$5 Million and Growing for St. Louis County Trash Program

In his most recent “You Paid For It,”  Fox 2 News Investigative Reporter Elliott Davis reports on St. Louis County’s intentional noncompliance with a state statute that has the potential to cost county taxpayers $5.9 million, or even more.

The trash haulers lawsuit that originated in 2008 has worked its way all the way up to the Missouri Supreme Court where the trash haulers won in 2013.  The case was remanded back to the Circuit Court to settle the only remaining issue, which is just how much the county will have to pay the three victorious haulers (American Eagle, Meridian and Waste

Charlie Dooley



 Management).  The county appealed the money judgment and thinks that it can also appeal the merits of the original case again.  However, Jane Dueker, the winning attorney for the trash haulers says that “the (Missouri) Supreme Court has determined that they (the county) did not give the proper notice, then in fact the only issue left is how much money they owe the trash haulers for wrongfully displacing them.”

When Elliott Davis asked St. Louis County Counselor Pat Redington why the county did not send the notice certified mail as required by state statute before taking away the trash haulers customers, she replied, “They all got it.  There’s no question that they got it.”  And, she added, “The only question is whether a letter telling the trash haulers about the program should have been sent by certified mail instead of regular mail.”

Dueker countered by stating that the whole issue could have been easily avoided if the county would have just complied with the law.  Dueker said, “Very easily.  They could have just given the notice.  It would have been real easy to just comply with the law.  They (the county) just said, oh, we don’t have to.”  I mean, that’s what they’ve always said, they’ve had that level of arrogance that they don’t have to comply with the law.” 

With regard to the pending judgment, Redington says that the taxpayers would only have to absorb $2 million dollars of the $5.9 million dollars judgment, since insurance would cover the rest.  However, the county’s insurance rates could be affected, especially since this issue could have been avoided by complying with the law.

Of the trash hauler’s judgment, Dueker said, “We initially got a judgment for $1.1 million.  The county appealed.  And, now that judgment is $5.9 million.  And, interest is running on that judgment currently.  We’re currently requesting about $8 million dollars.  And, so if the county appeals again, yes, that number could go up.”  

When asked about the handling of the case, Redington told Davis that she thought the county handled the case properly.  She said, “I think we did the case right.  I’m happy with the way we did the case.”  And, of course, why wouldn’t she and the rest of the Dooley administration be happy.  After all, they can’t be held personally accountable and it’s not their money at stake – it’s yours, the taxpayers.

If you would like to express your opinion about this issue to your St. Louis County officials who played a key role in establishing a trash program that will cost you millions, call or email the following officials, as they’re probably anxiously awaiting to hear from you.

 Charlie Dooley                                                   Garry Earls                                          Patricia Redington

St. Louis County Executive                           Chief Operating Officer                 St. Louis County Counselor

(314) 615-7016                                                   (314) 615-7016                                   (314) 615-7025

cdooley@stlouisco.com                                gearls@stlouisco.com                    predington@stlouisco.com

Click on the following link to watch the two minute and 42 second “You  Paid For It” video about the county administration’s bungling of the never-ending trash fiasco:

 

http://fox2now.com/2014/02/18/st-louis-countys-trash-hauler-lawsuit-gone-bad-for-taxpayers/

 

St. Louis County to Appeal Trash Verdict

St. Louis County Counselor Pat Redington said Wednesday that the county would appeal a judge's ruling awarding $1.16 million to three trash-hauling firms that did not land contracts when the county set up trash districts in 2008.

County Circuit Judge Barbara Wallace on Friday awarded the damages to American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri. Wallace ruled in September that the county had breached an implied contract with the haulers when it failed to give them two years' notice before setting up the trash districts.

Redington said she had not settled on a specific appeal. "But in general, we're saying that there never was a basis for a lawsuit to begin with and we don't think they proved damages anyway, so we will appeal on those grounds," she said.

The haulers had sought $23 million. In her ruling, Wallace wrote: "The evidence suggests the amount of Plaintiffs' damages had been inflated. It is not for the Court to give an inflated or exaggerated measure of damages, or to award a windfall judgment."

Wallace awarded $799,593 to Waste Management, $261,086 to American Eagle and $99,224 to Meridian.

The plaintiffs and their attorneys did not return calls for comment.

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/

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

More Comments on County Trash Program Liability

For the first time since three trash haulers (American Eagle, Meridian, and Waste Management) won their lawsuit against St. Louis County for its failure to provide the required “two-year notice” before implementing its controversial trash districting program, the county has reluctantly admitted that it may be on the hook to pay out $23 million to the haulers. The trial date for the hearing to determine damages is set for May 31 in the St. Louis County Circuit Court of Judge Barbara Wallace.

Reputable sources close to the court indicate that the county has exhausted all of its delay tactics and that the judge has denied the county’s most recent request for yet another continuance, thus indicating, “Let’s get the show on the road,” borrowing the title of a song by musician/songwriter, Michael Stanley.

Based on his responsibility as the county’s financial advisor with respect to the issuance of bonds, Jeff White of Columbia Capital Management LLC, has advised St. Louis County “of the need to disclose on the Preliminary and Official Statement the potential that a $20+ million judgment may be entered against St. Louis County, Missouri, in the case of American Eagle Waste Industries, LLC et al. v. St. Louis County, as a result of the trial judge having entered summary judgment on the issue of liability and having overruled the defenses proposed to be offered by St. Louis County, for the reason that such a judgment could have an impact on the ability of St. Louis County to conduct operations.”

White further advises the county that ”the actual entry of a judgment of $20+ million against St. Louis County would likely have a negative impact on St. Louis County’s bonding capacity as to future special obligation bond issuances.” In other words, Mr. White has advised his client, St. Louis County, that it has immersed itself in a pretty deep substance, that the handwriting is on the wall, and be prepared to write three very large checks. But, it will be the county taxpayers who will end up paying for St. Louis County’s buffoonery.

Until now, county counselor, Patricia Redington, has attempted to downplay that the county may have to pay out any damages and she has also proclaimed that the county has been successful in all of the lawsuits, which is a pipedream on her part. If that were the case, the county would not be in the quandary that it is in today. Some people have likened Redington’s ludicrous statements to her “being on a bad acid trip.”

STL County May be on Hook for $23 Million in Legal Damages for Trash Program

KMOX radio reports that St. Louis County is warning publicly that it might be on the hook for $23 million in legal damages. The notice comes after the advice of the county’s financial advisor, Jeff White of Columbia Capital Management, and relates to a lawsuit filed by trash haulers against a controversial trash districting program.

County Counselor Pat Reddington explained that, before the county can issue bonds, it must explain “what our financial liabilities and assets are. It’s kind of routine to do that. It’s required, in connection with the sale of bonds.”

The suit is currently pending before the Missouri Supreme Court, with the next hearing scheduled for May 31st.

Based on bids opened last week by St. Louis County for the odd-numbered trash districts (1, 3, 5, 7), Allied Waste Services is the apparent winner in all four districts. Allied beat out IESI, Meridian, and Waste Management in each district and also beat out Christian Environmental Services that submitted bids only in the 3rd and 5th districts.

In some districts, Allied was more than $2 per month lower than its nearest competitor. Bids for the even numbered districts will be opened by St. Louis County on April 26.

By Allied winning the new five-year contracts in trash districts 1, 3, 5, and 7, IESI is eliminated as the designated hauler for district 1 in far north unincorporated St. Louis County, as of October, 2011. Next week’s bids will reveal whether Allied will gain even more trash district turf and whether IESI will lose one or both of its districts. Next week will also determine whether the trash district program will remain as a near monopoly with only two haulers or whether it will become a true monopoly as has been predicted by trash district opponents.

The unsuccessful bidders, IESI, Meridian, and Waste Management, as well as any other haulers, are barred from contracting with any unincorporated county residents, with the exception of those subdivisions that have previously “opted-out” of the county program. The “opt-out” period “for subdivisions with a form of governance” ended in early 2008. The controversy over the county’s implementation of trash districts without a vote of the people and questions concerning the legality of the districts is at issue with four lawsuits pending in the courts.

County Counselor Says County has won All Previous Legal Actions on Trash Issues

KMOX Radio reports that trash haulers have concern regarding the awarding of new trash contracts with lawsuits pending in the courts. Brian Barkum, of American Eagle Waste, is worried that legal action might force haulers to refund customers.

“Is St. Louis County going to be responsible for the money that is going to be paid back? If not, why in the world would anybody bid on districts that they’re going to have to pay back,” he asked at Tuesday’s County Council meeting.

County Counselor Pat Reddington responded there has been no court decision yet, and that the County has prevailed in all previous legal action. What? What's she been smoking? The County has lost cases and numerous appeals with the current issue before the Missouri State Supreme Court.

Barkum’s concerns stem from a lawsuit pending before the state Supreme Court, arguing that the districts are illegal.

State Supreme Court to hear trash-district program lawsuit

Suit seeking return of fees paid to haulers.
EVAN YOUNG Staff Reporter
Call Newspapers

March 09, 2011 - The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a lawsuit related to St. Louis County's trash-district program.

The Missouri Supreme 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.

In their class-action suit, 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. 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."

While Veolia last October pulled its operations out of the St. Louis area and transferred its trash-district contracts to Allied, it still is listed as a defendant in the suit.

Armbruster told the Call she and her co-plaintiffs seek "return of moneys paid to the illegal, monopoly trash haulers."

"We are seeking return of the money that has been taken from us by the threat of prosecution by the county," Armbruster said, referring to the county's mandate that all trash-district households set up service with their designated waste hauler. "All we want is to have our right of self-determination and our right to choose (a hauler). We want our locally owned trash companies back and to keep the money here."

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.

Attorneys on both sides of the case said last week they are pleased with the state high court's decision to consider it.

County Counselor Patricia Redington said, "We welcome the opportunity to present our case before the Missouri Supreme Court."

"It's exciting," said Lester Stuckmeyer, attorney for Citizens in Opposition to Monopoly Trash Districts. "We're glad the court has decided to take a look at it, and we're hopeful that it will restore all the causes of action and allow us to move forward. Of course, that remains to be seen, but I think it's very interesting that they decided to get involved with it."

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

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

FBI Investigating St. L County Contract Awards

St. Louis County mum on report FBI is investigating contracts

From KMOX radio
http://www.kmox.com/St--Louis-County-mum-on-report-FBI-is-investigatin/6400788

KMOX News is awaiting a response from St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley to our report that a federal criminal investigation of county government is underway.

Reputable sources who spoke to KMOX News on the condition of anonymity confirm the FBI is actively investigating several high level people with connections to the St. Louis County Executive's office.

One focus of the probe, which has been going on for months, involves questions about whether St. Louis county contracts have been properly awarded.

Since mid-January, KMOX news has been making repeated requests of the St. Louis County Counselor, under the Missouri Sunshine law, for information on federal subpoenas that have been served or any documents turned over to the feds.

County Counselor Patricia Redington will neither confirm nor deny there is an investigation, but she has repeatedly refused to grant our request, saying the county has closed its records pertaining to subpoenas about county employees.

The Missouri Attorney General's office, which oversees the state sunshine law, is reviewing a formal complaint against St. Louis County filed by KMOX.

Jury Trash Trial Set for 2011; “Unrealistic” Say Residents

With the dispute about St. Louis County’s Waste Program going on three years old, the battle will continue for more than another year as the cost to all county residents continues to increase.

U.S. District Judge Charles Shaw set January 10, 2011 for a jury trial. “This is ridiculous,” said one county resident when asked his opinion about the trash program. “What happens if the County loses the suit and the money collected by the trash haulers has to be returned? Will the county be liable?” Should that occur, it will impact all county residents.

More than 310 subdivisions opted out of the county’s program back in 2007 in protest of not being able to select their own trash hauler. This is not the only dispute. More than a few residents are business owners and dump their home trash at their place of business. Currently they are required by the county to pay double – at home and business.

Condo and apartment residents do not come under the county trash regulation. Many county residents using the designated trash hauler are satisfied with the program, however, many others have complaints about their trash service but are unable to do anything about it.

County Counselor, Patricia Redington, told the judge that the deadline may prove too stringent for the county. (Click Redington Photo to Enlarge)

However, plaintiffs' attorney Jane Dueker said her clients have waited long enough for action on their litigation. She told the court that the case wasn't complex — either the county issued the two-year notice or it didn't. "It's not rocket science," Dueker said Oct. 20.

It’s embarrassing to think that our county officials would over a year to be ready to address this issue.

More information is available at the Call Newspaper site at: http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2009-10-28-239486.112112_Jury_trial_set_in_2011on_trashdistrict_suit.html

Federal Court Looking at St. L County Trash Fiasco

Three waste haulers suing St. Louis County say they had a constitutional right to receive a state-mandated two years' notice that the county was planning to establish trash districts — a claim that turns what was a state case into a federal affair.

In response to the haulers' first amended petition, which was filed on April 27 and approved on May 21 by St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge Scott Bernstein, the county on May 27 filed a notice of removal to take the case out of Circuit Court and have it reviewed at the federal level, County Counselor Patricia Redington said.

The case would proceed at the U.S. District Court in St. Louis unless the plaintiffs raised any ob-jections, Redington said. The suit seeks $25,000 in damages. At press time, no hearings on the case were scheduled.

American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri filed suit against the county in May 2008. They allege it violated a state statute by failing to give two years' notice to waste haulers before it established trash districts.

To view the entire article at the Call Newspapers, click on:
http://www.callnewspapers.com/Articles-i-2009-06-03-235163.112112_Trash_haulers_suit_against_St_Louis_County_now_a_federal_case.html

South County Trash Meeting Produces Strongest Comments Yet

More than 150 residents from all parts of St. Louis County voiced strong support and objections to the direction county officials are moving with their flawed trash program. Earlier in the day the Court of Appeals ruled that the statue requiring a two year notice applies to St. Louis County. As a result, the County is in violation of the State Law regarding the controversial trash program introduced this year. The County charter requires that the County administration give a 2-year notice before establishing trash districts.

About eight or nine elected officials were present from the County Council, the State Legislature, attorneys, subdivision trustees and others. Comments from the elected officials were the strongest yet and included the following –

Ø “The decisions the county has been making are totally in the wrong direction.”

Ø “St. Louis County has just refused to comply with state regulations.”

Ø “Why does St. Louis County press on so hard?”

Ø “I am very disappointed in the county’s response.

Ø “I have never experienced such arrogance than that of St. Louis County.”

Ø “You should demand the resignation of Redington, Earlls and Dooley.”

Ø “This debacle will cost us tax payers millions.”

Ø “I wish the county would do the right thing.”

Ø “Residents can now choose their own hauler. There is no enforcement.”

Ø “The County government is the one who should pay.”

Ø “You need to sue the right people.”

Ø “We have to stop doing things half-heartedly.”

Ø “There is big money involved here.”

Ø “The trash haulers who lost should sue the County. If the winning haulers loose out, they should sue the County also for false representation.”

Ø “Charlie Dooley lied to us then and lies to us now. Don’t believe anything Charlie Dooley says. At the very beginning he said they would be doing a pilot program and it never happened.”



Note: The above comments were from our elected officials - state and county.


The following are comments from a county resident.



Ø “I want to see an accountability of all expenses for the trash program and the County can not or will not produce it.”

Ø “We’re trying to find out how much money has been spent on the trash program and we’re estimating it’s approaching $20 million and we’re all paying for it.”

One participant quoted Pat Redington, County Attorney, as saying, “One little court isn’t going to stop us. We’ll pursue this to the Supreme Court.”

Redington is on the hot seat not only for her bastardized trash program rulings but also for her questionable actions taken on the trash sub-station proposed for South County.

A recent Charlie Dooley quote to a county business exec, “I owe you absolutely nothing.”
..
..

St. Louis County To Introduce Legislation to Stop Unincorporated Residents from Choosing Trash Hauler

A Call Newspaper report . . . .

One week after St. Louis County Counselor Patricia Redington admitted in court that the county's recently established trash districts in unincorporated areas are unenforceable, county officials have taken steps to put teeth in the trash program.

In a letter today (Oct. 7) to the County Council, County Executive Charlie Dooley has requested the council's approval of emergency legislation "to prohibit non-contracted trash haulers from providing services to residents within designated trash districts." This wording specifically targets a number of local trash haulers.

This emergency legislation, which would require a supermajority approval from five of the council's seven members, would not apply to unincorporated subdivisions that have opted out of the county's trash program.

Second District County Council Chairwoman Kathleen Burkett, D-Overland, is expected to introduce that legislation at 6 p.m. tonight (Oct. 7) at the County Council's regularly scheduled 6 p.m. meeting in Clayton.

County spokesman Mac Scott told the Call last week that while the county currently can't prosecute unincorporated residents who refuse to pay bills to their assigned hauler, "that may change" as county officials are considering presenting a new ordinance to the County Council.

Effective last week, the county established eight trash districts in unincorporated areas with one trash hauler per district. County officials have said this was done in response to unincorporated residents complaining that their neighborhoods were being serviced by multiple trash companies.

County officials contend that having one hauler per district will result in a more uniform brand of service and lower prices. The county also has established new minimum standards for trash service. These standards are weekly pickup of trash and recyclables and twice-per-year pickup of bulk waste.

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

In response to Dooley's request for legislation, 6th District County Councilman John Campisi, R-south county, said today he is disappointed with county officials' decision to correct Redington's "mess" and put some smaller waste-hauling companies not awarded districts out of business. "This could be laying off a thousand people easy by putting this legislation forward," Campisi said. "And, in this economic time, (Dooley) needs to remember that we need to be bringing in jobs rather than getting rid of them.

" . . .I think he knows that (Redington) has screwed up royally when it comes to designing the legislation that went forward the first time. And he knows she's in a trick bag and this is a way to get her out of the trick bag. He is cleaning up the mess that Pat Redington has made throughout St. Louis County."

Campisi plans to invite all waste haulers not awarded a trash district in St. Louis County to attend a 7 p.m. rally on Oct. 21 at Bayless Senior High School, 4532 Weber Road, to restore service to homes in those areas. This meeting is open to the public.

Check the Call Newspaper website for more information and developments:
http://www.callnewspapers.com/

. . . Burke Wasson, Call Newspaper

Did County Attorney Violate Open Government Laws?

An appellate court will decide whether County Counselor Patricia Redington violated any open-government laws when she settled a lawsuit with Fred Weber Inc. That suit sought to prevent the construction of a trash-transfer station in Oakville.

While the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in July approved Weber's application for a permit to build the trash-transfer station at 5219 Baumgartner Road, a St. Louis County Circuit Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of Weber last October to construct and operate the station.

As a result, Redington then entered into a settlement agreement with Weber to drop all of the county's litigation to stop the facility.The County Council originally had voted 7-0 in 2004 to halt the station's construction due to concerns from the county Department of Health.

In 2005, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that the county used faulty logic in denying Weber's request for the Oakville trash-transfer station. After Weber petitioned for the station, the County Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting trash-transfer stations within 1,000 feet of churches, residences, schools, child-care centers, nursery schools or nursing homes. Weber's site for the transfer station on Baumgartner Road is within 1,000 feet of Canaan Baptist Church.

Sixth District County Councilman John Campisi, R-south county, also filed an after-trial motion last November to stop the settlement agreement by contending that Redington does not have the authority to settle without County Council approval.Campisi's after-trial motion also alleges that Redington violated the Missouri Open Meetings and Records Law — also known as the Sunshine Law — by not making the settlement agreement public and not informing the County Council of it. Redington disputed claims from Campisi's attorney, Kirk Stange, that she has no authority to settle cases and pointed out that the County Charter allows the county counselor to settle without County Council approval.

More information is available at: http://tinyurl.com/4susdz

County Residents Can Use Any Trash Hauler They Desire

Attorneys say St. Louis County cannot force residents to pay a “monopoly” trash hauler for services not wanted. The only way a resident might be obligated to pay is if you allow a hauler to take your trash. If you do, you are at least obligated to pay for that day’s service.

If you contract with another hauler, it’s suggested that you place a sign on your trash container stating that you refuse the service and that only your hauler, (hauler’s name), is allowed to take your trash.

According to Pat Redington, County Attorney, “The code does not provide for County prosecution of individuals who fail to pay their assigned hauler.”

If an unauthorized hauler invoices you for services not wanted, you can refuse to pay without any legal repercussion.

County Citizens Speak Up

The announcement this week of the county admitting the trash legislation is unenforceable raises a number of questions among county residents. We received more than a dozen messages from irate residents about the situation. Here are just a few:

· “Do you mean to say the County Council passed a regulation without any means to enforce it? Where was their attorney then?”

· “Who’s to blame for this mess? Charlie Dooley, the County’s attorney, Gary Earls?”

· “If this law cannot be enforced, I don’t know why I should pay for recycling costs as I don’t want to recycle.”

· “I know our County police have been crying for money and here the county pours it right down the drain with this boondoggle.”

· “Some of the statements attributed to Patricia Redington in today’s paper are outright lies. She said ‘We never said we were going to prosecute anyone who didn’t participate.’ I attended public meetings where county officials said they would prosecute all the way to include jail. What is she talking about?”

· “The big R-E-D machine thinks they can bully their way with the Council, citizens, businesses, their own police department and anybody they want. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way and it will eventually be fixed at the polls. (RED = Reddington, Earls, Dooley)”

· “There is so much crap going on in our County government, somebody needs to do something.”

· “Do you mean to say I changed trash haulers for nothing?”

..

County Trash Program Unenforceable; Trash Districts Open to All

Brian Barcom of American Eagle Waste Co. says his company intends to ignore St. Louis County’s new trash program's rules and offer his services to anyone who wants them. The County previously shut out his company along with more than a dozen others from collecting trash in designated areas in the County.

County Counselor, Patricia Redington, conceded there is nothing the county can do to stop American Eagle Waste Co. and other haulers — or any residents who wants to use other companies to haul their trash.

The county's program was established after residents in unincorporated areas complained about multiple hauling companies serving the same neighborhoods. Through bidding, the county selected a single hauler for each of eight districts except in subdivisions that opted out of the program.

Barcom's comments were precipitated by his appearance earlier Tuesday at the Missouri Court of Appeals in St. Louis. He and two other waste haulers who lost out in the bidding process, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri, alleged the county failed to give haulers two years' notice of the new program as required by law.

Redington told the court that the rules do not prevent any of the haulers from going back and getting our customers, Barcom said. "And she said no one could be prosecuted." Barcom said he would begin contacting former clients to offer to haul for them again.

From the inception of the plan, about 18 months ago, county administrators had asserted that its success depended on the full participation of all residents who had not opted out. Unfortunately over 310 subdivisions saw right through the program and chose to opt out. As one representative said, “It’s like passing a law but permitting subdivisions not to comply, if they just ask. It’s just plain dumb.”

After the meeting, Redington defended the program as offering "the best price and best service." She admitted, however, that the program had no provision for enforcement. This is amazing that the county approved a major piece of legislation with no provision for enforcement. Who’s responsible for this? Somebody is. Things like this just don’t happen out of clear air. Now the finger pointing begins.“

We never said we were going to prosecute anyone who didn't participate," she said. Unfortunately, officials said on numerous occasions at county sponsored meetings that the county was prepared to enforce the regulation with notices, liens, judgments, prosecution and even jail.

The county admits their program has no teeth. People can ignore it and hire anyone they want, and there's nothing the county can do about it. In the meantime, more than $1 million dollars of county resident’s money has gone into this program and it’s still growing.

Overhead expenses include county employee salaries, meetings (too many to count), travel (mileage, meals), overtime pay, trash bins ($400,000+), county council meetings, subdivision trustee meetings (in the thousands), supplies, postage, and more plus expenses incurred by the various trash companies.

..

Missouri Supreme Court Gets Trash District Dispute

Three waste haulers' efforts to stop the establishment of trash districts in unincorporated St. Louis County are now in the hands of the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Court appeal was twice dismissed last week. County Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman dismissed the suit on June 25, and the Eastern Appellate District of the Missouri Court of Appeals on June 27 denied a request for a writ of mandamus submitted by the waste haulers.

American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri filed suit May 29 against the county contending state law requires county officials to issue a two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas and awarding contracts for trash pickup.

The county established eight trash districts in unincorporated areas with one trash hauler per district. County officials contend that having one hauler per district will result in a more uniform brand of service and lower prices. Residents are saying this action blocks out all other haulers thus creating a monopoly.

Campisi has called for Patricia Redington's resignation for not advising the County Council during its consideration of trash districts in December 2006 of Section 2.180.24 of the County Charter, which states that "the 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 ..."

It appears there is more than one section of the County charter that grants the authority to establish trash districts. County attorney, Pat Redington responded that the County Council created trash districts "under charter authority" other than Section 2.180.24.

County Council Chair Kathleen Burkett, D-Overland, responded to Campisi's allegation of a charter violation by saying that the county's Health and Justice Committee decided in 2006 against using Section 2.180.24 to establish trash districts.

..

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and over fifty for Miss America ?