. dblittlefeet said on: September 25, 2010, 11:01 pm
Not only were we forced to use a trash service we did not choose--they suck on top of it. They have the worst service I have ever had. From the haulers all the way up to Dooley. Can’t wait for November to say good bye Mr. Dooley!! I have had to appear in court three times already--but they will never get a penny from me. I cancelled service and have more of a bill for one year of cancelled service than I did for 3 years of trash service from American Eagle.
3. Johnd38 said on: September 25, 2010, 11:19 am
4. 7d7 said on: September 25, 2010, 10:26 am
While County voters can't make this lawsuit go away, they can on November 2 to address its cause: County Executive Charlie Dooley.
It was Dooley who used his office to ramrod the County's seizure of contracting authority for trash hauling from its citizens. It was Dooley, and his appointees, who exposed County taxpayers to the lawsuit.
It is Dooley who is now behind transferring without bid contracts for three of the eight districts to Allied. Dooley must go!
5. MOVALFAN said on: September 25, 2010, 10:25 am
The concept behind the trash districts is solid. Its implementation has been a travesty. But then what did you expect from this bunch of St Louis City Democrat machine thugs. This is how they 'roll' in machine politics. Once Dooley was selected he gradually brought in the old Schoemehl crew that destroyed the city during that administration. You can see their legacy in the city to this very day. Do you like what you see there and want the same future for the County? Vote Corrigan!!!!
6. thiatt_II said on: September 25, 2010, 10:17 am
There is a good chance that some of you are right and Dooley was trying to help a north county business. AW, which is located in North County and has the business in either all or most of the districts, also has the worst customer service. I know several people that work for different trash companies and hearing what they do in their job is very different than the service that AW employees have ever given.
7. dobeman said on: September 25, 2010, 10:06 am
This should do it for Dooley. It's good bye and good riddance, Charlie! Enough of the crooked North County politics; people are fed up. This should make it a cake walk for Mr. Corrigan. You mess with people's bread and butter and you are out the door!
8. jjk said on: September 25, 2010, 10:01 am
I think AAA rated Charlie Dooley just got downgraded to junk bond status.
9. teg132 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:27 am
ADVICE TO CORRIGAN: Go crawl under a rock until the election is over. This idiot you're running against will bury himself, so don't take any chances. Stay cool and under the radar......let Dooley dig his own grave just by being himself.
10. teg132 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:22 am
Rightthinker4's comments are likely close to fact concerning your county buffoon's ties to north-county trash haulers! That angle should be fully investigated, and if it is found that the North County haulers were given any preferential treatment whatsoever, their contracts should be cancelled. Then a private negotiator should work out a deal with the haulers who were harmed, so that this entire problem goes away, at considerably less cost than otherwise. THIS DOOLEY GUY IS A J O K E.
11. Taxman2 said on: September 25, 2010, 9:13 am
Every municipality in St. Louis County had to follow this law when they switched to one trash hauler. How Dooley/ Redington thought they could get away doing it differently is asinine. This will cost the County hundreds of millions in damages. There is a good chance that the first thing that the new County Executive, Mr. Corrigan, will have to do is to file for bankruptcy.
Read more comments at:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_a576c829-4dbb-5054-bf93-6b4087dda664.html?mode=comments
&
http://www.stltoday.com/search/?l=50&sd=desc&s=start_time&f=html&q=st.+louis+county%2C+trash
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Something Smells about St. Louis County Trash Contracts; County Approves Merger of Trash Companies
The St. Louis County Council agreed on Tuesday to allow Allied Waste Management to take over three trash contracts from Veolia ES Solid Waste after hearing nearly an hour of sometimes raucous speeches against the idea of trash districts.
A dozen county residents — including Bill Corrigan, the Republican candidate for St. Louis County executive in the November election — took turns lambasting members of the council and his opponent in the race, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley.
The council voted 5-1 to approve the transfers in Districts 3, 4 and 7 in southwest and south St. Louis County, effective Friday. Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, was absent.
Veolia had said it was pulling out of the area as part of a "business decision." Last week, the council held up on voting on the issue over concerns that such a move could lead to a monopoly for Allied, which now controls five of the eight trash districts.
The vote came after Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, told the council that failing to approve the transfer would result in a public health emergency. Earls noted that Allied would be bound by the terms of the Veolia contract, which ends Oct. 1, 2011. At that time, the service in the districts would again be put up for bids.
The lone vote against the transfers came from Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, who said he wanted to remain "consistent with my district's seemingly united voice on this."
Corrigan took issue with Dooley over a judge's ruling last week that the county should have given trash haulers two years notice before starting the trash program. Corrigan quoted from a 2008 letter from Mike Gibbons, who was the Missouri Senate's president pro tem at the time, to Dooley advising that the county wait two years.
The above is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_52776156-d0cd-5230-8c7b-9543de11c8e8.html
Cathy Armbruster of South County addressed the Council members with comments and questions which included the following.
1. It is definitely an illegal program the way its been implemented.
2. Why is the county government afraid to put this to a vote of the people?
3. Citizens should have their their choice of a trash hauler.
4. The merger being considered here today is further evidence of the warning we made three years ago that this program will lead to a trash monopoly.
5. Is it because this is a political payoff?
============================
Veolia and Allied put the County in a box forcing the decision.
A trash hauling company with connections to Dooley Campaign manager John Temporiti is holding St. Louis residents hostage with the threat of leaving their garbage on the streets unless it is allowed to expand its presence to 5 out of 8 trash hauling districts.
Allied Waste, which up until two years ago represented by John Temporiti, is seeking a transfer of three trash districts from Veolia ES. The transfer is being supported by the Dooley administration.
Here's the catch - before the transfer was approved, Allied Waste purchased all of Veolia ES's hauling equipment. Soon, Veolia won't be able to pick up any trash.
Thanks to that maneuver, there isn't time to competitively bid out the contract. If Temporiti's former client isn't awarded the business, trash collection in three districts will stop.
Dooley dutifully hopped on board with his support. So much for competitive bidding. This may very well result in lawsuit number five over how the trash districts have been awarded.
The council voted 5-1 to approve the transfers in Districts 3, 4 and 7 in southwest and south St. Louis County, effective Friday. Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, was absent.
Veolia had said it was pulling out of the area as part of a "business decision." Last week, the council held up on voting on the issue over concerns that such a move could lead to a monopoly for Allied, which now controls five of the eight trash districts.
The vote came after Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, told the council that failing to approve the transfer would result in a public health emergency. Earls noted that Allied would be bound by the terms of the Veolia contract, which ends Oct. 1, 2011. At that time, the service in the districts would again be put up for bids.
The lone vote against the transfers came from Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, who said he wanted to remain "consistent with my district's seemingly united voice on this."
Corrigan took issue with Dooley over a judge's ruling last week that the county should have given trash haulers two years notice before starting the trash program. Corrigan quoted from a 2008 letter from Mike Gibbons, who was the Missouri Senate's president pro tem at the time, to Dooley advising that the county wait two years.
The above is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_52776156-d0cd-5230-8c7b-9543de11c8e8.html
Cathy Armbruster of South County addressed the Council members with comments and questions which included the following.
1. It is definitely an illegal program the way its been implemented.
2. Why is the county government afraid to put this to a vote of the people?
3. Citizens should have their their choice of a trash hauler.
4. The merger being considered here today is further evidence of the warning we made three years ago that this program will lead to a trash monopoly.
5. Is it because this is a political payoff?
============================
Veolia and Allied put the County in a box forcing the decision.
A trash hauling company with connections to Dooley Campaign manager John Temporiti is holding St. Louis residents hostage with the threat of leaving their garbage on the streets unless it is allowed to expand its presence to 5 out of 8 trash hauling districts.
Allied Waste, which up until two years ago represented by John Temporiti, is seeking a transfer of three trash districts from Veolia ES. The transfer is being supported by the Dooley administration.
Here's the catch - before the transfer was approved, Allied Waste purchased all of Veolia ES's hauling equipment. Soon, Veolia won't be able to pick up any trash.
Thanks to that maneuver, there isn't time to competitively bid out the contract. If Temporiti's former client isn't awarded the business, trash collection in three districts will stop.
Dooley dutifully hopped on board with his support. So much for competitive bidding. This may very well result in lawsuit number five over how the trash districts have been awarded.
Monday, September 27, 2010
County Council Meeting Raises More Questions Than Answered
The September 21 meeting of the St. Louis County Council raised more questions about the county’s trash collection program. The attorney representing Veolia started by saying he was there to answer any questions the council members may have. It was almost embarrassing that he could not – or would not – answer all. In fact, he answered only about half. For many, he just plain didn’t know the answer. Veolia would be best served by sending a person with answers.
It also appears that Veolia and Allied Waste Management have gone ahead with major decisions regarding their merger plans. It appears they are placing St. Louis County in a box. Their merger plans include the purchase of equipment, hiring manpower, etc. If the County does not approve their merger, both companies may be in a bit of trouble.
The Council put off a decision to their September 28 meeting – maybe. If you’re a tax paying resident of St. Louis County, it would be worth your while to get a glimpse how your county government works or does not work. The Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 28 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Government offices, 41 S. Central in Clayton, MO.
It also appears that Veolia and Allied Waste Management have gone ahead with major decisions regarding their merger plans. It appears they are placing St. Louis County in a box. Their merger plans include the purchase of equipment, hiring manpower, etc. If the County does not approve their merger, both companies may be in a bit of trouble.
The Council put off a decision to their September 28 meeting – maybe. If you’re a tax paying resident of St. Louis County, it would be worth your while to get a glimpse how your county government works or does not work. The Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, September 28 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Government offices, 41 S. Central in Clayton, MO.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Who To Blame for Trash Fiasco
A resident speaks out:
"Somebody has to take the bull by the horn or else get these people out of here. The cost is staggering and these people could care less. Everyone is treating the sympton and not the cause. The cause was started by the people who approved this action. You're looking at them?"
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Another Chapter in The Trash Boondoggle in St. Louis County
.jpg)
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 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
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Anonymous has left a new comment: Lawsuit Says Mandatory Charge for Recycling . . .
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Lawsuit Says Mandatory Charge for Recycling Violat...":
Just curious. Where does the Tax Payer, ever hope to gain by all of this.
I will be the first to agree, St. Louis County should have kept their nose out of this service. Trash service was being delivered and those who wanted Recycle or Yard Waste, were getting it. It was competitive, and if you didn't like your carrier, you could change.
But, St. Louis County, had this primal urge to be everyone big brother and hijack the service and bid it out. The cost to business was big, because they had to drop their pricing to compete for a piece of the pie. The resident overall saved a few dollars.
But the County wasted millions on recycle bins, and only about 30% of them are being used. Huge waste of taxpayer wasted funds.
But, all of these lawsuits will cost taxpayers money as well. If the county looses, and it could, who flips the bill, the taxpayer. The free market system won't really come back the way it was, and again the confussion goes on and on.
What a mess, but what do you expect from St. Louis County.
Can't run a simple Trash & Recycle program, can't run a transportation system, can't run an effective police department, can't run a budget in the black, can't run a decent parks system, can't, can't can't. Maybe the county should fully incorporate and merge with existing successful municipalities. Less government in St. Louis would be a good thing.
Time to give us Tax Payers a break.
Just curious. Where does the Tax Payer, ever hope to gain by all of this.
I will be the first to agree, St. Louis County should have kept their nose out of this service. Trash service was being delivered and those who wanted Recycle or Yard Waste, were getting it. It was competitive, and if you didn't like your carrier, you could change.
But, St. Louis County, had this primal urge to be everyone big brother and hijack the service and bid it out. The cost to business was big, because they had to drop their pricing to compete for a piece of the pie. The resident overall saved a few dollars.
But the County wasted millions on recycle bins, and only about 30% of them are being used. Huge waste of taxpayer wasted funds.
But, all of these lawsuits will cost taxpayers money as well. If the county looses, and it could, who flips the bill, the taxpayer. The free market system won't really come back the way it was, and again the confussion goes on and on.
What a mess, but what do you expect from St. Louis County.
Can't run a simple Trash & Recycle program, can't run a transportation system, can't run an effective police department, can't run a budget in the black, can't run a decent parks system, can't, can't can't. Maybe the county should fully incorporate and merge with existing successful municipalities. Less government in St. Louis would be a good thing.
Time to give us Tax Payers a break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
