Fort Smith Board alters trash service vote

Submitted by The City Wire Staff on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 6:48am

story by Aric Mitchell
amitchell@thecitywire.com

Fort Smith Mayor Sandy Sanders did not issue a veto Tuesday night (June 19) at the Fort Smith Board of Directors Meeting.

He didn’t have to.

But his comments leading up to the board’s decision to abandon a resolution soliciting bid proposals from third-party solid waste collection providers shed some light on what could have happened had City Directors Steve Tyler, George Catsavis, Philip Merry, and Pam Weber — the directors responsible for adding the item to Tuesday night’s agenda—not relented in their efforts to move forward.

Also Tuesday night, Merry issued “an apology to the people of Fort Smith” and led the way in reviving automated conversion for seven of the last 20 neighborhoods yet to make the changeover (approximately 1,600 of the remaining 4,095 non-automated households).

The seven areas are: Howard, Fitzgerald West, The Heights, Sulphur Springs, Fitzgerald North, Home, and some non-designated areas.

A RESOLUTION TOO VAGUE
Addressing the resolution soliciting bid proposals from third-party haulers, Sanders said, “It seems appropriate to defer action for a couple reasons. As written, the resolution is too vague. It does not require any specific qualifications, such as customer service levels, issues with employee appearance, equipment maintenance, replacement of recycling cans.”

Sanders continued: “I think we first need to determine what the request for proposal qualifications should include, and not just ask for a bid. Right now this could be all sorts of things to all sorts of people. As some directors have expressed, we expect service to be equal to or greater than that provided by the Fort Smith Department of Sanitation. To me, the resolution in front of us doesn’t address those kinds of expectations.”

Sanders added that “the possibility of the current petition efforts, whether they succeed or not, I don’t know, but not acting on this resolution tonight is not going to impact the level of sanitation service we provide. If the petition drive does become successful, and goes to the ballot, and is passed on the ballot, the question (City) Director Settle asked Mr. Canfield earlier could lead to some potential problems.”

This question Sanders referred to, posed by Settle to Fort Smith City Attorney Jerry Canfield, asked: if the ballot initiative (started by Fort Smith citizen Joel Culberson) is successful while the city has entered in to a third-party contract, what legal ramifications could exist?

“It’s an issue that probably deserves more thought and attention than I can give it now,” Canfield responded. “When you’re dealing with prior action creating a contractual right, what effect an initiated matter could have on that — frankly, I need to do some research to answer that question.”

Culberson said he expects to know by the end of the week where the ballot initiative language stands under legal review. Once finalized, he plans on petitioning for 2,822 signatures from registered voters and delivering to City Clerk Sherri Gard by Aug. 8. Gard will have 30 days to verify signatures and submit to the Sebastian County Election Commission for addition to the November ballot.

The effort led by Culberson began on June 5 when Merry, Weber, Catsavis, and Tyler, voted to end automated collection conversions to the 20 remaining non-automated neighborhoods.

SURVEYS REVISITED
Discussion of surveys resurfaced Tuesday night, with City Director Don Hutchings taking lead on criticism of the board’s action regarding past survey results.

“We sent out a survey, and 74% of those with automation were pleased. That evidently wasn’t good enough for this board.  We sent out a second and 48% were for the automated, while 37% were against it. Then we sent out a third survey, and that’s the one we’re talking about tonight. Most citizens didn’t respond to it — only 27% participation — because they’re so frustrated with this board,” Hutchings said. “This survey that’s now the gold standard is not acceptable, and almost everybody agrees that putting up to a vote the Automated vs. Manual collection would result in 80% or 90% of the citizens voting for automation. Why are we trying to change that?”

AUTOMATED COLLECTION RESUMES
Following a barrage of criticism from fellow City Directors and Fort Smith citizens Ruby Thurman, Gary Thurman, and Phil White, member of the Central Business Improvement District (CBID), Merry said, “I know people are like, ‘Why in the heck don’t they get it, 86% on 14%, the vote and all that?’ I know that twice, people asked, if this automation idea comes to our neighborhoods, do we have to go (away from) manual? And twice we told them no, and that’s my whole thing. I cannot find it in myself to change the deal.”

Merry did change one deal, however, apologizing “to the people of Fort Smith. I missed a very key document in the study session two weeks ago,” he said. “I would ask that we reconsider the vote in that these seven locations clearly show a desire from the people, who voted, to have automated. Never was it my intent to take those voting with majority rule for automated to not have it.”

Weber added that she voted to end the automated conversions to all 20 neighborhoods because she also “thought it was an all or nothing thing.”

Advertisement:

Good noted that the “key document” Merry missed was “vitally important” and that he felt the board “acted prematurely and jumped the gun” on the motion.

During the May 29 study session, Merry made the motion to place on the board’s voting agenda the original motion to end conversions to all 20 neighborhoods. It was seconded by Tyler.

Merry’s motion Tuesday, seconded by Weber, restricted the non-automated collection area to only 13 neighborhoods within the city (around 2,500 households), and met with unanimous board approval.

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 3.9 (7 votes)

Like This Article? Share It!

Comments

Two Good Examples, Cheaper and Phil White

Submitted by Jack Swink on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 7:59am.

Couldn't believe Director Hutchings, a minister, agreeing with Baridi Nkokheli and saying FS has the best sanitation model and the cheapest rates when a city like Jonesboro doesn't even charge residents within the city limits for sanitation. And Jonesboro isn't a sleepy, backwoods town, it is growing at 21% versus FS at 7%. That additional $13 plus tax for sanitation on 30,000 customers totals approximately $5,000,000. And I thought bringing Phil White to support the city's side on this issue was rather interesting, especially his final words. His final statements were something like, "if the residents of the neighborhoos in question want manual trash pickup, then they should pay for it themselves". Thought that was ironic, since the average, hardworking taxpayers are being forced to lease and operate his privately owned Ferris wheel.
Couldn't believe Director Hutchings, a minister, agreeing with Baridi Nkokheli and saying FS has the best sanitation model and the cheapest rates when a city like Jonesboro doesn't even charge residents within the city limits for sanitation. And Jonesboro isn't a sleepy, backwoods town, it is growing at 21% versus FS at 7%. That additional $13 plus tax for sanitation on 30,000 customers totals approximately $5,000,000. And I thought bringing Phil White to support the city's side on this issue was rather interesting, especially his final words. His final statements were something like, "if the residents of the neighborhoos in question want manual trash pickup, ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Just move there already...

Submitted by NotJonesboro (not verified) on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 9:37am.

Jonesboro has been using automated trash collection since 1999. They closed all alleys in the city in 1990. Yes, they pay for residential sanitation service using 1/2 cent sales tax instead of user fees-- we've heard your broken record, Jack.
  • reply

1/2% of A 8.5% is Better than $13 on top of a 9.25% Isn't It?

Submitted by Jack Swink on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 12:14pm.

Regardless, 1/2% of a 8.5% sales tax versus an additional $13 on top of a 9.25% sales tax in FS adds up to an additional $5,000,000 per year in revenue for the same service. Am I missing some expenses or overhead here?
  • reply

missing

Submitted by happy times on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 12:10pm.

jack, jonesboro appears to be a much better managed city than fort smith if they can provide sanitation services to their citizens at NO CHARGE and have a lower sales tax rate to boot! wouldn't it be nice to have free sanitation in fort smith and then there would be no complaining about auto or manual service. problem solved and then we may want to address the most important problem of 11,000 jobs lost over the last few years. all this petty in fighting is not solving the most important problem of loss of jobs! a healthy business climate would give the city all the income that it needs to operate and all the rest of the problems would appear to be minor! jobs are the key to a better city and increased tax revenues for city hall!
jack, jonesboro appears to be a much better managed city than fort smith if they can provide sanitation services to their citizens at NO CHARGE and have a lower sales tax rate to boot! wouldn't it be nice to have free sanitation in fort smith and then there would be no complaining about auto or manual service. problem solved and then we may want to address the most important problem of 11,000 jobs lost over the last few years. all this petty in fighting is not solving the most important problem of loss of jobs! a healthy business climate would give the city all the income that it needs to operate and all the rest of the problems would appear to be minor! jobs ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

You are missing a lot

Submitted by Bradley Martin on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 5:40pm.

Fort Smith spends more on street repair and drainage that is paid with 1% of our sales tax and Jonesbouro isn't paying for capital improvements with sales tax as Fort Smith.
  • reply

NotJonesboro

Submitted by randy on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:08pm.

NotJonesboro you make a good point. Jonesboro has been using automated trash collection since 1999. They closed all alleys in the city in 1990. Jonesboro and Conway have used automated pickup for years. My question why not Fort Smith? Could it be they moved into the 21th century? Look at their growth rate and compare it to Fort Smith. Fort Smith is an island within the State of Arkansas. The old guard don't want change. Take it to the voters.
  • reply

No matter the final outcome

Submitted by Judith Moran on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 9:59am.

No matter the final outcome on this issue, I was elated last night by the sound reasoning that prevailed vis-a-vis the proposed resolution to solicit bids from third-party providers. Director Settle is to be commended for surfacing the potential legal quagmire of a ballot initiative resulting in a a majority vote for automated curbside collection by the city DOS at the same time that the city has entered into a contract with a third-party company. After the city attorney affirmed that it could be problematic at best and needs further research, Mayor Sanders, supported by the estimable Directors Settle, Good, and Hutchings, prevailed in allowing the resolution to die. There was a long moment of silence, perhaps embarrassing for the original sponsors, when not one of them was willing to move for a vote on the resolution, not the usually silent Director Tyler nor the usually verbal Director Weber, who disclosed that she had privately approached the DOS Director to suggest a possible compromise based on the collection sytem utilized by the city of Tulsa. There is the suspicion that the resolution, a last-minute addition to the agenda, hasty and ill-conceived as it appears on the surface, was a deliberate attempt to involve the city in a third-party contract before the ballot initiative could be voted on in November, regardless of the potential legal predicament resulting from the likely approval of the initiative. After Directors Merry and Weber acknowledged that a "very key" document had been overlooked in the decision to deny automated collection in seven neighborhoods, a document apparently indicating that the residents of those neighborhods had voted for automation, the board agreed to provide it. Director Merry stated, "Never was it my intent to take those voting with majority rule for automated to not have it," and yet that is precisely what he voted for Park Hill East residents, a majority of whom had approved automated curbside collection as indicated in two surveys cited by Director Hutchings. Is it too much to expect that Director Merry and his confreres rectify this inexplicable inconsistency?
No matter the final outcome on this issue, I was elated last night by the sound reasoning that prevailed vis-a-vis the proposed resolution to solicit bids from third-party providers. Director Settle is to be commended for surfacing the potential legal quagmire of a ballot initiative resulting in a a majority vote for automated curbside collection by the city DOS at the same time that the city has entered into a contract with a third-party company. After the city attorney affirmed that it could be problematic at best and needs further research, Mayor Sanders, supported by the estimable Directors Settle, Good, and Hutchings, prevailed in allowing the resolution to ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

philip merry’s sleight of hand

Submitted by Conundrum on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:05pm.

The first wrong was in letting Park Hill force the DOS to keep outdated equipment just to serve them. Further wrong followed in expanding the nonsense to other neighborhoods. Finally, the ridiculous proposal of contracting out sanitation services came up. But then…! Philip Merry gave a Jimmy Swaggart apology for his misinterpretation of a simple document, he asked God and fellow man to forgive him for his sins, and then he proposed that “only” 13 neighborhoods be exempted from 21st century services. Candles were lit, hands were held, and strains of Kum-Ba-Yah were heard throughout the night as we swayed to and fro in our forgiveness for Philip Merry. Say what?? Only 13 neighborhoods will be exempt? This is no reversal of decision. No one had a change of heart. Philip Merry used bait-and-switch to slide his 13 neighborhoods through, and we’re elated that it’s not 20. This is like jacking up the price of gasoline by 2 bucks, we complain, so they drop it back 75 cents, and we praise them for the bargain. Dearly beloved, we still have 13 neighborhoods that will require the Department of Sanitation to maintain two sets of vehicles, additional manpower, and little, if any, cost reduction to the department. This is one fat lady who ain’t singing until we renew our faith in Mr. Nkokheli and let him run his department the best he knows how. Back off, board, and let this man do his job!
The first wrong was in letting Park Hill force the DOS to keep outdated equipment just to serve them. Further wrong followed in expanding the nonsense to other neighborhoods. Finally, the ridiculous proposal of contracting out sanitation services came up. But then…! Philip Merry gave a Jimmy Swaggart apology for his misinterpretation of a simple document, he asked God and fellow man to forgive him for his sins, and then he proposed that “only” 13 neighborhoods be exempted from 21st century services. Candles were lit, hands were held, and strains of Kum-Ba-Yah were heard throughout the night as we swayed to and fro in our forgiveness for Philip Merry. ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

So true, So true

Submitted by convivial on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 5:01pm.

Of immediate concern are the four neighbors left on the mandatory list that voted in the tainted survey in the majority, when you add together the "I want automated" folks with the "I don't have a preference" folks. So now you are down to only nine neighborhoods. Of them, the initial survey showed a majority in Park Hill wanted to stay with automated. Should cost analysis show that in order to keep their neighborhood with manual service a surcharge will need to be levied, is it fair that they don't get what they wanted all along but now must pay more? Add to all of this the implied backroom collaborating/deal making and the "overlooked document" was actually the third survey results, and you really do have a sleight-of-hand hocus-pocus masquerade, Conundrum.
Of immediate concern are the four neighbors left on the mandatory list that voted in the tainted survey in the majority, when you add together the "I want automated" folks with the "I don't have a preference" folks. So now you are down to only nine neighborhoods. Of them, the initial survey showed a majority in Park Hill wanted to stay with automated. Should cost analysis show that in order to keep their neighborhood with manual service a surcharge will need to be levied, is it fair that they don't get what they wanted all along but now must pay more? Add to all of this the implied backroom collaborating/deal making and the "overlooked document" was actually ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Fair ain't Fair

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 7:48am.

Fair to whom? Life isn't fair, as the adage goes but life is also what we make it. In the spirit of fairness please consider that circumstances differ. Not every voter's decision is burdened with obstacles to using the automated service(terrain, age and disability, etc.). For a community to be flippant in responding to special needs due to pre-existing limitations which cannot be changed is simply wrong-headed. It does not speak well for our community that there is a majority who supports a thing in total simply because it can. That is bullying and juvenile. Bullying because a bully will capture and not let you go. Likewise, unsuitable sanitation service captures citizens and won't let them go(opt-out). The other adage says that "Fair is Fair"....not in this case it seems!
  • reply

Overlooked document

Submitted by convivial on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 10:15pm.

Let's take a closer look at the overlooked document to see what we can see. OK, there are 20 named neighborhoods, plus a "none designated" field. In all, an average of only 30 households per neighborhood responded. 630 total. Since we are told that the survey had a 27% response rate, we are talking about 2,400 homes. The board knocked the list down to 13. As stated in a prior comment, four of these neighborhoods said they either wanted automated service or they really didn't have a preference. They are Fairview, Carnall, Duvall and Bailey Hill. Given that automated service is the city's preferred program, "no preference" households should have been included with the automated count. Consequently, these neighborhoods should also have been pulled back into the automated program last night. If you agree with me on that, than you should also agree that Park Hill East should also be reinstated into automated service, because 54% in their survey either wanted automated or had no preference. That leaves nine neighborhoods for manual service. Let's look closer at them. The decison for three neighborhoods, Aldridge, Back Stretch and Clifton Court, only had an average of 8 people per neighborhood responding to the survey. Imagine, if we assume an average neighborhood has 120 households, eight people just decided for them. Well, not really eight per neighborhood, less than six. Because an average of 2.3 people in those neighborhoods actually said they wanted automated or didn't have a preference. The six neighborhoods where the battle has been fought hardest, Belle Grove(22 responses/91% manual vote), Elmwood30/57%), Fitzgerald East(61/72%), Park Hill North (50/78%)and South59/64%), and May/Lecta/Sweet(35/85%). These neighborhoods have been the most adamant with door to door canvassing conducted. While turnout was still between 22-50% of households, they got out the most votes and basically 4 out of 5 said they want to keep alley service. In all, I sure wish the overlooked document was actually looked it. Tuesday's board decision should have left only six neighborhoods in the manual pool, certainly not 13, and never 20. Park Hill East should also have been reinstated into the automated refuse program, had that second survey document been looked at as well.
Let's take a closer look at the overlooked document to see what we can see. OK, there are 20 named neighborhoods, plus a "none designated" field. In all, an average of only 30 households per neighborhood responded. 630 total. Since we are told that the survey had a 27% response rate, we are talking about 2,400 homes. The board knocked the list down to 13. As stated in a prior comment, four of these neighborhoods said they either wanted automated service or they really didn't have a preference. They are Fairview, Carnall, Duvall and Bailey Hill. Given that automated service is the city's preferred program, "no preference" households should have been ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply

Being flippant

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 8:57am.

Sorry, the troubleshooter program has been mentioned time and time again. It's the manual folks that keep bringing up that elderly would rather carry trash than wheel it. They flippantly ignore the trouble shooter program and the countless number of age 85+ people saying they like automated.
  • reply

More overlooked documents

Submitted by NumberSix on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 3:07pm.

What has been the excuse to ignore the first 2 surveys that showed people preferring the automated? Everyone wants to hang their hat on the last one with the miserable response rate but nothing is said about the first two surveys. Why not average them all together, will probably still come up with people wanting automated in these "contested" neighborhoods.
  • reply

Indeed, Number Six, what HAS

Submitted by Judith Moran on Thu, 06/21/2012 - 4:00pm.

Indeed, Number Six, what HAS been the excuse to ignore the first two surveys? As a Park Hill East resident who voted for automated curbside collection only to have it withdrawn, I am waiting for an answer. Directors Settle, Good, and Hutchings appear to be waiting also for Directors Tyler, Weber, Merry, and Catsavis to answer just that question. Responses such as "no cookie-cutter solutions" are lame, insulting, and evasive. How many demands for accountability from Tyler, Merry, et al, will continue to go unanswered? I am one of a legion of people who believe there is a conflict of interest on the part of certain directors that has contaminated this entire process, particularly in Park Hill East and Sweet/May/Lecta, and until that is confronted, there will be no resolution except by voter approval of the ballot initiative in November. Lastly, does anyone else wonder why only Directors Merry and Weber speak to this issue at board meetings and to the press, while Directors Tyler and Catsavis are essentially mute and offer no explanation or defense whatsoever of their position as if they are above accountability to the majority of Fort Smith citizens?
Indeed, Number Six, what HAS been the excuse to ignore the first two surveys? As a Park Hill East resident who voted for automated curbside collection only to have it withdrawn, I am waiting for an answer. Directors Settle, Good, and Hutchings appear to be waiting also for Directors Tyler, Weber, Merry, and Catsavis to answer just that question. Responses such as "no cookie-cutter solutions" are lame, insulting, and evasive. How many demands for accountability from Tyler, Merry, et al, will continue to go unanswered? I am one of a legion of people who believe there is a conflict of interest on the part of certain directors that has contaminated this entire ...>> Read the entire comment.
  • reply