The Superior Oak Ridge Landfill west of Valley Park will stop accepting trash on Oct. 9, and then be covered. The St. Louis County Planning Commission granted a petition by the landfill's owner, Veolia Environmental Services, to withdraw a proposed extension of the landfill's permit.
With the closure, the only landfill left in St. Louis County will be the IESI site in Maryland Heights. The massive Milam landfill, off Illinois Route 203 in Fairmont City, also takes area trash.
Veolia said that Superior Oak Ridge landfill, which opened in 1974, was near capacity. The facility's original life expectancy of seven years was extended by various alterations, as well as by the emergence of recycling and a prohibition on dumping yard waste there.
In 2005, the County Council rejected a petition from the landfill's owner at the time to raise its top by 70 feet, stating that nearby residents had expected the 54 1/2-acre facility to reach its capacity when its mound of trash reached 680 feet above sea level. Increasing the landfill's height was not compatible with the residential development that had taken place since the facility began operating, the council ruled.
Closing the landfill will involve hauling in 60,000 to 70,000 yards of material for a composite cover, a clay layer and a vegetative cover. A "membrane layer" will cover the clay cap to limit water infiltration. The process is expected to be completed next year.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the county Health Department will monitor the site after it is closed, filing monthly reports on methane production or any escape of liquids.
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_cde85027-5616-53a8-8d73-cde2795e7c8b.html#ixzz1VaFxhuF0
Showing posts with label IESI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IESI. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
State high court hears claims in lawsuit over trash districts
From the Call Newspapers
EVAN YOUNG
Staff ReporterMay 18, 2011 - JEFFERSON CITY —
http://www.callnewspapers.com/
Supreme Court judges ask attorneys about statute requiring two years' notice
Attorneys for parties in a class-action suit over the county's trash-collection districts argued their case last week before the Missouri Supreme Court.
The judges took the case — the first of several lawsuits over the trash program to reach their courtroom — under submission following roughly 40 minutes of oral arguments May 11.
Three county residents want three waste haulers to refund households all the fees they've collected since they began exclusively serving eight trash districts in unincorporated areas some three years ago.
Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville in September 2009 sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services, which remains a defendant despite pulling its operations out of the St. Louis area last October.
The plaintiffs contend the trash program is illegal and void because the county did not put it to a vote as they say is required by the Charter, and also because it did not provide waste haulers with a state-required minimum two years' written notification before establishing trash districts.
A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed, and the state Supreme Court in March agreed to hear their case.
"My clients are citizens, are taxpayers, are residents of three different trash districts established by St. Louis County and so they have standing because one, they are subject to the illegal ordinance; they have standing, two, because their tax moneys are being spent on this illegal scheme; and three, they were some of the people who were supposed to vote on this had St. Louis County had actually obeyed their Charter," plaintiffs' attorney Rob Schultz told the seven judges of the state Supreme Court last week.
The plaintiffs cite a section of the county Charter that states the County Council "shall have, by ordinance, the power to ... provide for the creation of districts in the unincorporated areas of the county within which may be provided ... garbage and refuse collection and disposal, and such kindred facilities as the voters therein by a majority of those voting thereon may approve, the same to be paid for from funds raised by special assessment, general taxation or service charge ..."
The county has argued that its Charter provides for the establishment of trash districts without an election, citing sections that state the council can "(c)ollect and dispose of ... garbage and refuse, or license and regulate such collection and disposal," and one that authorizes the council to "(f)urnish or provide within the part of the county outside incorporated cities any service or function of any municipality."
Schultz said while residents don't pay the county directly for trash service, they are required to pay their assigned trash-district hauler or face prosecution. That enforcement of the trash program is funded with taxpayer money, he added.
County Counselor Patricia Redington argued that residents pay their trash hauler for service; the trash districts themselves do not raise funds as described in the Charter section that requires an election, she said.
Redington also contended the state's two-year notice provision was "wholly irrelevant" to the class-action suit.
She asked the high court to correct a precedent set by the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in the separate case of three waste haulers that sued the county for it not providing two years' written notification of its forthcoming trash program.
While Redington has contended the 2007 Missouri law requiring a two-year notice doesn't apply because of the county's Charter status, the appellate court ruled in 2008 that statute 260.247 was a "general statute of statewide public policy" and that the county couldn't override it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more at: http://callnewspapers.com/
EVAN YOUNG
Staff ReporterMay 18, 2011 - JEFFERSON CITY —
http://www.callnewspapers.com/
Supreme Court judges ask attorneys about statute requiring two years' notice
Attorneys for parties in a class-action suit over the county's trash-collection districts argued their case last week before the Missouri Supreme Court.
The judges took the case — the first of several lawsuits over the trash program to reach their courtroom — under submission following roughly 40 minutes of oral arguments May 11.
Three county residents want three waste haulers to refund households all the fees they've collected since they began exclusively serving eight trash districts in unincorporated areas some three years ago.
Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville in September 2009 sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services, which remains a defendant despite pulling its operations out of the St. Louis area last October.
The plaintiffs contend the trash program is illegal and void because the county did not put it to a vote as they say is required by the Charter, and also because it did not provide waste haulers with a state-required minimum two years' written notification before establishing trash districts.
A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. The plaintiffs appealed, and the state Supreme Court in March agreed to hear their case.
"My clients are citizens, are taxpayers, are residents of three different trash districts established by St. Louis County and so they have standing because one, they are subject to the illegal ordinance; they have standing, two, because their tax moneys are being spent on this illegal scheme; and three, they were some of the people who were supposed to vote on this had St. Louis County had actually obeyed their Charter," plaintiffs' attorney Rob Schultz told the seven judges of the state Supreme Court last week.
The plaintiffs cite a section of the county Charter that states the County Council "shall have, by ordinance, the power to ... provide for the creation of districts in the unincorporated areas of the county within which may be provided ... garbage and refuse collection and disposal, and such kindred facilities as the voters therein by a majority of those voting thereon may approve, the same to be paid for from funds raised by special assessment, general taxation or service charge ..."
The county has argued that its Charter provides for the establishment of trash districts without an election, citing sections that state the council can "(c)ollect and dispose of ... garbage and refuse, or license and regulate such collection and disposal," and one that authorizes the council to "(f)urnish or provide within the part of the county outside incorporated cities any service or function of any municipality."
Schultz said while residents don't pay the county directly for trash service, they are required to pay their assigned trash-district hauler or face prosecution. That enforcement of the trash program is funded with taxpayer money, he added.
County Counselor Patricia Redington argued that residents pay their trash hauler for service; the trash districts themselves do not raise funds as described in the Charter section that requires an election, she said.
Redington also contended the state's two-year notice provision was "wholly irrelevant" to the class-action suit.
She asked the high court to correct a precedent set by the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals in the separate case of three waste haulers that sued the county for it not providing two years' written notification of its forthcoming trash program.
While Redington has contended the 2007 Missouri law requiring a two-year notice doesn't apply because of the county's Charter status, the appellate court ruled in 2008 that statute 260.247 was a "general statute of statewide public policy" and that the county couldn't override it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more at: http://callnewspapers.com/
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."
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Waste Contracts Approved and Move Forward
The bids for the 8 Waste Districts have been opened and the low bids were from the same companies doing service now.
IESI will get 2 Districts, both 2 and 4, and Allied will get 6 Districts, 1-3-5-6-7-8
The new contrats will be for 5 years instead of 3 years.
The recomendation has been sent to Council, and the Council will vote on next week on Tuesday May 10.
The new contracts begin October 1st.
IESI will get 2 Districts, both 2 and 4, and Allied will get 6 Districts, 1-3-5-6-7-8
The new contrats will be for 5 years instead of 3 years.
The recomendation has been sent to Council, and the Council will vote on next week on Tuesday May 10.
The new contracts begin October 1st.
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.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
State Supreme Court to Hear Trash District Case in May
Breaking News:
Class-action lawsuit seeks repayment of fees from haulers.
EVAN YOUNG, CallNewspapers.com
Staff Reporter March 09, 2011 -
The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday docketed oral arguments in a class-action lawsuit over St. Louis County's trash-district program.
Both sides will present their case before the state high court on Wednesday, May 11.
The high court on March 1 sustained the appeal of three residents who sued the county and three waste haulers over the establishment of eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.
Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services in 2009. The county contracted with the three haulers in 2008 to serve the trash districts exclusively.
The plaintiffs contend the county violated a state statute by not providing two years' written notice of its forthcoming trash district program to other waste haulers, and its own charter by not putting the program to a vote.They also believe the trash-district haulers are being unjustly enriched.
Representing residents and other county property owners, the plaintiffs want Allied, IESI and Veolia to repay all the fees they've collected since the program began. The plaintiffs also want the ordinances establishing the districts, and prohibiting unauthorized haulers from providing trash removal within them, declared "illegal and void."
A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. But the judges sent back to trial court the issue of whether the county violated its charter by not letting voters consider the trash-district program.
Of the four lawsuits filed in connection with the county's trash program, this is the first case which the state Supreme Court has agreed to consider. The high court twice declined to hear a lawsuit brought against the county by three waste haulers alleging they did not receive a state-mandated two years' notification before the county established the trash districts.
A county circuit judge has ruled in that case that the haulers — American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste and Waste Management of Missouri — are entitled to damages, and a trial has been scheduled Tuesday, May 31, to determine an amount.
A May court date also has been set in a lawsuit against the county by unincorporated residents Brett Buchanan and Greg Porter that seeks a vote on the trash-district program.
The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in that case on Wednesday, May 4.
Class-action lawsuit seeks repayment of fees from haulers.
EVAN YOUNG, CallNewspapers.com
Staff Reporter March 09, 2011 -
The Missouri Supreme Court on Monday docketed oral arguments in a class-action lawsuit over St. Louis County's trash-district program.
Both sides will present their case before the state high court on Wednesday, May 11.
The high court on March 1 sustained the appeal of three residents who sued the county and three waste haulers over the establishment of eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.
Plaintiffs Cathy Armbruster of Lemay, Paul Marquis of Fenton and Mike Weber of Oakville sued the county and Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services in 2009. The county contracted with the three haulers in 2008 to serve the trash districts exclusively.
Representing residents and other county property owners, the plaintiffs want Allied, IESI and Veolia to repay all the fees they've collected since the program began. The plaintiffs also want the ordinances establishing the districts, and prohibiting unauthorized haulers from providing trash removal within them, declared "illegal and void."
A state appellate court panel in November upheld most of a county circuit court's earlier dismissal of the case. But the judges sent back to trial court the issue of whether the county violated its charter by not letting voters consider the trash-district program.
Of the four lawsuits filed in connection with the county's trash program, this is the first case which the state Supreme Court has agreed to consider. The high court twice declined to hear a lawsuit brought against the county by three waste haulers alleging they did not receive a state-mandated two years' notification before the county established the trash districts.
A county circuit judge has ruled in that case that the haulers — American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste and Waste Management of Missouri — are entitled to damages, and a trial has been scheduled Tuesday, May 31, to determine an amount.
A May court date also has been set in a lawsuit against the county by unincorporated residents Brett Buchanan and Greg Porter that seeks a vote on the trash-district program.
The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in that case on Wednesday, May 4.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Waste haulers owed damages by St. Louis County, judge rules
EVAN YOUNG - Staff Reporter, Call Newspaper
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-02-02-250490.112112-Waste-haulers-owed-damages-by-St-Louis-County-judge-rules.html
A St. Louis County Circuit Court judge last week set the parameters for damages she ruled are owed three waste haulers that sued the county over its trash-district program.
Judge Barbara Wallace ruled in September the county breached an implied contract with haulers when it neglected to give them two years' notice - as required by state law - that it was establishing eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.
On Jan. 25, Wallace ruled the three haulers that sued the county in 2008 are entitled to damages. (Click on photo of Judge Wallace to enlarge)
"The county's action resulted in a finite loss to plaintiffs of 40,000 customers for the statutory two-year notice period," she wrote in an opinion. "By enforcing the exclusivity of its trash hauling districts, the county has effectively prevented plaintiffs from even the possibility of regaining those lost customers in that two-year period."
American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri sued the county in May 2008 after they did not win contracts to serve the trash districts exclusively. They are prohibited from offering service to district residents.
Trash-collection services cannot begin until at least two years after the date of notification, according to the statute, which was modified by the General Assembly in 2007 to include the county. The County Council approved legislation in December 2006 calling for the future establishment of trash districts. Eight districts were implemented by Oct. 1, 2008.
Contracts were awarded to Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services. Veolia last fall pulled its operations from the St. Louis region and transferred its trash district contracts to Allied.
Wallace ruled last week the two-year notice period for determining damages owed the three haulers began when the trash district contracts became effective in April and June 2008.
A trial to determine the amount of damages owed the haulers has been moved from Feb. 24 to May 31 at the request of St. Louis County.
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2011-02-02-250490.112112-Waste-haulers-owed-damages-by-St-Louis-County-judge-rules.html
A St. Louis County Circuit Court judge last week set the parameters for damages she ruled are owed three waste haulers that sued the county over its trash-district program.
Judge Barbara Wallace ruled in September the county breached an implied contract with haulers when it neglected to give them two years' notice - as required by state law - that it was establishing eight trash districts in unincorporated areas.
"The county's action resulted in a finite loss to plaintiffs of 40,000 customers for the statutory two-year notice period," she wrote in an opinion. "By enforcing the exclusivity of its trash hauling districts, the county has effectively prevented plaintiffs from even the possibility of regaining those lost customers in that two-year period."
American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri sued the county in May 2008 after they did not win contracts to serve the trash districts exclusively. They are prohibited from offering service to district residents.
Trash-collection services cannot begin until at least two years after the date of notification, according to the statute, which was modified by the General Assembly in 2007 to include the county. The County Council approved legislation in December 2006 calling for the future establishment of trash districts. Eight districts were implemented by Oct. 1, 2008.
Contracts were awarded to Allied Waste, IESI and Veolia Environmental Services. Veolia last fall pulled its operations from the St. Louis region and transferred its trash district contracts to Allied.
Wallace ruled last week the two-year notice period for determining damages owed the three haulers began when the trash district contracts became effective in April and June 2008.
A trial to determine the amount of damages owed the haulers has been moved from Feb. 24 to May 31 at the request of St. Louis County.
Monday, November 29, 2010
More comments from residents
A STL County resident speaks out . . .
“I received an email from the district manager for IESI, in response to a critical email I sent him, saying that this could have been done even cheaper if they could send out only one bill each quarter to the county rather than thousands to the citizens. It seems that the county wants all the benefits but none of the responsibilities. Why do we individually pay the haulers who have a contract with the county, not us? If the county contracts for a new road does everyone who uses the road have to send a check to the contractor?”
What’s interesting is there is a written “contract” between St. Louis County and IESI (and the other haulers). There is no “contract” between a homeowner and IESI. In addition there is no “contract” between county residents and St. Louis County. St. Louis County contracted with a hauler in our behalf and we had no choice in the matter. Is this legal? It’s questionable.
Now if I do not pay IESI, IESI does not sue me for non-payment, but the County does.
Other questions arise. All of the money paid by residents goes to the trash haulers, and none (supposedly) to the County. The County is administering the program and the enforcement at a cost to all taxpayers. No financial records have been released regarding the expenses being incurred by the County but estimates have it way into the millions.
According to Garry Earls, Chief Operating Officer, a forecast of the County’s general funds would become insolvent between 2010 and 2012 unless they dramatically reduce costs. In his report, there was no mention of the costs being incurred by the trash program. This report was dated July 21, 2008.
Should there be a law requiring citizens to have a trash service? Yes.
Is St. Louis County in the trash business? No, but it should be. Should the county bill for trash services as required by law? Yes
Should the County select the trash haulers for residents? No. Let the individual subdivisions select their haulers.
Should the County allow subdivisions to opt out? It’s ridiculous in passing a law that allows citizens an option to comply or not comply.
When the trash contract comes up for re-bidding, should subdivisions be allowed to opt out as part of the re-bidding process? Yes. If you’re going to re-bid the costs, you should allow subdivisions a choice just as was done at the start of the program.
Oh, yes. This program is in desperate need of an audit and report to the taxpayers.
“I received an email from the district manager for IESI, in response to a critical email I sent him, saying that this could have been done even cheaper if they could send out only one bill each quarter to the county rather than thousands to the citizens. It seems that the county wants all the benefits but none of the responsibilities. Why do we individually pay the haulers who have a contract with the county, not us? If the county contracts for a new road does everyone who uses the road have to send a check to the contractor?”
What’s interesting is there is a written “contract” between St. Louis County and IESI (and the other haulers). There is no “contract” between a homeowner and IESI. In addition there is no “contract” between county residents and St. Louis County. St. Louis County contracted with a hauler in our behalf and we had no choice in the matter. Is this legal? It’s questionable.
Now if I do not pay IESI, IESI does not sue me for non-payment, but the County does.
Other questions arise. All of the money paid by residents goes to the trash haulers, and none (supposedly) to the County. The County is administering the program and the enforcement at a cost to all taxpayers. No financial records have been released regarding the expenses being incurred by the County but estimates have it way into the millions.
According to Garry Earls, Chief Operating Officer, a forecast of the County’s general funds would become insolvent between 2010 and 2012 unless they dramatically reduce costs. In his report, there was no mention of the costs being incurred by the trash program. This report was dated July 21, 2008.
Should there be a law requiring citizens to have a trash service? Yes.
Is St. Louis County in the trash business? No, but it should be. Should the county bill for trash services as required by law? Yes
Should the County select the trash haulers for residents? No. Let the individual subdivisions select their haulers.
Should the County allow subdivisions to opt out? It’s ridiculous in passing a law that allows citizens an option to comply or not comply.
When the trash contract comes up for re-bidding, should subdivisions be allowed to opt out as part of the re-bidding process? Yes. If you’re going to re-bid the costs, you should allow subdivisions a choice just as was done at the start of the program.
Oh, yes. This program is in desperate need of an audit and report to the taxpayers.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Des Peres Decides to Stay With IESI for Trash Service
The city is renewing its contract with IESI to provide solid waste collection for five years at a cost of about $3.6 million. Mayor Richard Lahr said the company's performance for the past five years has been excellent.
For the year that begins Jan. 1, the cost to households will remain unchanged at $18.20 per month for weekly curbside collection, including recycling and yard waste. The cost will increase by 3 percent a year for the next four years.
For the year that begins Jan. 1, the cost to households will remain unchanged at $18.20 per month for weekly curbside collection, including recycling and yard waste. The cost will increase by 3 percent a year for the next four years.It's interesting that many cities and subdivisions have chosen to select their own trash hauler and not participate in St. Louis County's trash program . . . even at a higher cost. Does this tell you somethig?
COMMENT:
Yes, it tells us that everyone but the county executive and the county council are opposed to trash districs. It also tells us that they have no regard for the will of the governed. Maybe it's time for the voters to show the same disregard for them.
By Anonymous on Des Peres Decides to Stay With IESI for Trash Serv.
COMMENT:
Yes, it tells us that everyone but the county executive and the county council are opposed to trash districs. It also tells us that they have no regard for the will of the governed. Maybe it's time for the voters to show the same disregard for them.
By Anonymous on Des Peres Decides to Stay With IESI for Trash Serv.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Complaints Mount for IESI & County Trash Program; No Relief In Sight
COUNTY RESIDENTS SPEAKING OUT
>> iesi does not deserve the contracts
by don m.
I think its wrong that the trash man can come into your yard and take things and lie about it and the city government backs him up. all i want is my tarps back.
Posted 10/27/09
>> Iesi is terrible
by Willie P.
We have the same problems that everyone else here has. We need to band together and start a class action lawsuit against them and see if we can recover some of our funds.
Posted 10/23/09
>> IESI SUCKS A$$!
by Keona H.
This company sucks a$$. They didn't pick our trash up although we had paid our bill. I think they should have at least given us a credit or something. Our experience with Meridian was so much better and I REALLY miss them.
Posted 10/20/09
>> i am mad
by jerry b.
Hi. I live at 9114 trefere ave and i am complaining of our trash not being picked up on friday . I called twice and the lady said it would be picked up and it was never taken care of. i would like it to be picked up as soon as possible thanks. It is overflowing and we have no where to put trash. and that can be a bit of a problem.
Posted 10/18/09
>> IESI is a Monopoly - My RATING is a 0 but I count give that
by TAG G.
The St. Louis County has locked us into the poor costumer service company and there is nothing we can do about it. The bad part about this is IESI knows that we can complain all we want but until there contact is up we can not do anything about it. Wait and see when there contact is almost up the service will improve.
Posted 10/12/09
>> IESI is HORRIBLE..HOW HARD IS IT TO DUMP TRASH
by HB A.
This trash company is a joke, 2 weeks without my trash being picked up; how hard is it to dump trash! Also, please DO NOT lease the trash cans; BUY THEM..Behlmann!!
Posted 09/15/09
>> Iesi is UNDER DEFICIENT MANAGEMENT
by Sharon C.
Something is seriously wrong with this program: IESI's trash collectors are seriiously lacking--I am not sure if it is information or common sense. Even though our name was added to IESI's special pickup list because our trash was missed 3 consecutive times last month, our trash was still missed this morning. The need to deal with this company is both frustrating and unbelievable!
Posted 09/02/09
>> Iesi is not worth the money we pay
by mike s.
Over the last five weeks I have had my trash yard waste or recycle not pick up and your right you call and put you on hold. complain think they adjust your bill think again.
Posted 08/25/09
>> Horrible Choice
by Tammy C.
This is the worst trash company I've ever experience. They have horrible customer service. Their haulers are lazy. Please St. Louis county - get rid of them!
Posted 04/20/09
>> VERY unhappy with IESI
by Shannon D.
I am in complete agreement with the unfavorable reviews of this horrible company. The customer service is non-existent and we have had to fight with them to pick our old trash can up - it took over 3 months!! When we first purchased our home a little over a yr ago, a co-worker who was not able to choose their trash removal was jealous that we could. Now I understand why! The county officials who took away our rights to pick our own trash co should be very afraid at re-election time!!!
Posted 03/16/09
>> MAD AS HELL
by gina
They did not pick our trash up for two weeks. They broke the can trying to pick up the trash so they left it there. The came back to get the can and did not replace it. They are telling us that we have to pay for a trash can that they broke that they did not even provide us with, they last company we had provided us with it. When we paid the bill, we got a letter from the county about a collection. The company had us on hold for a long time when we finally got through to tell us that they received the payment 2 days after we paid it. I HATE THIS COMPANY.
Posted 02/27/09
To view more problems with IESI, visit: http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3716757864
>> iesi does not deserve the contracts
by don m.
I think its wrong that the trash man can come into your yard and take things and lie about it and the city government backs him up. all i want is my tarps back.
Posted 10/27/09
>> Iesi is terrible
by Willie P.
We have the same problems that everyone else here has. We need to band together and start a class action lawsuit against them and see if we can recover some of our funds.
Posted 10/23/09
>> IESI SUCKS A$$!
by Keona H.
This company sucks a$$. They didn't pick our trash up although we had paid our bill. I think they should have at least given us a credit or something. Our experience with Meridian was so much better and I REALLY miss them.
Posted 10/20/09
>> i am mad
by jerry b.
Hi. I live at 9114 trefere ave and i am complaining of our trash not being picked up on friday . I called twice and the lady said it would be picked up and it was never taken care of. i would like it to be picked up as soon as possible thanks. It is overflowing and we have no where to put trash. and that can be a bit of a problem.
Posted 10/18/09
>> IESI is a Monopoly - My RATING is a 0 but I count give that
by TAG G.
The St. Louis County has locked us into the poor costumer service company and there is nothing we can do about it. The bad part about this is IESI knows that we can complain all we want but until there contact is up we can not do anything about it. Wait and see when there contact is almost up the service will improve.
Posted 10/12/09
>> IESI is HORRIBLE..HOW HARD IS IT TO DUMP TRASH
by HB A.
This trash company is a joke, 2 weeks without my trash being picked up; how hard is it to dump trash! Also, please DO NOT lease the trash cans; BUY THEM..Behlmann!!
Posted 09/15/09
>> Iesi is UNDER DEFICIENT MANAGEMENT
by Sharon C.
Something is seriously wrong with this program: IESI's trash collectors are seriiously lacking--I am not sure if it is information or common sense. Even though our name was added to IESI's special pickup list because our trash was missed 3 consecutive times last month, our trash was still missed this morning. The need to deal with this company is both frustrating and unbelievable!
Posted 09/02/09
>> Iesi is not worth the money we pay
by mike s.
Over the last five weeks I have had my trash yard waste or recycle not pick up and your right you call and put you on hold. complain think they adjust your bill think again.
Posted 08/25/09
>> Horrible Choice
by Tammy C.
This is the worst trash company I've ever experience. They have horrible customer service. Their haulers are lazy. Please St. Louis county - get rid of them!
Posted 04/20/09
>> VERY unhappy with IESI
by Shannon D.
I am in complete agreement with the unfavorable reviews of this horrible company. The customer service is non-existent and we have had to fight with them to pick our old trash can up - it took over 3 months!! When we first purchased our home a little over a yr ago, a co-worker who was not able to choose their trash removal was jealous that we could. Now I understand why! The county officials who took away our rights to pick our own trash co should be very afraid at re-election time!!!
Posted 03/16/09
>> MAD AS HELL
by gina
They did not pick our trash up for two weeks. They broke the can trying to pick up the trash so they left it there. The came back to get the can and did not replace it. They are telling us that we have to pay for a trash can that they broke that they did not even provide us with, they last company we had provided us with it. When we paid the bill, we got a letter from the county about a collection. The company had us on hold for a long time when we finally got through to tell us that they received the payment 2 days after we paid it. I HATE THIS COMPANY.
Posted 02/27/09
To view more problems with IESI, visit: http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3716757864
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Resident Says IESI Trash Hauler Has to Go; Petition Proposed
From a reader in North County . . . .
I am here in North County (Pleasant Hollow) and would like to start a petition to have IESI removed from our area. I decided to pay down my bill but since I had a balance IESI refused to remove my trash, however I was STILL BEING CHARGED FOR EACH WEEK although they gave me no service.
I am here in North County (Pleasant Hollow) and would like to start a petition to have IESI removed from our area. I decided to pay down my bill but since I had a balance IESI refused to remove my trash, however I was STILL BEING CHARGED FOR EACH WEEK although they gave me no service.
IESI informed me there was nothing I could do but call the county. County informed me I had to go by the rules of IESI. I will not be forced into a service like this and others should be cautious as well. If anyone is interested, I will post a petition soon. Please post your comments here for other readers to view.
A Comment From Another County resident:
The culprit here is St. Louis County. Homeowners and residents had a choice before all of this started. St. Louis County felt it necessary to change the rules and control your choices.
St. Louis County changed the ordinances and made it mandatory for you to take the hauler they decided for you. Your enemy here is, Charlie Dooley, Mike Omara and the current St. Louis County Council and administration.
Direct your anger onto them. They changed the ordinance, they imposed the current contractor, they wrote the rules, they wrote the bid specs, they wrote the contract.
Contact King Charlie and his Council Knights of the Round Table. They are your rulers, and you are their subjects.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Class-action lawsuit calls for refunds to householders in trash districts
By Phil Sutin
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
09/25/2009
A new class-action lawsuit challenges St. Louis County's trash system and asks three trash haulers to repay county residents their trash fees plus damages.
The county last year began operating eight trash collection districts in the unincorporated area. Most households in each district receive service from a hauler the county selected by bidding; residents pay the hauler a monthly charge. Paul Marquis of southwest St. Louis County and Cathy Armbruster of Oakville are the plaintiffs in the suit before Associate Circuit Judge Patrick Clifford that seeks class-action status.
Aside from the county, haulers Allied Services, IESI MO and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, which collect trash in the districts, are the defendants.
To view the entire article, visit: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/E2C334254EFFCBE48625763C00066BE3?OpenDocument
or click here.
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
09/25/2009
A new class-action lawsuit challenges St. Louis County's trash system and asks three trash haulers to repay county residents their trash fees plus damages.
The county last year began operating eight trash collection districts in the unincorporated area. Most households in each district receive service from a hauler the county selected by bidding; residents pay the hauler a monthly charge. Paul Marquis of southwest St. Louis County and Cathy Armbruster of Oakville are the plaintiffs in the suit before Associate Circuit Judge Patrick Clifford that seeks class-action status.
Aside from the county, haulers Allied Services, IESI MO and Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest, which collect trash in the districts, are the defendants.
To view the entire article, visit: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/E2C334254EFFCBE48625763C00066BE3?OpenDocument
or click here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
County Residents Being Intimidated Under Threat of Arrest and Loss of Drivers License for Unpaid Trash Bills
State Senator, Jim Lembke, says St. Louis County is intimidating county residents with threats of imprisonment and loss of their drivers license for 
unpaid trash bills. County residents say the regulation is illegal stating they had no voice in the trash selection process. They say St. Louis County has continued to carry out, contract, enforce, prosecute and convict persons under its invalid trash district ordinance.
A third law suit was recently filed as a class action suit to recover money paid to the trash haulers. The three haulers in question are IESI, Veolia and Allied Waste. St. Louis County was also named in the suit.
The County says they do not intend to suspend driving privileges, but this is so stated on documents issued by the court along with the threat of arrest.
The plaintiffs say the defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to have St. Louis County continue to enact, enforce and require obedience to the illegal trash ordinances because the trash ordinances result in millions of dollars per month being paid to defendants - Veolia, IESI and Allied Waste.
WARNING TO BE REVISED
The St. Louis County Municipal Court will soon change the form it sends to people who fail to appear on charges that do not involve traffic, County Counselor Patricia Redington said on Tuesday (10/22). The revised form will remove a warning that the county could take away their drivers license.
"It is a mistake," she said. State law limits the court's ability to seize drivers licenses to traffic cases, he said. Redington said the county municipal court has been using a single form for all cases without complaints.
Plaintiffs say this is not the only mistake.
unpaid trash bills. County residents say the regulation is illegal stating they had no voice in the trash selection process. They say St. Louis County has continued to carry out, contract, enforce, prosecute and convict persons under its invalid trash district ordinance.A third law suit was recently filed as a class action suit to recover money paid to the trash haulers. The three haulers in question are IESI, Veolia and Allied Waste. St. Louis County was also named in the suit.
The County says they do not intend to suspend driving privileges, but this is so stated on documents issued by the court along with the threat of arrest.
The plaintiffs say the defendants conspired and agreed among themselves to have St. Louis County continue to enact, enforce and require obedience to the illegal trash ordinances because the trash ordinances result in millions of dollars per month being paid to defendants - Veolia, IESI and Allied Waste.
WARNING TO BE REVISED
The St. Louis County Municipal Court will soon change the form it sends to people who fail to appear on charges that do not involve traffic, County Counselor Patricia Redington said on Tuesday (10/22). The revised form will remove a warning that the county could take away their drivers license.
"It is a mistake," she said. State law limits the court's ability to seize drivers licenses to traffic cases, he said. Redington said the county municipal court has been using a single form for all cases without complaints.
Plaintiffs say this is not the only mistake.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
St. Louis County Now in Third Law Suit on Unwanted Trash Collection
St. Louis County illegally forces residents to pay for unwanted trash collection under threat of criminal prosecution, a class action claims in St. Louis County Court. Three trash haulers are named in the suit.
Named plaintiffs Paul Marquis and Cathy Armbruster say the county violated its charter by not giving residents 2 years notice and not holding an election to give voters the right to approve the trash districts.St. Louis County ignored an Oct. 21, 2008 Missouri Appeals Court ruling that it had to give residents the notice, the suit states. The plaintiffs say that failure to pay for the trash services could result in fines and imprisonment.
The class consists of all St. Louis County residents and business owners within trash districts 1-8, who paid for trash services due to the illegal ordinance. It seeks damages and wants the ordinances declared void. It is represented by Robert Schultz of Chesterfield, Mo.
IESI MO, Veolia ES Solid Waste Midwest and Allied Services are also named as defendants.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
EUREKA: Mayor defends comprehensive trash contract; Some residents complain about fee
Reported by the Suburban Journals
Eureka officials say residents are confused when it comes to comparing the cost of their trash pick-up to that of other cities. The city’s recent increase in its monthly fee to residents for trash, recyclables, yard waste and bulky items, as well as an extension of the solid waste contract of hauler IESI without bids, has caused some homeowners to complain the fee is too high.
However, Mayor Kevin Coffey insisted residents are getting more service than those in some other cities for a good value. “A true comparison of costs can only be made if all classes of solid waste are included,” Coffey said. “Eureka’s contract with IESI includes unlimited household trash, recyclables, yard waste, bulky items and white goods for $20.03 per month (as of January).”That’s up from the previous cost of $14.95 per month.
In many other communities, residents pay a base rate for trash and recycling and additional fees for optional yard waste pick-up. For example, Webster Groves residents pay $14.20 per month for trash and recycling and $13.75 for optional yard waste pick-up. In Wildwood, those costs are $15 and $9.35 respectively.
In some places, bulky items and white goods (such as old appliances) are included. In others there is an additional one-time fee or restrictions on the number of items collected.If residents of those cities choose to pay for the full service every month, their cost would be higher than Eureka’s. However, unlike some other communities, Eureka does not give its residents a choice.
Coffey said that based on discussions the city had with IESI and two previous haulers, it was decided it would be in the city’s and residents’ best interest to negotiate a contract extension to keep the same “very attractive” contract terms residents have had for years rather than seeking bids.
“I am not aware of any other municipal contract that allows an unlimited amount of household trash, recyclables, yard waste, bulky items and white goods to be disposed of as is the case with our contract,” the mayor said. He said other cities have similarly negotiated contract extensions. “On the basis of a true ‘apples to apples’ comparison, our trash service is an excellent value, especially for the comprehensive level of service provided,” Coffey said.
Some residents disagree, saying they don’t regularly use some services the fee covers.“For instance, I have never used the bulky pick-up and, as for yard waste, we pay $95 a month to a lawn-care provider to cut our grass and maintain the yard, so we never put out yard waste,” said Ruth Bubla, a resident of the Townes of Hilltop subdivision. “So I’m paying more for effectively only two services: the trash and recycling.”
Eureka officials say residents are confused when it comes to comparing the cost of their trash pick-up to that of other cities. The city’s recent increase in its monthly fee to residents for trash, recyclables, yard waste and bulky items, as well as an extension of the solid waste contract of hauler IESI without bids, has caused some homeowners to complain the fee is too high.
However, Mayor Kevin Coffey insisted residents are getting more service than those in some other cities for a good value. “A true comparison of costs can only be made if all classes of solid waste are included,” Coffey said. “Eureka’s contract with IESI includes unlimited household trash, recyclables, yard waste, bulky items and white goods for $20.03 per month (as of January).”That’s up from the previous cost of $14.95 per month.
In many other communities, residents pay a base rate for trash and recycling and additional fees for optional yard waste pick-up. For example, Webster Groves residents pay $14.20 per month for trash and recycling and $13.75 for optional yard waste pick-up. In Wildwood, those costs are $15 and $9.35 respectively.
In some places, bulky items and white goods (such as old appliances) are included. In others there is an additional one-time fee or restrictions on the number of items collected.If residents of those cities choose to pay for the full service every month, their cost would be higher than Eureka’s. However, unlike some other communities, Eureka does not give its residents a choice.
Coffey said that based on discussions the city had with IESI and two previous haulers, it was decided it would be in the city’s and residents’ best interest to negotiate a contract extension to keep the same “very attractive” contract terms residents have had for years rather than seeking bids.
“I am not aware of any other municipal contract that allows an unlimited amount of household trash, recyclables, yard waste, bulky items and white goods to be disposed of as is the case with our contract,” the mayor said. He said other cities have similarly negotiated contract extensions. “On the basis of a true ‘apples to apples’ comparison, our trash service is an excellent value, especially for the comprehensive level of service provided,” Coffey said.
Some residents disagree, saying they don’t regularly use some services the fee covers.“For instance, I have never used the bulky pick-up and, as for yard waste, we pay $95 a month to a lawn-care provider to cut our grass and maintain the yard, so we never put out yard waste,” said Ruth Bubla, a resident of the Townes of Hilltop subdivision. “So I’m paying more for effectively only two services: the trash and recycling.”
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Councilman Says County trash-district program a 'debacle.’
(The following article is from the Call Newspapers. http://tiny.cc/stltrash. Comments which have been added appear in parenthesis. )
In the wake of mounting
complaints with trash-district service in south county, 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, is drafting legislation to address those issues.
Stenger said his County Council office has been inundated with calls from south county residents upset that haulers have missed pickup days. (Residents are also reporting harassment by vendors threatening the filing of liens and collection agency efforts.)
All of unincorporated St. Louis County since last fall has been part of a trash-district system in which each district is served by one county-appointed hauler. County officials established eight such districts as a way to standardize service and reduce costs through competitive bidding.
"I could devote a heck of a lot more time to tax assessments if I didn't have to pick up and clean up the mess of these haulers. So it's a real drain on especially our district." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county
But some unincorporated residents complain they no longer get to choose their own hauler while haulers who were not awarded contracts are upset that the county has taken away customers. As for south county, in which four of the eight trash districts were established, Stenger said complaints with trash service have become a "drain."
"From an allocation-of-resources perspective, the trash plan as it exists and the haulers as they have been performing are draining county resources," Stenger said. "And it's them draining. It's not the constituents. It's them. The constituents are doing what anyone would do. They are reporting problems with the system, problems with the haulers. And we are spending probably 75 percent of our time easily on these trash issues."
(A drain on county resources is a direct expense to all county residents.)
Stenger has criticized Veolia Environmental Services for failing to pick up on trash-collection days in the 7th trash district in Concord because of inclement weather. Similar problems have occurred with Allied Waste's service in the 6th trash district in Lemay and IESI's service in the 8th trash district in Oakville, he said.
"It's a debacle the likes of which I have never seen," Stenger said. "I can't believe it. And it's all of them. Primarily, we've had issues with Veolia. But it's every one of the companies we have had in south county. All three ... (It’s a pretty well known fact that all three of the national haulers undercut the local haulers to win their bid. Since they undercut the market, they must trim expenses when ever and where ever they can.)
"And that's what's so disappointing. It's hit our district the hardest. We're getting nailed. There are other things that people want me to do and things that we need in the 6th District. This trash problem is just something that just simply doesn't need to be. It could be much better."
If unincorporated residents are having problems with trash collection, Stenger and county officials request that residents leave their trash out and call their hauler.
County spokesman Mac Scott said if residents still are not satisfied after contacting their hauler, they are encouraged to call the county at 314-615-HAUL (4285). (This amounts to nothing more than finger-pointing. If the hauler doesn’t respond, call the County. If the County doesn’t’ respond, call your Councilman. If the Councilman doesn’t respond, call the hauler. It’s an unnerving circle of worthless time and events.) (Click on photos to enlarge.)
"Their contract is with the hauler," Scott said. "We're only the 800-pound gorilla looking out for the best interests of the citizens of St. Louis County." (WHAT? The resident has a contract with a hauler? The “contract” was made by St. Louis County. The County is responsible for the service, to include pricing.)
After calling the county, a county employee then will verify if the caller's address is not on a list of households that did not have trash set out on collection day. At that point, the county will dispatch an employee to see that the trash is on the curb and then advise the hauler that they have 24 hours from the time the county contacted it to pick up the trash. (Oh my gosh. And the County says their expense for the trash program is minimal. County residents are smarter than that.)
If an inspector finds that the hauler still has not picked up trash after the county's 24-hour warning, the county will assess the hauler with a fine for each such missed pickup. Stenger said haulers will be fined $10 per household for missed trash collections after the county has given the 24-hour warning.
"It appears perhaps that the haulers don't have adequate resources to serve us," Stenger said. "And maybe they're allocating their resources in different areas on different days. But I think that it's getting out of hand. And when you have one bad-weather day, you might as well forget about them. (Hello! The haulers undercut the local haulers in “buying” the business. They have adequate resources, but not at the rate they’re charging residents. In this case, bigger if far from better.)
"Obviously, one of the chief public policy concerns is public safety and health. And when you think about trash rotting in people's lawns and in their garages and on the sides of their homes, I just don't think that the public's being served." (The County continues to spout “public safety and health” but will not pursue the biggest health issue of all – SMOKING in public places.)
While Stenger is addressing these problems from a legislative perspective, the fate of trash districts still could be decided in court.
The Missouri Supreme Court last month denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas. The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.
In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.
St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. Goldman's ruling then was overturned by the appellate court.
Scott previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. (Considered? When does one not follow the law, but just considers it? St. Louis County officials continue to ignore Court rulings.)
Stenger said that his main concern with trash districts are residents who couldn't afford trash service before districts were established and now face unpaid bills and collection agencies because the service is required by the county.
"This is a major issue ... People understand it from the perspective that they have screwed-up trash service," he said. "But the multiplier effect is so enormous. It's draining. It's taking away from time that could otherwise be used doing things we need. This is something that should be taken care of already. I've never seen even the smallest municipality have this kind of trouble with trash."
In the wake of mounting
complaints with trash-district service in south county, 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, is drafting legislation to address those issues.Stenger said his County Council office has been inundated with calls from south county residents upset that haulers have missed pickup days. (Residents are also reporting harassment by vendors threatening the filing of liens and collection agency efforts.)
All of unincorporated St. Louis County since last fall has been part of a trash-district system in which each district is served by one county-appointed hauler. County officials established eight such districts as a way to standardize service and reduce costs through competitive bidding.
"I could devote a heck of a lot more time to tax assessments if I didn't have to pick up and clean up the mess of these haulers. So it's a real drain on especially our district." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county
But some unincorporated residents complain they no longer get to choose their own hauler while haulers who were not awarded contracts are upset that the county has taken away customers. As for south county, in which four of the eight trash districts were established, Stenger said complaints with trash service have become a "drain."
"From an allocation-of-resources perspective, the trash plan as it exists and the haulers as they have been performing are draining county resources," Stenger said. "And it's them draining. It's not the constituents. It's them. The constituents are doing what anyone would do. They are reporting problems with the system, problems with the haulers. And we are spending probably 75 percent of our time easily on these trash issues."
(A drain on county resources is a direct expense to all county residents.)
Stenger has criticized Veolia Environmental Services for failing to pick up on trash-collection days in the 7th trash district in Concord because of inclement weather. Similar problems have occurred with Allied Waste's service in the 6th trash district in Lemay and IESI's service in the 8th trash district in Oakville, he said.
"It's a debacle the likes of which I have never seen," Stenger said. "I can't believe it. And it's all of them. Primarily, we've had issues with Veolia. But it's every one of the companies we have had in south county. All three ... (It’s a pretty well known fact that all three of the national haulers undercut the local haulers to win their bid. Since they undercut the market, they must trim expenses when ever and where ever they can.)
"And that's what's so disappointing. It's hit our district the hardest. We're getting nailed. There are other things that people want me to do and things that we need in the 6th District. This trash problem is just something that just simply doesn't need to be. It could be much better."
If unincorporated residents are having problems with trash collection, Stenger and county officials request that residents leave their trash out and call their hauler.
County spokesman Mac Scott said if residents still are not satisfied after contacting their hauler, they are encouraged to call the county at 314-615-HAUL (4285). (This amounts to nothing more than finger-pointing. If the hauler doesn’t respond, call the County. If the County doesn’t’ respond, call your Councilman. If the Councilman doesn’t respond, call the hauler. It’s an unnerving circle of worthless time and events.) (Click on photos to enlarge.)"Their contract is with the hauler," Scott said. "We're only the 800-pound gorilla looking out for the best interests of the citizens of St. Louis County." (WHAT? The resident has a contract with a hauler? The “contract” was made by St. Louis County. The County is responsible for the service, to include pricing.)
After calling the county, a county employee then will verify if the caller's address is not on a list of households that did not have trash set out on collection day. At that point, the county will dispatch an employee to see that the trash is on the curb and then advise the hauler that they have 24 hours from the time the county contacted it to pick up the trash. (Oh my gosh. And the County says their expense for the trash program is minimal. County residents are smarter than that.)
If an inspector finds that the hauler still has not picked up trash after the county's 24-hour warning, the county will assess the hauler with a fine for each such missed pickup. Stenger said haulers will be fined $10 per household for missed trash collections after the county has given the 24-hour warning.
"It appears perhaps that the haulers don't have adequate resources to serve us," Stenger said. "And maybe they're allocating their resources in different areas on different days. But I think that it's getting out of hand. And when you have one bad-weather day, you might as well forget about them. (Hello! The haulers undercut the local haulers in “buying” the business. They have adequate resources, but not at the rate they’re charging residents. In this case, bigger if far from better.)
"Obviously, one of the chief public policy concerns is public safety and health. And when you think about trash rotting in people's lawns and in their garages and on the sides of their homes, I just don't think that the public's being served." (The County continues to spout “public safety and health” but will not pursue the biggest health issue of all – SMOKING in public places.)
While Stenger is addressing these problems from a legislative perspective, the fate of trash districts still could be decided in court.
The Missouri Supreme Court last month denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas. The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.
In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.
St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. Goldman's ruling then was overturned by the appellate court.
Scott previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. (Considered? When does one not follow the law, but just considers it? St. Louis County officials continue to ignore Court rulings.)
Stenger said that his main concern with trash districts are residents who couldn't afford trash service before districts were established and now face unpaid bills and collection agencies because the service is required by the county.
"This is a major issue ... People understand it from the perspective that they have screwed-up trash service," he said. "But the multiplier effect is so enormous. It's draining. It's taking away from time that could otherwise be used doing things we need. This is something that should be taken care of already. I've never seen even the smallest municipality have this kind of trouble with trash."
Monday, December 08, 2008
More Homeowners Receiving Collection Agency Letters, Calls
Have you received a collection notice from a trash hauler or a collection agency? Many residents have.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Homeowners Being Pressed by Collection Agencies fo...":
"I ALSO RECIEVED NOTICE FROM J C MORGAN COLLECTION AGENCY FOR $34.96 ON BEHALF OF IESI. I SENT COPYS OF IESI BILLING STATEMENTS SHOWING ADDITIOAL EXCESSIVE CHARGES FOR FUEL SURCHARGE, RECYLING NOT REQUESTED OR PERFORMED AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEES. $69.00, AN INCREASE OF $30.00+ FOR THREE MONTHS. I CANCELLED IESI END OF SEPTEMBER 2008."
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Homeowners Being Pressed by Collection Agencies fo...":
"I ALSO RECIEVED NOTICE FROM J C MORGAN COLLECTION AGENCY FOR $34.96 ON BEHALF OF IESI. I SENT COPYS OF IESI BILLING STATEMENTS SHOWING ADDITIOAL EXCESSIVE CHARGES FOR FUEL SURCHARGE, RECYLING NOT REQUESTED OR PERFORMED AND ENVIRONMENTAL FEES. $69.00, AN INCREASE OF $30.00+ FOR THREE MONTHS. I CANCELLED IESI END OF SEPTEMBER 2008."
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Homeowners Being Pressed by Collection Agencies for Trash & Recycling Services
County homeowners are being pressed for payment of past due accounts by collection agencies for trash and recycling services.
One homeowner said he received a payment request from JC Morgan & Associates collection agency for $34.96. The homeowner said he never requested the service and told the agency to collect from the people who requested it. He also pointed out that the agency may be a partner in an illegal activity pending outcome of the pending lawsuits.
The company said they represent IESI. The homeowner asked if IESI would be prepared to refund any monies paid should the regulation be determined to be illegal?
One homeowner said he received a payment request from JC Morgan & Associates collection agency for $34.96. The homeowner said he never requested the service and told the agency to collect from the people who requested it. He also pointed out that the agency may be a partner in an illegal activity pending outcome of the pending lawsuits.The company said they represent IESI. The homeowner asked if IESI would be prepared to refund any monies paid should the regulation be determined to be illegal?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Freedom of Choice, Low Rates, Custom Service Cited by Resident
The headache that just won't go away
“Our subdivision chose to opt out of the county’s trash program mainly due to the politics involved and our desire for freedom of choice. With the county’s assigned trash collector, if you are unhappy with the service, you are unable to change to another hauler. Opting out gives us the freedom to change.
We also have the freedom of not insisting that all residents of our subdivision have a designated trash hauler. We have at least two home owners who carry their trash to their place of business for disposal. They don’t need a trash or recycling service at their home.
My personal trash bill for once a week trash service early this year was $9.50 plus surcharges for fuel, etc. It jumped to around $20 a month when they started billing for recycling (which I did not request). It jumped further to more than $25 per month. Our subdivision chose our own hauler for trash and recycling at $15 per month minus 10% for seniors. While we may be paying a buck or two more, it’s worth it to have the ability to change and not have to put up with the politics of the County Government.
I don’t mind paying for recycling, but I did not order the service with my old hauler which was IESI. They keep billing me but I informed them they need to bill the party that ordered the service – St. Louis County. Since I no longer do business with IESI, I went ahead and ordered recycling with my new hauler and am glad to pay for the service.
The law suit? I believe there were two. The one was ruled on by the Missouri Supreme Court, but the other is making its way through the legal system questioning the requirement of the County Charter to put the trash program to a vote of the citizens. Stay tuned.
The next question is what happens if the courts rule against St. Louis County and require them to put the program to a vote? Does this mean the trash haulers collected money for a recycling program that was illegal for the county to implement? Will the haulers refund the money collected back to the residents who paid them?”
. . . . Anonymous
..
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
County Council Approves Trash Contracts
The St. Louis County Council on Tuesday authorized contracts with haulers to collect trash and recyclables in trash collection Districts 6 and 8, which include the unincorporated areas of Lemay, Mehlville and Oakville. The haulers will collect trash and recyclables once a week and bulky items twice a year.
The contracts will go to:
- Allied Waste Services, for District 6. Households will pay a monthly charge of $13.50 in the first year.
- IESI in District 8. The monthly charge starts at $13.09 in the first year.
Aspen Waste Systems was the low bidder for both districts, but withdrew its bid, citing a lawsuit filed against the county by other waste haulers seeking to derail the trash district program.
The county says the haulers will begin work on Oct. 1. Councilmen John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, and Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, voted against awarding the contracts.
The contracts will go to:
- Allied Waste Services, for District 6. Households will pay a monthly charge of $13.50 in the first year.
- IESI in District 8. The monthly charge starts at $13.09 in the first year.
Aspen Waste Systems was the low bidder for both districts, but withdrew its bid, citing a lawsuit filed against the county by other waste haulers seeking to derail the trash district program.
The county says the haulers will begin work on Oct. 1. Councilmen John Campisi, R-south St. Louis County, and Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, voted against awarding the contracts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
