Fort Smith trash issue takes another turn

story by Aric Mitchell
amitchell@thecitywire.com

The Fort Smith Board of Directors will once again address the trash collection issue Tuesday (June 19) when they vote on whether to solicit proposals for a private carrier to non-automated areas.

City Administrator Ray Gosack confirmed the resolution had been added to the meeting agenda while addressing Ward 3 residents at the Fort Smith Senior Activity Center Thursday (June 14).

City Clerk Sherri Gard noted that the item was added at the request of City Director Steve Tyler with City Directors George Catsavis, Pam Weber, and Philip Merry, agreeing to the addition.

According to Gard, the agenda “has already been finalized” with “item numbers distributed to the various departments.” As a result, the item will take place after the consent agenda near the end of Tuesday night’s meeting.

As Fort Smith citizen Joel Culberson, present Thursday, works to finalize a ballot initiative for citywide automated collection, acceptance of a bid proposal may be premature as, Gosack noted, “it is conceivable a private provider could be approved by August,” three months before the November election.

Nevertheless, City Director Pam Weber is hopeful.

“A private hauler came to all of us and said they will continue and take over the Park Hill service for the same price the city does, maybe less, and lock in the price for three to five years,” Weber said.

The hauler, Altes Sanitation, made a verbal commitment at the June 5 citizens forum. While Altes is the only one to express interest at this time, Gosack said the board will have to bid the project out for consideration to multiple vendors.

Gosack also noted, to some negative audience reaction, that his offices “received complaints on a weekly basis (about Altes)” prior to expiration of the company’s contract with the city in 2010.

“I have received very few complaints since the city took over,” Gosack added.

While Altes and non-automated collection had its supporters, a number of audience members wanted answers to the growing question of rate increases.

If manual continues, will it raise rates? Why couldn’t the automated areas have the cost savings? Why not charge more for non-automated services?

Gosack confirmed that “through preliminary estimates,” rates would increase.

Through those same preliminary estimates, Fort Smith Sanitation Director T. Baridi Nkokheli presented options that did include simultaneous monthly rate changes of a $1.06 decrease for automated customers and a $10.18 increase for non-automated.

RESOLUTION NO. 250-09
Merry justified his June 5 vote to end 2012 automated conversions, stating “the move to automated collection six years ago was never voted on by this board,” adding that “these neighborhoods are far-reaching and have distinct characteristics. It’s not a cookie-cutter thing.”

Merry continued: “When there is an issue in any neighborhood, I would hope the board would be sensitive to that. Fort Smith is a summation of its neighborhoods. Right, wrong, or indifferent, I look at the city as the United States, and the neighborhoods as states, and you’re trying as a board member here to find a balance.”

Tyler added: “Sanitation presented this idea (automated collection) to the neighborhoods six years ago, and the question was raised at that time: ‘Will we have to go to that?’ And the answer from directors was, ‘No, you will not.’”

Advertisement:

Culberson admits a vote for automated did not occur in 2006, but points out Resolution No. 250-09, “A Resolution Directing that the City of Fort Smith Department of Sanitation Provide Residential Solid Waste Services to the Entire City.”

The resolution, signed and approved by the board on Nov. 3, 2009, with an effective date of July 11, 2010, stipulates: “Whereas, the Board of Directors is desirous of the entire city receiving an identical, consistent level of residential solid waste collection services ... hereby determines that the best method for providing ... is for the City of Fort Smith Department of Sanitation to serve the entire city.”

The resolution was drafted in response to an Oct. 29, 2009, memorandum, wherein Gosack, then deputy city administrator, specifies that automated collection would be the city’s means of provision should the resolution pass.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

Comments

My street in Park Hill East

My street in Park Hill East had the curb-side automated service for a brief period, and, on the satisfaction survey, I expressed my preference for it over alley pickup. I was not approached for an opinion or preference during the last survey in which a 27% response was received, purportedly preferring alley collection. It is outrageous that I may have a $10.18 increase for a collection method that I don't want and so expressed in my signed satisfaction survey. Let that small minority demanding alley collection pay for it; don't penalize the rest of us, i.e., the majority responding positively for automated collection on the first survey. On a related matter, what is the status of the FOIA request to certain board members for their correspondence on the issue?
My street in Park Hill East had the curb-side automated service for a brief period, and, on the satisfaction survey, I expressed my preference for it over alley pickup. I was not approached for an opinion or preference during the last survey in which a 27% response was received, purportedly preferring alley collection. It is outrageous that I may have a $10.18 increase for a collection method that I don't want and so expressed in my signed satisfaction survey. Let that small minority demanding alley collection pay for it; don't penalize the rest of us, i.e., the majority responding positively for automated collection on the first survey. On a related matter, ...>> Read the entire comment.

I prefer no trash collection for me

Don't penalize me because I don't want city trash collection at all for me. Why should pay more for your trash collection when you don't want to pay more for your own?

Steve Tyler makes Sense In Proposal

Director Steve Tyler is to be commended for requesting a resolution to solicit proposals at next Tuesdays meeting for a private carrier to provide service to non-automated areas. Directors George Catsavis, Pam Weber and Phillip Merry are to be commended as well for their support to add the resolution to next week’s agenda. City Administrator Ray Gosack and Baridi Nkokheli have both been reluctant to allow free enterprise the opportunity to be a part of the solution. Ray Gosack, speaking of the Park Hill residents, has made the divisive statement that these residents could add as much as $2.50 a month to every trash resident in the city. Baridi Nkokheli has said that we could see a raise in rates as early as next year. Thanks again to the four directors that want to keep and grow a strong private sector within our community that can help solve many of our problems.
Director Steve Tyler is to be commended for requesting a resolution to solicit proposals at next Tuesdays meeting for a private carrier to provide service to non-automated areas. Directors George Catsavis, Pam Weber and Phillip Merry are to be commended as well for their support to add the resolution to next week’s agenda. City Administrator Ray Gosack and Baridi Nkokheli have both been reluctant to allow free enterprise the opportunity to be a part of the solution. Ray Gosack, speaking of the Park Hill residents, has made the divisive statement that these residents could add as much as $2.50 a month to every trash resident in the city. Baridi Nkokheli has ...>> Read the entire comment.

No sense at all

We just got rid of Altes a couple of years ago because of quality issues. There is no reason to get into another long-term contract with a third-party provider when the city has made infrastructure and equipment investments needed to service the entire city. The households that have legitimate problems can be serviced by the troubleshooter program that exists currently, and others can enjoy the benefits of the automated service. Let me remind you that there are plenty of those in the affected areas that DO want automated service, and they are being DENIED the service because of those who feel entitled to their antiquated costly method of collection.

Swink Spin

Mr. Swink, from the moment this controversy erupted you have been pushing for Altes Sanitation to get back into the game. I don't know what your ties are to them, if any. What I can't help but think is that you're a pot stirrer who only wants to retard city progress by keeping it mired in conflict.

Competitive Bidding

First let me say, I haven't pushed any private company over another, just the issue of competitive bidding over a system that prohibits fair play. You say we got rid of Altes 3 years ago, but what you forgot to say is that over 70% of the residents were satisfied with Altes back then according to city survey results. I could give ample reasons to call on the the private sector to bid on the neighborhoods in question, but the comments probably not be published. Personally, rather than a citywide vote on "automation" versus manual, I would rather see "city sanitation" versus "competitive bidding on the ballot

Anyone is Purchasing or Sales has read this

The Lowest Bidder . "It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot -it can't be done. IF YOU DEAL WITH THE LOWEST BIDDER, IT IS WELL TO ADD SOMETHING FOR THE RISK YOU RUN and if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better."

Swink

Jack always seemed to fight taxation. I just thought he was a Tea Party member, but appears he is either 1) just against any and everything the BOD does and/or 2) himself or someone he knows will benefit from an Altes deal.

sanitation service

a competitive market place should be allowed in any type of business and sanitation is a competitive business! if altes sanitation or any other sanitation providers wants to bid on city sanitation, it should be permitted. competition is good for the consumer and provides the best possible price on services and a monopoly should never be the only choice offered! its just simply unamerican not to give people a choice on service providers for sanitation. give the citizens a choice and let them select their sanitation service provider.

happy has no clue

governments are given only certain utilities and services as an enterprise -- and for good reason. The most effective way for an enterprise to run, is to let it run! If they wanted to outsource certain services, so be it, let them propose it and let the directors vote on it. Segmenting the business to outside companies does not create competition, it destroys the operating value that the government has legitmately established. It is simply unAmerican not to want the department to operate at full efficiency.

Fort Smith, Show Leadership!

As a well respected mentor of mine once told me, "Don't major in the minors...". it sure seems to me that we have a City Board fixated on doing exactly that. How long are they going to beat this thing in the ground? Baridi Nkokheli is being derided by those crying for Free Enterprise because his department has efficiently and effectively implemented long term cost cutting controls that have helped create a $2 million departmental surplus. Sounds to me like this is a guy we should praise and commend for modernization of the sanitation department, and creating long term efficiencies. Instead, we have a City Board that has bent to the cries of inconvenience of ONE Fort Smith neighborhood. To state that our City is like the US, and the individual neighborhoods are like US States is not the right approach. We need strong, effective leaders who are willing to take the hard stances and can resist the pushback and outcry of a few of the inconvenienced. Principled, disciplined leadership is what it will take to ever create long term economic growth and vitality in Fort Smith. Why tear down those who are creating the government efficiencies (Nkokheli in this case), and long for the days of the past just to placate the hurt feelings of a few citizens, and those who might have lost past business with the city? Don't live in the past, move ahead. The fact that someone states a verbal pledge in a meeting doesn't constitute Free Enterprise. Sealed bids do that. What are we supposed to do in the future, Fort Smith? Do we need separate private sanitation bids for each neighborhood? Riley Farm, Village Harbor, Wedgehood Heights, Free Ferry, Fianna Hills? That is the height of efficiency there, yeah... I personally would rather look at the effective work of those in the City that can build surpluses. Build up enough of those and you could really actually move this city FORWARD. I would suggest the City Directors take a page from that playbook and move on to the real issues this city faces. We are starting to rival the Greenwood Mayor saga when it comes to the issues the board is wallowing in.. trash being the most prominent of those. City Board- don't major in the minors! Have the courage and resolve to say no when it needs to be said.
As a well respected mentor of mine once told me, "Don't major in the minors...". it sure seems to me that we have a City Board fixated on doing exactly that. How long are they going to beat this thing in the ground? Baridi Nkokheli is being derided by those crying for Free Enterprise because his department has efficiently and effectively implemented long term cost cutting controls that have helped create a $2 million departmental surplus. Sounds to me like this is a guy we should praise and commend for modernization of the sanitation department, and creating long term efficiencies. Instead, we have a City Board that has bent to the cries of ...>> Read the entire comment.

Compromise?

Why not simply request an amendment to the "troubleshooting" program in such a way that it would cover those with both topographical issues as well as those with physical limitations? Include a simple system of checks and balances so that the system NOR the citizens can be abused.

Oh my

So these BOD members want to keep campaign "promises", but have no problems recanting the boards decisions less than 3 years ago. You got rid of the private sanitation and made a majority of people happy but now they want to let them back in. Let these neighborhoods out of the city sanitation with the caveat that they never be allowed back, so when private enterprise needs to raise prices on them the whiners get to pay.

Under their thumb

However this turns out we can see the effects a few organized people can have over a sleeping town. We now have 4 directors who would vote for the Goodyear blimp to pick up the trash if that's what these people wanted.

Blimp

You don't realize how close you are to the truth. The visit from the blimp last week was, in fact, an exploratory trip to do just what you propose.

Trash

This is ridiculous! I have never received any satisfaction survey. This matter is taking too long and too much effort to resolve. The city officials need to make the decision based on a very basic principle. What is the greater good for the greater amount of people. These officials are supposed to be leaders, and this is a principle that is taught early on. I am disappointed at the lack of leadership in this city. The analogy of the neighborhoods are like states is so out of touch with reality. By this I mean that if a state wanted to incorporate or implement a process, that process cannot bleed over into another state on a cost basis. One state does not pay for what another state does or does not do. If they want non-automated trash, then they can pay the rates for the service they receive. Let the residents with automated trash pay the rates associated with that service. To have a divided trash service within the city makes no sense from any standpoint though. I seriously doubt any company would agree to these terms.
This is ridiculous! I have never received any satisfaction survey. This matter is taking too long and too much effort to resolve. The city officials need to make the decision based on a very basic principle. What is the greater good for the greater amount of people. These officials are supposed to be leaders, and this is a principle that is taught early on. I am disappointed at the lack of leadership in this city. The analogy of the neighborhoods are like states is so out of touch with reality. By this I mean that if a state wanted to incorporate or implement a process, that process cannot bleed over into another state on a cost basis. One state does not pay for ...>> Read the entire comment.

by the numbers

You know, if Swink's numbers are right, i wouldn't be boasting too much about Altes. as a retailer, 100% of my customers are satisfied. If they're not, they become somebody else's customer. Altes's 70% is pretty pathetic. It's not like this is rocket science; if you do a halfway competent job, your customers should hardly know you exist, nevermind having a negative opinion of your work. That said, if i live in a neighborhood and get stuck with a private carrier that can't do the job competently, i can't switch to another carrier. Don't act like this is really a free market decision.

monopoly

If free means several sanitation companies with each running several runs each day all across town, I'll take the monopoly. Government run means annual public meetings on costs and a board vote on rates. Public companies can do whatever they want about rates with your only choice to fire them unless you are under a long term contract. If the public company is restricted by contract not to raise rates when they need it (losing money) their only recourse is to cut services.

Cut my services, please

I can save the Sanitation some expense...Just cut my services and don't charge me anymore.

This is rediculous

ok, so I used to live in a part of the city that had the "pleasure" of Altes Sanitation "Servicing" the area. I personally called and complained 6-8 times because they a. didn't get the trash on time b. threw the can in the middle of the intersection that I lived near c. threw the can in the middle of my driveway where I couldn't safely park my car to get the can out of the way because of said intersection d. only emptied half the trash because they just grabbed a bag out of the can instead of emptying the can. Needless to say, I was THRILLED when the automated system came into place. but we gotta support good old Danny and his brood because, you know, he's old guard. Here's my point. This town is stuck in the 70's. Old methods, old politics, old fights. Either this city needs to get modern and fight in today's world, or it's going to grow old and die. If you want old school methods, then go get a house in the county and go burn your trash so you don't have to pay for anything and let those of us that want progress to move forward. one last comment. I thought I knew Phillip Merry. Apparently I don't any more, as all I have seen come from him in the last 6 months are things that stand in the face of everything I've ever seen him talk about or comment on before he became a director. Bryan I know you read these, you've posted some here at times. Please let him know that he's losing a bunch of respect in the city because he no longer wants to fight for progress, instead it's just supporting the old guard in the city that he didn't sound like he supported when he was a candidate..

Simplistic solution: Love It of Leave It

Like you say, I'll just simply sell my house and move! That is easier said than done. Your statement is very unreasonable and inconsiderate. It is easier to change rules than it is to relocate one's residence. If we ascribe to your philosophy we can run everybody out of town in the next decade or less.