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 Veolia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Veolia. 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/
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.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Something Smells about St. Louis County Trash Contracts; County Approves Merger of Trash Companies
The St. Louis County Council agreed on Tuesday to allow Allied Waste Management to take over three trash contracts from Veolia ES Solid Waste after hearing nearly an hour of sometimes raucous speeches against the idea of trash districts.
A dozen county residents — including Bill Corrigan, the Republican candidate for St. Louis County executive in the November election — took turns lambasting members of the council and his opponent in the race, County Executive Charlie A. Dooley.
The council voted 5-1 to approve the transfers in Districts 3, 4 and 7 in southwest and south St. Louis County, effective Friday. Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, was absent.
Veolia had said it was pulling out of the area as part of a "business decision." Last week, the council held up on voting on the issue over concerns that such a move could lead to a monopoly for Allied, which now controls five of the eight trash districts.
The vote came after Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, told the council that failing to approve the transfer would result in a public health emergency. Earls noted that Allied would be bound by the terms of the Veolia contract, which ends Oct. 1, 2011. At that time, the service in the districts would again be put up for bids.
The lone vote against the transfers came from Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, who said he wanted to remain "consistent with my district's seemingly united voice on this."
Corrigan took issue with Dooley over a judge's ruling last week that the county should have given trash haulers two years notice before starting the trash program. Corrigan quoted from a 2008 letter from Mike Gibbons, who was the Missouri Senate's president pro tem at the time, to Dooley advising that the county wait two years.
The above is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_52776156-d0cd-5230-8c7b-9543de11c8e8.html
Cathy Armbruster of South County addressed the Council members with comments and questions which included the following.
1. It is definitely an illegal program the way its been implemented.
2. Why is the county government afraid to put this to a vote of the people?
3. Citizens should have their their choice of a trash hauler.
4. The merger being considered here today is further evidence of the warning we made three years ago that this program will lead to a trash monopoly.
5. Is it because this is a political payoff?
============================
Veolia and Allied put the County in a box forcing the decision.
A trash hauling company with connections to Dooley Campaign manager John Temporiti is holding St. Louis residents hostage with the threat of leaving their garbage on the streets unless it is allowed to expand its presence to 5 out of 8 trash hauling districts.
Allied Waste, which up until two years ago represented by John Temporiti, is seeking a transfer of three trash districts from Veolia ES. The transfer is being supported by the Dooley administration.
Here's the catch - before the transfer was approved, Allied Waste purchased all of Veolia ES's hauling equipment. Soon, Veolia won't be able to pick up any trash.
Thanks to that maneuver, there isn't time to competitively bid out the contract. If Temporiti's former client isn't awarded the business, trash collection in three districts will stop.
Dooley dutifully hopped on board with his support. So much for competitive bidding. This may very well result in lawsuit number five over how the trash districts have been awarded.
The council voted 5-1 to approve the transfers in Districts 3, 4 and 7 in southwest and south St. Louis County, effective Friday. Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Ballwin, was absent.
Veolia had said it was pulling out of the area as part of a "business decision." Last week, the council held up on voting on the issue over concerns that such a move could lead to a monopoly for Allied, which now controls five of the eight trash districts.
The vote came after Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, told the council that failing to approve the transfer would result in a public health emergency. Earls noted that Allied would be bound by the terms of the Veolia contract, which ends Oct. 1, 2011. At that time, the service in the districts would again be put up for bids.
The lone vote against the transfers came from Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, who said he wanted to remain "consistent with my district's seemingly united voice on this."
Corrigan took issue with Dooley over a judge's ruling last week that the county should have given trash haulers two years notice before starting the trash program. Corrigan quoted from a 2008 letter from Mike Gibbons, who was the Missouri Senate's president pro tem at the time, to Dooley advising that the county wait two years.
The above is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_52776156-d0cd-5230-8c7b-9543de11c8e8.html
Cathy Armbruster of South County addressed the Council members with comments and questions which included the following.
1. It is definitely an illegal program the way its been implemented.
2. Why is the county government afraid to put this to a vote of the people?
3. Citizens should have their their choice of a trash hauler.
4. The merger being considered here today is further evidence of the warning we made three years ago that this program will lead to a trash monopoly.
5. Is it because this is a political payoff?
============================
Veolia and Allied put the County in a box forcing the decision.
A trash hauling company with connections to Dooley Campaign manager John Temporiti is holding St. Louis residents hostage with the threat of leaving their garbage on the streets unless it is allowed to expand its presence to 5 out of 8 trash hauling districts.
Allied Waste, which up until two years ago represented by John Temporiti, is seeking a transfer of three trash districts from Veolia ES. The transfer is being supported by the Dooley administration.
Here's the catch - before the transfer was approved, Allied Waste purchased all of Veolia ES's hauling equipment. Soon, Veolia won't be able to pick up any trash.
Thanks to that maneuver, there isn't time to competitively bid out the contract. If Temporiti's former client isn't awarded the business, trash collection in three districts will stop.
Dooley dutifully hopped on board with his support. So much for competitive bidding. This may very well result in lawsuit number five over how the trash districts have been awarded.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Another Chapter in The Trash Boondoggle in St. Louis County
.jpg)
Councilman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, objected to the deal. He said that if Veolia gives up the contracts, the county should seek bids from other companies rather than hand the contracts over to Allied.
"With another three districts in addition to the two it already controls, Allied will be well on its way to establishing a trash hauling monopoly in the county," Stenger said before Tuesday's meeting. "What we ought to be doing is putting these contracts out to bid right now and giving small businesses a shot at them."
It’s pretty evident the County did not have a contingency plan should one of the haulers fail. The County is now faced with an emergency situation and is faced with "reacting" rather than "acting."
Councilman Greg Quinn, R-Chesterfield, said he agreed with Stenger.
"Allied is moving toward a monopoly," Quinn said. "If we bid these districts out, there's a very good chance that residents will save money."
Council Chairwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, ordered that the proposal be put on hold so council members could examine the issue before voting.
Veolia also wants to sell its other assets in the St. Louis area to Allied, including those in Arnold, Bel-Ridge, Bridgeton, Clayton, Crestwood, Frontenac, Hazelwood, Warson Woods and Winchester.
Garry Earls, the county's chief operating officer, said that the county requested the contract transfers out of necessity. He said Veolia had already sold its equipment to Allied and that, as of Oct. 1, Veolia would not have the means to collect trash in this area.
"If the council members reject this proposal, I'm presuming they're ready to go out and pick up the trash," Earls said.
The county said it established the 8 trash districts in response to complaints from residents in unincorporated areas about multiple hauling companies serving the same neighborhoods. Yet today, over 300 subdivisions throughout St. Louis County chose not to participate in the County’s trash program.
But the plan has generated controversy from the start. It’s loaded with too many flaws. First, there should be a law requiring all residents to have a trash service but the law should not require citizens to use a particular service. The county should leave it up to individual subdivisions or areas to select their hauler of their own choosing. This gives residents local control and freedom of choice to make any desired changes. For residents not in a specified subdivision, the County can assign a trash hauler based on haulers being used in that area.
A resident of a south county subdivision commented their subdivision trustees selected their hauler based on resident’s input, but across the road in another subdivision, the County assigned a different hauler . . . and just down the road, homes not in a subdivision are being serviced by a third hauler.
Enforcement of the regulation has come under fire as many residents are “doing their own thing” in sharing services and transporting their trash to their place of business.
Estimates of the dollars involved are way over $11 Million and growing.
Lot more information on this subject and situation is available at the St. Louis Post Dispatch site at: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d6e86431-e72f-5eb1-9253-f7d6ff82d35c.html
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Steps Toward Trash Monopoly?
Allied Waste hauling company wants to take over trash hauling contracts in three of the eight trash collection districts in unincorporated St. Louis County. Veolia ES, which would sell the contracts to Allied, notified the county Wednesday of its plans. The county counselor's office should complete a review of the situation within a few days, Robert Grant, deputy county counselor, said Monday.
Trash service rates would remain unchanged because Allied would assume the existing contracts and abide by their terms, Grant said. Because the county council approved Veolia ES's contracts, it would have the last word on whether Allied could take them over, Grant said. The move by Allied would be a step toward a monopoly.
Veolia ES holds contracts trash District 3 in west St. Louis County, District 4 in southwest St. Louis County and District 7 in the western part of Oakville and in an adjacent area west of Interstate 55.
Allied has the contracts for trash Districts 5 and 6, which cover the unincorporated area generally bounded by St. Louis, the Mississippi River, Interstates 255 and 270 and Watson Road, an area that includes Affton, Lemay and Mehlville.
The two trash companies won the contracts in bidding in 2008. The contracts expire in October 2011. The trash districts remain controversial almost two years after they began operating. Before they took effect, residents had to arrange for their own service.
Numerous residents of south St. Louis County opposed trash districts. Many critics said they liked their hauler and opposed having a hauler imposed on them. The opposition complained that residents had little say in the trash plan.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_9d7b5223-6c94-56a4-988d-00f4e3c7f5e5.html
Trash service rates would remain unchanged because Allied would assume the existing contracts and abide by their terms, Grant said. Because the county council approved Veolia ES's contracts, it would have the last word on whether Allied could take them over, Grant said. The move by Allied would be a step toward a monopoly.
Veolia ES holds contracts trash District 3 in west St. Louis County, District 4 in southwest St. Louis County and District 7 in the western part of Oakville and in an adjacent area west of Interstate 55.
Allied has the contracts for trash Districts 5 and 6, which cover the unincorporated area generally bounded by St. Louis, the Mississippi River, Interstates 255 and 270 and Watson Road, an area that includes Affton, Lemay and Mehlville.
The two trash companies won the contracts in bidding in 2008. The contracts expire in October 2011. The trash districts remain controversial almost two years after they began operating. Before they took effect, residents had to arrange for their own service.
Numerous residents of south St. Louis County opposed trash districts. Many critics said they liked their hauler and opposed having a hauler imposed on them. The opposition complained that residents had little say in the trash plan.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_9d7b5223-6c94-56a4-988d-00f4e3c7f5e5.html
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.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Resident Bemoans They Can Do Nothing When The Service is Bad
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Councilman Says County trash-district program a 'd...": http://subdivisiontrustees.blogspot.com/search/label/Steve%20Stenger
"Its great to see that the government can impose a monopoly on its citizens. I have so many issues with Veolia, it is crazy. I have also been through the bureaucratic machine, and it is true, you keep going around in a circle. (good luck with gov't health care)"
"Anyway, something needs to be done. I am tired of bending over for my TRASH company because I don't have another choice."
"Its great to see that the government can impose a monopoly on its citizens. I have so many issues with Veolia, it is crazy. I have also been through the bureaucratic machine, and it is true, you keep going around in a circle. (good luck with gov't health care)"
"Anyway, something needs to be done. I am tired of bending over for my TRASH company because I don't have another choice."
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Missouri Supreme Court declines to hear trash-district case; Councilman says residents should seek credit from Veolia
The following was published by the Call Newspapers, February 4, 2009
BURKE WASSONStaff Reporter
http://www.callnewspapers.com/
"It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional." — Bryan Barcom, American Eagle owner.
The Missouri Supreme Court last week denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas.
The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.
"Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up. We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now... In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county.
In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.American Eagle Waste Services, Meridian Waste Service and Waste Management of Missouri — none of which were awarded a trash district — originally sued the county in May for not providing the two-year notice.
American Eagle owner Bryan Barcom is pleased with the Supreme Court's denial. "I think it's great," he said. "It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional."
County spokesman Mac Scott said the denial of Redington's request "was not surprising" and that she would be ready to defend the county again in circuit court.
Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. His ruling then was overturned by the appellate court. "We start over again," Scott said. "(The Supreme Court) just said: 'OK, we're not going to dismiss this suit or overturn the appellate ruling. As the appellate court said, you've got to take it back to the Circuit Court and argue this thing.' This was not surprising. It was always a pretty good possibility. The Supreme Court doesn't typically overrule any decision of that sort."
Scott has previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. But Waste Management of Missouri spokeswoman Lisa Disbrow believes the denial of the county's request shows the county must follow the two-year notice. "We are in kind of a holding pattern," Disbrow said. "But we're pleased that the Supreme Court decided not to accept the case. And we believe that it confirms that St. Louis County must comply with the two-year notice provision in state law."
Sixth District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, also is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision and is looking forward to the Circuit Court's reconsideration as it will bring the County Council "one step closer to addressing this issue."
"There have been many problems we've had in the 6th District just recently with the weather and the various trash districts," Stenger said. "I'm glad to see this happen." Stenger specifically mentioned problems that residents have had with Veolia Environmental Services, which was awarded bids to serve three of the eight trash districts. He said residents have reported not having trash pickup from Veolia due to the recent winter weather.
To receive credit from Veolia for not picking up trash on designated days, Stenger advises residents to call Veolia at (314) 567-1800. "Because of the telephone calls that I've made to Veolia, we were able to secure the credit so far," he said. "But as it sits, you have to call and ask for the credit. And I just want that credit to be applied to everyone.
"Whether they call or they don't, I feel that they are entitled to their credit. And I don't want it to be a situation where the people don't get the credit if they don't call."S tenger said he also is developing an "action plan" to address issues related to Veolia's service. Veolia services the 3rd trash district in north-central county, the 4th trash district in southwest county along the Meramec River and the 7th trash district in the Concord area."
Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up," he said. "We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now. In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia."
BURKE WASSONStaff Reporter
http://www.callnewspapers.com/
"It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional." — Bryan Barcom, American Eagle owner.
The Missouri Supreme Court last week denied County Counselor Patricia Redington's request to reconsider an Oct. 21 appellate-court ruling requiring county officials to provide a state-mandated two-year notice to waste haulers before establishing trash districts in unincorporated areas.
The St. Louis County Circuit Court now will consider the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling.
"Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up. We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now... In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia." — 6th District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county.
In the ruling, the appellate court states despite county officials' claims that the County Charter supersedes Missouri Revised Statute 260.247 mandating the two-year notice, county officials' claims of home rule do not apply in this case.American Eagle Waste Services, Meridian Waste Service and Waste Management of Missouri — none of which were awarded a trash district — originally sued the county in May for not providing the two-year notice.
American Eagle owner Bryan Barcom is pleased with the Supreme Court's denial. "I think it's great," he said. "It just kind of goes to show that, in our opinion, we were right all along. And you would have hoped the people that are running the county would have had enough intelligence to know that what they were doing was unconstitutional."
County spokesman Mac Scott said the denial of Redington's request "was not surprising" and that she would be ready to defend the county again in circuit court.
Circuit Court Judge Steven H. Goldman last year ruled that the 2007 state law requiring the two-year notice does not apply to St. Louis County. His ruling then was overturned by the appellate court. "We start over again," Scott said. "(The Supreme Court) just said: 'OK, we're not going to dismiss this suit or overturn the appellate ruling. As the appellate court said, you've got to take it back to the Circuit Court and argue this thing.' This was not surprising. It was always a pretty good possibility. The Supreme Court doesn't typically overrule any decision of that sort."
Scott has previously said county officials believe that the state law requiring the two-year notice must be considered and not necessarily followed. But Waste Management of Missouri spokeswoman Lisa Disbrow believes the denial of the county's request shows the county must follow the two-year notice. "We are in kind of a holding pattern," Disbrow said. "But we're pleased that the Supreme Court decided not to accept the case. And we believe that it confirms that St. Louis County must comply with the two-year notice provision in state law."
Sixth District County Councilman Steve Stenger, D-south county, also is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision and is looking forward to the Circuit Court's reconsideration as it will bring the County Council "one step closer to addressing this issue."
"There have been many problems we've had in the 6th District just recently with the weather and the various trash districts," Stenger said. "I'm glad to see this happen." Stenger specifically mentioned problems that residents have had with Veolia Environmental Services, which was awarded bids to serve three of the eight trash districts. He said residents have reported not having trash pickup from Veolia due to the recent winter weather.
To receive credit from Veolia for not picking up trash on designated days, Stenger advises residents to call Veolia at (314) 567-1800. "Because of the telephone calls that I've made to Veolia, we were able to secure the credit so far," he said. "But as it sits, you have to call and ask for the credit. And I just want that credit to be applied to everyone.
"Whether they call or they don't, I feel that they are entitled to their credit. And I don't want it to be a situation where the people don't get the credit if they don't call."S tenger said he also is developing an "action plan" to address issues related to Veolia's service. Veolia services the 3rd trash district in north-central county, the 4th trash district in southwest county along the Meramec River and the 7th trash district in the Concord area."
Particularly with respect to Veolia, we've had a number of issues that have arisen as a result of their not picking up," he said. "We've had a number of problems with Veolia and we are developing an action plan to take care of those right now. In the meantime, I would like it known to the public that they should call for their credits to Veolia."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Trash Start-up Problems Giving Hauler & St. Louis County a Black Eye
A county resident writes . . .
Dear Veolia,
I am in receipt of your first billing. We seem to have failure to communicate.
You have picked up my trash and the imposed recycling material forced down my throat by the socialist Government of St. Louis County.
You have not picked up my yard waste. It sits in my garage rotting (it has been out every Wednesday). You have not provided me with a tote which we agreed to. Perhaps you will find time to get back to me with an answer as to why (I tried to call but can never get through).
If you do this (pick up the yard waste and drop off a tote), I will pay you. However I will pay the bill under protest. I deplore SOCIALIST FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.
Yours,
Jake
P.S. see the attached bill for name and address.
Dear Veolia,
I am in receipt of your first billing. We seem to have failure to communicate.
You have picked up my trash and the imposed recycling material forced down my throat by the socialist Government of St. Louis County.
You have not picked up my yard waste. It sits in my garage rotting (it has been out every Wednesday). You have not provided me with a tote which we agreed to. Perhaps you will find time to get back to me with an answer as to why (I tried to call but can never get through).
If you do this (pick up the yard waste and drop off a tote), I will pay you. However I will pay the bill under protest. I deplore SOCIALIST FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.
Yours,
Jake
P.S. see the attached bill for name and address.
=================
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the people you need to concentrate on." -Robert Strauss
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Residents Blowing Whistle on Veolia; Complaints Mounting
Veolia Waste Management . . . Failure to provide service, May 27-July 2, 2008 . . . Failure to respond to customer complaints . . . Fraudulent billing of over $166.80 for services not rendered
The following letter was sent to Gary Earlls, Director of Public Works for St. Louis County. A West County resident in trash district 3, Rueben Thaker, says "no thanks" to County's trash program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Whom It May Concern:
The Saint Louis County Commission provided an unopposed service contract to Veolia, removing competition as an incentive for Veolia to provide professional service.
Under the system you created, no other company will now provide economical service to an area under exclusive contract. Customers are at the mercy of your contracted company without your intervention.
In just a few weeks, there service has been utmost negligent without redress, and incident/s which may be harassment. These issues arise with no provocation whatsoever. In fact, we gave Veolia business prior to the mandatory service date of July 1, 2008, and this is our reward.
Please advise how you will address this complaint against your contracted agents, in the situation you have created for this ‘zoning district’. I have better use of my time than writing about the garbage, but it is important that you remedy this at the outset. Thank you most kindly for your attention.
> From May 27 through July 2nd, I have called Veolia at least SEVEN times in complaint. NEVER has a called been returned. A person claiming to be the Director of Customer Service, “Southern Braband“, was called on or about June 26, 2008. She claimed she would return my call after reviewing the account. To date she has not done so, no one at Veolia ever has. I instructed her to change service over to my name on July 1, 2008, and no monies would be paid for negligent service May 27-June 30 as detailed below. Any monies received must be applied forward to any future billing.
> On 5.27.08 service was initiated on my property by Veolia Waste Management. On this day, their crew negligently left cans strewn about my driveway, nearly caused a vehicular accident that night as I did not expect cans laying in the driveway on returning home. They threw away my can lid, for which I demand $28 to replace this can.
> My complaint call on 5.28 is unanswered by Veolia.
> On or about 5.29, it came to my attention that a female associate about my residence, was ‘cat-called’ by their passing crew, causing concern and offense.
> On 6.2.08, Veolia failed to provide service. My complaint call was unanswered.
> On 6.3.08, I reached an agent, only then did they pick up the prior day’s trash, but unbelievably leaving the current day’s trash in place.
> Several days interim, trash was not collected. Veolia has never picked up trash two days in a row during any week at my residence, though I have simply lost count of days missed. In summary, over 5 weeks time, Veolia has picked up trash successfully 4-5 days.
> No trash pick up July 1 or July 2nd to date, though I have frankly lost count of the negligent service of this company, over the countless hours of complaint. No answer of their phone during regular business hours July 2.
. . . Reuben Thaker
.. http://www.quinntessential.com.au/Customer%20Complaint%20Iceberg-web.jpg
The following letter was sent to Gary Earlls, Director of Public Works for St. Louis County. A West County resident in trash district 3, Rueben Thaker, says "no thanks" to County's trash program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Whom It May Concern:
The Saint Louis County Commission provided an unopposed service contract to Veolia, removing competition as an incentive for Veolia to provide professional service.
Under the system you created, no other company will now provide economical service to an area under exclusive contract. Customers are at the mercy of your contracted company without your intervention.
In just a few weeks, there service has been utmost negligent without redress, and incident/s which may be harassment. These issues arise with no provocation whatsoever. In fact, we gave Veolia business prior to the mandatory service date of July 1, 2008, and this is our reward.
Please advise how you will address this complaint against your contracted agents, in the situation you have created for this ‘zoning district’. I have better use of my time than writing about the garbage, but it is important that you remedy this at the outset. Thank you most kindly for your attention.
> From May 27 through July 2nd, I have called Veolia at least SEVEN times in complaint. NEVER has a called been returned. A person claiming to be the Director of Customer Service, “Southern Braband“, was called on or about June 26, 2008. She claimed she would return my call after reviewing the account. To date she has not done so, no one at Veolia ever has. I instructed her to change service over to my name on July 1, 2008, and no monies would be paid for negligent service May 27-June 30 as detailed below. Any monies received must be applied forward to any future billing.
> On 5.27.08 service was initiated on my property by Veolia Waste Management. On this day, their crew negligently left cans strewn about my driveway, nearly caused a vehicular accident that night as I did not expect cans laying in the driveway on returning home. They threw away my can lid, for which I demand $28 to replace this can.
> My complaint call on 5.28 is unanswered by Veolia.
> On or about 5.29, it came to my attention that a female associate about my residence, was ‘cat-called’ by their passing crew, causing concern and offense.
> On 6.2.08, Veolia failed to provide service. My complaint call was unanswered.
> On 6.3.08, I reached an agent, only then did they pick up the prior day’s trash, but unbelievably leaving the current day’s trash in place.
> Several days interim, trash was not collected. Veolia has never picked up trash two days in a row during any week at my residence, though I have simply lost count of days missed. In summary, over 5 weeks time, Veolia has picked up trash successfully 4-5 days.
> No trash pick up July 1 or July 2nd to date, though I have frankly lost count of the negligent service of this company, over the countless hours of complaint. No answer of their phone during regular business hours July 2.
. . . Reuben Thaker
.. http://www.quinntessential.com.au/Customer%20Complaint%20Iceberg-web.jpg
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Recycle Bins: Comments From an Area Resident
"I don’t have anything against recycling – but the very first time I put it out (recycle bin) when they told us to, the recycled stuff wasn’t even picked up! My cousin lives 2 miles from me and HER recycled stuff was picked up! What’s up with that?"
"Anyway, since they don’t want my recycled crap, I don’t want their recycle big ass can! So, I’m going to call today to have them pick it back up. It takes up space I need in my garage. Unless, that is, I do what my neighbor 2 doors down does, and just leave in the street all the time!! Oh, wait. I just looked out the window, and it’s finally gone! They have had it sitting in the street since the day it was delivered!"
"We just received a letter the other day telling us that Veolia is going to be our trash hauler and we are supposed to call our current hauler (Allied) and cancel them effective in October. I also received the yellow card telling me to call and have the recycle bin picked up if we don’t want it. No phone number on the card! HELLLLOOOO?! Thank Goodness for county government! Whatever would we do without them? :{} "
"Anyway, since they don’t want my recycled crap, I don’t want their recycle big ass can! So, I’m going to call today to have them pick it back up. It takes up space I need in my garage. Unless, that is, I do what my neighbor 2 doors down does, and just leave in the street all the time!! Oh, wait. I just looked out the window, and it’s finally gone! They have had it sitting in the street since the day it was delivered!"
"We just received a letter the other day telling us that Veolia is going to be our trash hauler and we are supposed to call our current hauler (Allied) and cancel them effective in October. I also received the yellow card telling me to call and have the recycle bin picked up if we don’t want it. No phone number on the card! HELLLLOOOO?! Thank Goodness for county government! Whatever would we do without them? :{} "
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Judge Throws Out Trash Suit
A lawsuit filed last month against St. Louis County to stop the county's trash program was thrown out by a St. Louis County Circuit Court Judge. The suit stated the county failed to give haulers two year's notice as 
required by state law. Circuit Judge Steven H. Goldman ruled that the county ordinance takes precedence over the state statute.
American Eagle Waste Co., said all three haulers would appeal. The county's trash plan was established after residents in unincorporated areas complained about multiple hauling companies serving the same neighborhoods.
The county selected a single hauler for each district except in subdivisions that opted out of the program. Residents in these subdivision report that they are being gouged by the trash haulers since they are not a part of the County's trash district. Rates quoted are upwward to 75% higher.
County Executive Charlie Dooley hailed the judge's ruling on Wednesday as a "victory for all residents." "We're saving people money and giving them good service," he said. As one county resdient said, "Dooley is missing the point again. It's not a question of "money" but "freedom of choice."
St. Louis County Council approved two more contracts with:
— IESI in District 2, which covers the Spanish Lake area. IESI's monthly charge for the basic service would rise from $12.03 in the first year to $13.07 in the third.
— Veolia Environmental Services in District 4 in southwestern St. Louis County. Its monthly charge would be $12.25 in the first year, rising to $13.25 in the third.
Last week, Aspen Waste Systems, which had won the contracts to serve Districts 6 and 8, withdrew its bids, citing what it said were economic risks posed by the lawsuit.
County officials said they would ask the County Council to award contracts to the next lowest bidders, Allied Waste Co. in District 6 and IESI in District 8. The districts include Lemay, Mehlville and Oakville.
required by state law. Circuit Judge Steven H. Goldman ruled that the county ordinance takes precedence over the state statute.American Eagle Waste Co., said all three haulers would appeal. The county's trash plan was established after residents in unincorporated areas complained about multiple hauling companies serving the same neighborhoods.
The county selected a single hauler for each district except in subdivisions that opted out of the program. Residents in these subdivision report that they are being gouged by the trash haulers since they are not a part of the County's trash district. Rates quoted are upwward to 75% higher.
County Executive Charlie Dooley hailed the judge's ruling on Wednesday as a "victory for all residents." "We're saving people money and giving them good service," he said. As one county resdient said, "Dooley is missing the point again. It's not a question of "money" but "freedom of choice."
St. Louis County Council approved two more contracts with:
— IESI in District 2, which covers the Spanish Lake area. IESI's monthly charge for the basic service would rise from $12.03 in the first year to $13.07 in the third.
— Veolia Environmental Services in District 4 in southwestern St. Louis County. Its monthly charge would be $12.25 in the first year, rising to $13.25 in the third.
Last week, Aspen Waste Systems, which had won the contracts to serve Districts 6 and 8, withdrew its bids, citing what it said were economic risks posed by the lawsuit.
County officials said they would ask the County Council to award contracts to the next lowest bidders, Allied Waste Co. in District 6 and IESI in District 8. The districts include Lemay, Mehlville and Oakville.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Dooley On Hot Seat and He's Starting to Feel It
County Executive Charlie Dooley is feeling the heat in regards to his non-functioning trash and recycling program.
First, a lawsuit has been filed to halt the County’s trash program. This is making its way through the legal system and could result in some additional changes.
Second, ASPEN withdrew their bid from the County as hauler for two districts previously announced. ASPEN’s attorney advised against proceeding stating the lawsuit has merit and advised against purchasing additional equipment to provide the service.
Third, Veolia is a huge, worldwide business with their home offices in Paris, France. Unfortunately, the company has a known record of corruption in many areas of the world to include the U. S. You can research information with an Internet search on “Veolia, corruption.” So this raises some ethical questions with many whether to do business with a company with this record or not.
Fourth, Veolia stands ready to start servicing District 3 as of July 1, but Veolia has jacked up their rates from just three weeks ago to subdivisions which opted out. Veolia has also increased charges to west county residents in Manchester/Ballwin area with a $3.50 fee to send a paper invoice.
Fifth, a subdivision trustee reports he made a general inquiry to Veolia on Monday, June 23 to obtain their current rates and received a quote of over $21.75 per month. It's felt if the county looses the lawsuit, Veolia will not even provide the service.
Sixth, Allied Waste, a hauler also selected by St. Louis County, was just purchased by another large waste company. So now Allied becomes a part of an even bigger company.
What's Mr. Dooley have to say about all this?
"The county counselor is my pick for county counselor," Dooley said. "Secondly, I have the utmost confidence in that individual. So when that individual's speaking for this county, she's
speaking for me as the chief elected official of the county. And whatever she does has a hundred percent of my backing. If I didn't have any confidence in her, she wouldn't be here ... That's my responsibility. And I stand by it. With all of my directors, that's my responsibility. So don't fault her. It's a policy decision. It's my decision ... If you have a problem with that, you need to address it with me. Please do not ask my directors for their resignation without addressing me first."
"Our attorney's been an attorney for 25 years with the County Charter," Dooley said. "I would suggest to you that she has much more wise counsel than you have."
"I didn't know you were an attorney and you can actually evaluate wording because we've got an attorney that does it very well," Dooley told Diehl. "What you're saying is it's all right to charge people more for trash pickup when we can get a competitive bid ..." My second thought tonight is for you to just indicate that you have some kind of grasp of law is beyond me ... that because you can read it, you have a grasp of the law."Apparently, not the County Charter. If you did, you would know better.
And thirdly, on various occasions you have had the audacity to come before this council with some kind of cockamamie story about what you think is right and what we think is wrong ... To indicate that anybody on this council would do something that would not be in the best interest of the citizens of this county is ridiculous."
Hello?
First, a lawsuit has been filed to halt the County’s trash program. This is making its way through the legal system and could result in some additional changes.
Second, ASPEN withdrew their bid from the County as hauler for two districts previously announced. ASPEN’s attorney advised against proceeding stating the lawsuit has merit and advised against purchasing additional equipment to provide the service.
Third, Veolia is a huge, worldwide business with their home offices in Paris, France. Unfortunately, the company has a known record of corruption in many areas of the world to include the U. S. You can research information with an Internet search on “Veolia, corruption.” So this raises some ethical questions with many whether to do business with a company with this record or not.
Fourth, Veolia stands ready to start servicing District 3 as of July 1, but Veolia has jacked up their rates from just three weeks ago to subdivisions which opted out. Veolia has also increased charges to west county residents in Manchester/Ballwin area with a $3.50 fee to send a paper invoice.
Fifth, a subdivision trustee reports he made a general inquiry to Veolia on Monday, June 23 to obtain their current rates and received a quote of over $21.75 per month. It's felt if the county looses the lawsuit, Veolia will not even provide the service.
Sixth, Allied Waste, a hauler also selected by St. Louis County, was just purchased by another large waste company. So now Allied becomes a part of an even bigger company.
What's Mr. Dooley have to say about all this?
"The county counselor is my pick for county counselor," Dooley said. "Secondly, I have the utmost confidence in that individual. So when that individual's speaking for this county, she's
speaking for me as the chief elected official of the county. And whatever she does has a hundred percent of my backing. If I didn't have any confidence in her, she wouldn't be here ... That's my responsibility. And I stand by it. With all of my directors, that's my responsibility. So don't fault her. It's a policy decision. It's my decision ... If you have a problem with that, you need to address it with me. Please do not ask my directors for their resignation without addressing me first.""Our attorney's been an attorney for 25 years with the County Charter," Dooley said. "I would suggest to you that she has much more wise counsel than you have."
"I didn't know you were an attorney and you can actually evaluate wording because we've got an attorney that does it very well," Dooley told Diehl. "What you're saying is it's all right to charge people more for trash pickup when we can get a competitive bid ..." My second thought tonight is for you to just indicate that you have some kind of grasp of law is beyond me ... that because you can read it, you have a grasp of the law."Apparently, not the County Charter. If you did, you would know better.
And thirdly, on various occasions you have had the audacity to come before this council with some kind of cockamamie story about what you think is right and what we think is wrong ... To indicate that anybody on this council would do something that would not be in the best interest of the citizens of this county is ridiculous."
Hello?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Concerned Couty Residents Speak Out
Here's a couple of messages received today from area residents -
"I read an article in the Arnold-Imperial Leader, June 12th issue regarding trash services in Arnold. The city has a contract which expires June 2009 with Veolia. They provide service for $8.95 per month plus .50 per home that recycles. With the new totes, the service will be $10.75. July 2009 through June 2010, it will be $11.07. The following year it will increase to $11.40, and the last year will be $11.75. I'm am really confused as to why it is more for South County than it is for Arnold and for the areas up north???"
Any comments anyone???? Anyone ???
Here's another.
A county resident called and left a message saying he learned from a friend in west county (Manchester/Ballwin area) that he just received notice from Veolia, their current trash hauler. The notice said if he wanted to receive a paper invoice, there would be a $3.50 handling charge added to his trash bill. If he paid by EFT/ACH, there would be no charge.
Now I'm certain Veolia will say there is no increase to their trash or recycling charges and will point out the expense of handling a paper transaction. They should have thought of that before quoting their current rate. If this is a service provided by their City, they should protest this loud and clear.
An increase in payment is a rate increase.
"I read an article in the Arnold-Imperial Leader, June 12th issue regarding trash services in Arnold. The city has a contract which expires June 2009 with Veolia. They provide service for $8.95 per month plus .50 per home that recycles. With the new totes, the service will be $10.75. July 2009 through June 2010, it will be $11.07. The following year it will increase to $11.40, and the last year will be $11.75. I'm am really confused as to why it is more for South County than it is for Arnold and for the areas up north???"
Any comments anyone???? Anyone ???
Here's another.
A county resident called and left a message saying he learned from a friend in west county (Manchester/Ballwin area) that he just received notice from Veolia, their current trash hauler. The notice said if he wanted to receive a paper invoice, there would be a $3.50 handling charge added to his trash bill. If he paid by EFT/ACH, there would be no charge.
Now I'm certain Veolia will say there is no increase to their trash or recycling charges and will point out the expense of handling a paper transaction. They should have thought of that before quoting their current rate. If this is a service provided by their City, they should protest this loud and clear.
An increase in payment is a rate increase.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Aspen Waste Withdraws Bids for Two Trash Districts
Aspen Waste Systems notified St. Louis County they are unable to provide trash and recycling services in two of the eight trash districts and has withdrawn their bid.
American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri filed a law suit May 29 citing a state law requiring the County to give a two year notice to the companies before implimenting a trash program. The County continues to ignore the regulation stating it does not apply to them.
In a letter to the county, Aspen's general manager said a victory by the plaintiffs would hurt any investment his company made in new equipment.
If approved by the County Council, the contracts are expected to be awarded to the next lowest bidders which are Allied Waste in District 6 and IESI in District 8. These districts cover Lemay, Oakville and parts of Mehlville in South County.
Allied's bid is $13.50 a month in the first year, increasing to $14.60 in the third year. IESI's bid is $13.09 a month in the first year, rising to $14.23 in the third.
St. Louis County Executive, Charlie Dooley, said he was disappointed that Aspen withrew its bid. "I was happy that a smaller hauler got a chance to be a player in this competitive process," Dooley said. "And I'm upset that this lawsuit which is sour grapes by the firms who lost in the bidding process scared Aspen off." Dooley said nothing about the other smaller companies being shut out in the bidding process. Three haulers out of an estimated 20 throughout St. Louis County were awarded the 8 districts.
The trash district haulers selected by the County for all eight districts are with prices shown for the first year are shaping up as follows.
District 1 – IESI - $12.09
District 2 – IESI - $12.03
District 3 – Veolia Environmental Services - $11.60
District 4 – Veolia Environmental Services - $12.25
District 5 – Allied Waste - $12.29
District 6 –Allied Waste - $13.50
District 7 – Veolia Environmental Services - $ 12.40
District 8 – IESI - $13.09
Pending trash rates between the districts vary by more than 16% from a high of $13.50 to a low of $11.60. If your subdivision is on the low side, that's good news. If not, how can the county justify a hauler charging 16% more?
American Eagle Waste Industries, Meridian Waste Services and Waste Management of Missouri filed a law suit May 29 citing a state law requiring the County to give a two year notice to the companies before implimenting a trash program. The County continues to ignore the regulation stating it does not apply to them.
In a letter to the county, Aspen's general manager said a victory by the plaintiffs would hurt any investment his company made in new equipment.
If approved by the County Council, the contracts are expected to be awarded to the next lowest bidders which are Allied Waste in District 6 and IESI in District 8. These districts cover Lemay, Oakville and parts of Mehlville in South County.
Allied's bid is $13.50 a month in the first year, increasing to $14.60 in the third year. IESI's bid is $13.09 a month in the first year, rising to $14.23 in the third.
St. Louis County Executive, Charlie Dooley, said he was disappointed that Aspen withrew its bid. "I was happy that a smaller hauler got a chance to be a player in this competitive process," Dooley said. "And I'm upset that this lawsuit which is sour grapes by the firms who lost in the bidding process scared Aspen off." Dooley said nothing about the other smaller companies being shut out in the bidding process. Three haulers out of an estimated 20 throughout St. Louis County were awarded the 8 districts.
The trash district haulers selected by the County for all eight districts are with prices shown for the first year are shaping up as follows.
District 1 – IESI - $12.09
District 2 – IESI - $12.03
District 3 – Veolia Environmental Services - $11.60
District 4 – Veolia Environmental Services - $12.25
District 5 – Allied Waste - $12.29
District 6 –Allied Waste - $13.50
District 7 – Veolia Environmental Services - $ 12.40
District 8 – IESI - $13.09
Pending trash rates between the districts vary by more than 16% from a high of $13.50 to a low of $11.60. If your subdivision is on the low side, that's good news. If not, how can the county justify a hauler charging 16% more?
..
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Veolia In Troubled Waters
Veolia, formerly known as Vivendi Universal, is notorious for having a history heavily involved in corporate corruption, however, there is no indication of any wrong doing in the St. Louis area. The St. Louis County Council chose Veolia as the designated trash hauler in three of the eight trash districts.
Public Citizen, the non profit consumer organisation founded by Ralph Nader, reports:
Bribery convictions, raids on corporate offices by evidence-seeking securities investigators, class action suits filed by shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic, collapses in both its stock price and its credit rating, massive debt necessitating a fire-sale of assets, a discredited and ultimately ousted corporate chieftain, dizzying financial uncertainty, an identity crisis - little wonder that Veolia has scrambled to distance from its erstwhile corporate parent.
An internet research on Veolia shows that the company still regularly draws the negative attention of the media.
Despite Veolia's global track record of corruption, broken promises, environmental degradation, price-gouging, obfuscation, misdirection and secrecy, the world's largest water company continues to enjoy substantial support within powerful pockets of financial and political circles.
In some instances, the private water industry has garnered that support the old-fashioned way - by bribing officials. While publicly operated water systems are managed to deliver clean, safe and affordable water to you and your family, privately operated systems (like Veolia Water) are managed to get as much money as possible from you and your family. Veolia is not the solution. But as the company has demonstrated time and again, in every corner of the globe, Veolia is part of the problem.
More information available at the following web sites:
http://publiccitizen.org/documents/Vivendi-USFilter.pdf
http://www.acme-eau.org/Nouveau-Rapport-de-PUBLIC-CITIZEN-sur-VEOLIA-en-Anglais-_a214.html#Corruption
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5723.shtml
Public Citizen, the non profit consumer organisation founded by Ralph Nader, reports:
Bribery convictions, raids on corporate offices by evidence-seeking securities investigators, class action suits filed by shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic, collapses in both its stock price and its credit rating, massive debt necessitating a fire-sale of assets, a discredited and ultimately ousted corporate chieftain, dizzying financial uncertainty, an identity crisis - little wonder that Veolia has scrambled to distance from its erstwhile corporate parent.
An internet research on Veolia shows that the company still regularly draws the negative attention of the media.
Despite Veolia's global track record of corruption, broken promises, environmental degradation, price-gouging, obfuscation, misdirection and secrecy, the world's largest water company continues to enjoy substantial support within powerful pockets of financial and political circles.
In some instances, the private water industry has garnered that support the old-fashioned way - by bribing officials. While publicly operated water systems are managed to deliver clean, safe and affordable water to you and your family, privately operated systems (like Veolia Water) are managed to get as much money as possible from you and your family. Veolia is not the solution. But as the company has demonstrated time and again, in every corner of the globe, Veolia is part of the problem.
More information available at the following web sites:
http://publiccitizen.org/documents/Vivendi-USFilter.pdf
http://www.acme-eau.org/Nouveau-Rapport-de-PUBLIC-CITIZEN-sur-VEOLIA-en-Anglais-_a214.html#Corruption
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5723.shtml
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
