Fort Smith Board nixes trash automation plan

story by Aric Mitchell
amitchell@thecitywire.com

Rate increases could be on the way from the Fort Smith Department of Sanitation (DOS) following a 4-3 vote from the City of Fort Smith Board of Directors that ended automated refuse collection conversions in the city’s final 20 neighborhoods that had yet to change over.

Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack said following Tuesday’s (June 5) meeting that any possible rate increases would occur during the 2013 budget review process.

The question that remains: how will possible rate increases be structured?

Acting at the prompting of City Director Kevin Settle, Fort Smith Department of Sanitation Director T. Baridi Nkokheli submitted four scenarios for future sanitation charges.

With current monthly charges at $14.38, a hybrid system could bump rates to $15.91 per month for each citizen starting in 2013. Finishing the automated conversion process could have reduced rates to $13.28 monthly for the same time period.

Had the DOS been able to continue the conversions, while leaving the three dissenting neighborhoods at Belle Grove, Park Hill, and May/Lecta/Sweet areas under automated collection, a rate increase to $15.03 would have been expected.

A fourth option, which would find citizens paying only for the services received, would grant automated households a $1.06 monthly reduction ($13.32 per month), while increasing non-automated households to $24.56 per month (a $10.18 hike).

During citizens forum following the meeting, Bobby Altes of Altes Sanitation committed to city directors that his company could “provide this service at the same price or less, in the alleyways for homes in these areas” and that Altes Sanitation “could lock our rate in for several years.”

The Board would have to open any private sanitation services to outside bids.

Catsavis questioned Nkokheli’s estimated rate changes, and stated he would “never support a rate increase,” echoing Merry’s statement that “four members on this board” would not vote for any rate increase as long as there was a $2 million surplus in the department.

Settle, who voted along with Good and City Director Don Hutchings against continued non-automated collection, commended Nkokheli. “Baridi’s department is debt free for the first time, and let’s keep in mind, they’re residential, commercial, industrial, and landfill operations. We don’t want to subsidize those rates for residential. It’s not what businesses want to do.”

While numbers were not available Tuesday night, Gosack admitted that the $2 million sanitation department surplus Merry spoke of, “is absorbing losses brought on by existing non-automated services.” Settle added that a vote for continuing with non-automated collection would be a vote for an eventual rate increase.

City Directors Catsavis and Steve Tyler continued to propose the possibility of private enterprise intervention during the ongoing refuse collection debate. City Director Pam Weber, who voted with Catsavis, Tyler, and City Director Philip Merry, cited that she was doing so to “fulfill a campaign promise” she’d made to a citizen, who asked her how she would vote if an individual neighborhood didn’t want the service.

Merry was more swayed by the results of a third neighborhood survey, which showed 55% of 27%, who participated (442 out of 804 respondents), wished to remain with non-automated collection, citing that it was “exemplary of the voting public.”

“I wish it were more, but that’s the best we’ve seen thus far on people being engaged,” Merry said.

City Director Andre Good was not impressed by the third survey.

“We’ve all seen numbers from the first two surveys, and it was obvious the majority in those surveys wanted automated pickup. After the third survey and thousands and thousands of dollars spent (close to $50,000, according to DOS figures), the board got only 27% feedback. Now, why do you believe we got so few back the third time?” Good said.

Speaking on that point, Nkokheli said, “We were told by attendees and some afterward, that citizens felt a sense of apathy, after hearing the board’s decision, when the majority preference was to retain automated, and even after receiving those survey results, they were overruled. There was a feeling it would not matter to this board whether they completed a survey and turned it in. That was all that was communicated to myself, staff, and field employees.”

Advertisement:

Good told The City Wire after the meeting that he believed the vote was “an example of the vocal minority grabbing the ears of a few city directors to get their way. That’s what I’m afraid has just happened.”

SPORTS COMPLEX VOTE
Also Tuesday night, the board voted unanimously to appropriate $1.6 million in funding to the River Valley Sports Complex (RVSC) project and proceed with a grant application to have the Army National Guard contribute clearing, grading and earth-work — a value of between $250,000-$400,000 — during the summer of 2012.

Now that RVSC and the city can move forward with the application, the Army National Guard will begin the project “within 30-45 days of approval,” according to Sen. Jake Files, R-Fort Smith and co-organizer.

The next study session of the board will take place June 12 (12 p.m.) at the Fort Smith Public Library Community Room.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 5 (2 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

serial meeter

For Director Merry to blurt out in a board meeting that he has four votes lined up to kill a sanitation rate increase clearly shows that he is conducting business meeting outside of the public realm. I do believe this is a misdemeanor offense. It was wise of Director Hutchings to proclaim that he has not been part of this backroom conspiracy.

Great point

Per the statute, the whole point of the open meetings act is thus: "It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performance of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this chapter is adopted, making it possible for them or their representatives to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials." Sounds like he has been having his own closed door meetings. This isn't Tammany Hall, buddy.

BOD meeting

Serial meeter - if you were present at the June 5 BoD meeting then you surely heard Director Good refer, no less than three times, to meetings and discussions BEFORE actual "offical" meetings. Violation of the FOI, you bet.

George

We always knew George pandered to a certain group. Which he did again here. But this exchange really let us know whose pocket he is in. Thank goodness he is up for election and has an opponent.

He voted as a director should

I rarely agree with the stand that George takes in board votes but in this case he voted the will of his constitutes which I feel should be Commended. Now lets automate the automated routes if we want to save money. The City wire says 3 trucks go down the street with 3 employes on automated routes. I have been looking for that but have not seen it. Many folks have told me the blue carts are picked up with rear load trucks using flippers and 3 employes . Folks that is not automatic pick up. Recycle is picked up with rear load trucks using flippers or I have seen many recycle bins dumped in the truck manually. Except when the dial a truck is used all yard waste s picked up manually. I had a blue cart and a recycle cart stolen (that I really liked because the house has a short level drive and the alley has grown over since there is no trash pick up in it)and to have it replaced I had to have a police report. I called the sanitation to get a value for them and was told the 2 were about $150. How long does it take to amortize that kind of expense? If there is an increase in sanitation cost is that money that is just used to buy equipment for automated routes?
I rarely agree with the stand that George takes in board votes but in this case he voted the will of his constitutes which I feel should be Commended. Now lets automate the automated routes if we want to save money. The City wire says 3 trucks go down the street with 3 employes on automated routes. I have been looking for that but have not seen it. Many folks have told me the blue carts are picked up with rear load trucks using flippers and 3 employes . Folks that is not automatic pick up. Recycle is picked up with rear load trucks using flippers or I have seen many recycle bins dumped in the truck manually. Except when the dial a truck is used all yard waste s ...>> Read the entire comment.

Logic

They really need to offer some rudimentary logic courses to the Directors at their retreats. If you essentially increase services, take away cost savings, and ignore inflation and other economic factors then you will eventually eliminate any surpluses and end up needing a rate increase. It isn't rocket science. And hopefully they don't think for a moment that passing on price increases to the entire city is an option, it will result in a revolt.

Trash pickup costs

It seems only reasonable that if the cost of manually picking up the trash is more expensive than the automated systems, that those neighborhoods that are insisting on manual pickup should pay the cost differential to do so. The citizens of the neighborhoods that accept and use the automated sytem should not be forced to subsidize the wishes of the citizens who prefer manual pickup. If manual pickup is not more expensive, there is not any reason to go to automated pickup in the first place.

Agreed with Hoghart

Pay what I have been paying for manual pickup all along to continue manaul pickup seems fair. I didn't ask for automated pickup which doesn't fit into my property situation. Manual works so I have no objection to paying as I have in the past with normal rate changes as they arise

nixed auto pickup?

No, neighborhoods sould be excluded. Let them find a place to store the "big ugly" cans. Yes, if excluded from auto pick-up, they should pay full amount of the extra cost of manual collection.

I vote for option #4 !!!

A fourth option, which would find citizens paying only for the services received, would grant automated households a $1.06 monthly reduction ($13.32 per month), while increasing non-automated households to $24.56 per month (a $10.18 hike).

It's official..the lid has been opened..

To A citizen Ms Weber? There is a sign and it's on the bridge. Would you please glance at it next time you cross the river? I don't suppose just because they've seen this coming for years some people purposely led you into promising this? Surely not. Don't worry it's no big deal because no matter what it costs we will not have to pay a cent more according to Mr Merry since we will never get 4 people to make such a mistake up there at which point both myself and Mr Hutchins were equally reassured. So how will we do the extra charges which seem to have somehow come up only a few minutes later? Everyone or just those getting it? What about those getting it that don't want it? Even more? Touche to the vocal few in our city. BTW...how long have you been pre-qualifying our leaders?
To A citizen Ms Weber? There is a sign and it's on the bridge. Would you please glance at it next time you cross the river? I don't suppose just because they've seen this coming for years some people purposely led you into promising this? Surely not. Don't worry it's no big deal because no matter what it costs we will not have to pay a cent more according to Mr Merry since we will never get 4 people to make such a mistake up there at which point both myself and Mr Hutchins were equally reassured. So how will we do the extra charges which seem to have somehow come up only a few minutes later? Everyone or just those getting it? What about those getting it that don't ...>> Read the entire comment.

The Naive Candidate

I could well understand and forgive a naive candidate for making a campaign promise based upon constituent passionate pleas. However, once on the job, there is much to learn and an entire city to manage. Pure and simply, the costs of sanitation must be fully covered by the revenues of sanitation. If not, fees must go up by board vote. To take a position on the automated trash debate saying,"I know what's right but I must vote to keep a promise" is totally shortsighted of the eventual lament you will have to make: "all of you must pay more because I made a mistake at a Candidates' Forum that I wasn't fully prepared to promise in the first place."

when the time comes

This year, that will be the case, anon, but when the 2013 budget rolls around and sanitation needs nine more workers and projected costs don't get covered by projected revenues, a rate increase will need to be asked for, and there is no where else to get the money to cover it, so it will have to be approved.

unbelievable

How can 8% make 92% pay more?" I emailed Merry and Weber a couple days ago on my feelings and Weber did not even have the decency to reply. At least Merry did respond. I emailed both today and told them after the November vote they should resign from the BOD. www.facebook.com/VoteForAutomated

92%

How,you ask?....The same way the 92% can make me pay for sanitation service even if I don't want it manual, automated or if I were to take it all to a farm for pigs and goats to eat or farmers to burn!

Democracy

Do you know how it works? Because your obliviousness to the fact that the whole goal is not to pander to the few is obvious.

Let he among you who cast the first aspersions.

Don't start with the sarcasm. As mentioned before in many other blogs, we live in a Republic for very good reasons,one of which is to hold "mob rule" in check. The majority would be the mob, as the minority is simple overpowered due to fewer numbers....simple. So, yes I know how democracy works, but you might revisit civics lessons to realize you live in a Republic, that is to say Democracy by Reprentation. You can Democratically choose that representation.

Still wrong

The minority is overpowered because they want the majority to pay for their special treatment. Automated trash is not oppression, it is not an impossibility for those neighborhoods either. Manual trash is merely a preference and one in which the minority is unwilling to pay the premium for. As for the civics lesson, remember that the cornerstone of mob rule is passion over reason. The majority of the city has the reason on its side and it is $$$$. It's not mob rule, it's not oppression, its just common sense of the majority against passionate irrationality.

Passionate Irrationality?

Rationalize this: I want to opt-out of trash collection and not pay for any of that service that other people are utilizing. It this irrational?

apathy

"We were told by attendees and some afterward, that citizens felt a sense of apathy, after hearing the board’s decision, when the majority preference was to retain automated," The citizens of FS all feel this apathy. No matter the savings,great idea or otherwise good intentions, the BOD always seem to "flip flop" or make promises they can't keep. For Merry to make a comment like that about having the "votes", he should resign today. The people that are running for office this fall better be ready for an uphill battle and be able to handle all the bones in the closet. The mayor and administrator have been doing a great job considering the BOD they have to work with.

Spinning It, ......considering the BOD ?

Pathetic is more like it,Apathy Person!! You cannot blame the BOD for Sanders and Gosack. We're no gonna let that one get by. Each individual is responsible for their performance. If tickets were being sold to their performance, the show would close the first night at intermission. Each can blame the other, but maybe you are right, voter apathy is really to blame.

TRASH

I don't remember being asked if I wanted automated trash or not. However, it is a good thing. I want my rate reduced and the priviledged persons that want to do differently can pay extra for their priviledge.

Trash

Where do we apply to get our rebate from the people that want a premium service. They shouldm pay into a fund to rebate to the rest of us. When is the board going ton start this????

Not to stir the pudding

There's enough fur flying over this issue, but aside from Phil "having the votes" before they were cast, another question has been bothering me. Would it not have been prudent for any directors living within the contested neighborhoods to recuse themselves from this particular vote? Even if it's not strictly required, it seems that it would have benefitted the perception of the board by the general public.