Legal threats, rate studies cloud trash issue

story by Aric Mitchell
amitchell@thecitywire.com

The Vote for Automated campaign is on track to get city-wide automated curbside solid waste collection on the Nov. 6 ballot, but that doesn’t mean the fight is over.

According to Fort Smith Director George Catsavis, who opposed the effort as part of the 4-3 vote that suspended the automated conversions in June, a lawsuit could be in the works.

“Someone told me there’s fixing to be a lawsuit filed over this. They said the petition didn’t offer a choice. I didn’t pay much attention to it. It’s nothing definite, more rumors than anything,” Catsavis told The City Wire by phone on Thursday (Aug. 9).

Catsavis said the informant, who contacted him by phone “didn’t name names,” and the director did not say if he would support such an action.

Vote for Automated organizer Joel Culberson said he hasn’t “heard anything either directly or indirectly, as far as alternate plans or legal action.”

Culberson lives in Park Hill East, a battleground location in the continuing debate. At the March 6 meeting, the board voted 4-3 to return Park Hill East to manual collection after rolling out automated collection, which boasted a larger number of supporters than detractors, depending on which of the city's surveys one believes.

“We feel confident in our wording. We did go over it (the ordinance) carefully, and carefully crafted it with legal counsel. If it (potential lawsuit) is about the ballot or ballot title, we’re prepared to defend it,” Culberson said.

In spite of coming down on opposite sides of the issue, City Directors Catsavis and Pam Weber, who also voted against continued automation conversions, praised the Vote for Automated campaign for its efforts.

Weber called it a “great effort.”

“They seem to be very well-organized. As far as I could tell, they seemed to know what they were doing as far as getting signatures and following guidelines,” Catsavis added. “I can understand both sides. I know automated is cheaper, but I also understand the people in Park Hill have tough issues. But what it boils down to is the city hollering rate increase, and people have called me asking why I’m going to increase their rates. Well, I’m not increasing their rates. Just because the city says that, it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.”

Fort Smith Director Phillip Merry, who joined Catsavis and Weber in the vote against automated, wasn’t ready to follow suit with praise, nor was he ready to speak out. When asked for his thoughts regarding the effort that culminated Wednesday with the delivery of 365 pages of signatures supporting automated, Merry answered simply, “In America we enjoy many special freedoms and rights.”

Catsavis, Merry, and Weber, confirmed that they had “no regrets” over their previous vote, but only Catsavis was willing to say more than that.

“The whole problem with this thing was the rate increase, and the city coming out and saying the rates are going to go up. The city can’t raise nothing (sic). Only the board can do that. It put a lot of people on edge about this rate increase, when only the directors can do that, and people need to call their directors and not listen to the city.”

Catsavis continued: “I think there could have been a compromise where we worked everything out with no increase to anybody in the city, but you know, that’s over and done with now. If they (voters) vote totally automated, that’s fine, but I really believe people should have a choice in regard to city services. But if that’s the will of the people, then so be it. Let’s see what happens.”

Merry preferred to “wait and see the results of the verification of signatures process” before deciding whether he would campaign against Vote for Automated.

Weber said, “I haven’t really thought about it at this point.”

Catsavis, who faces Ward 4 candidate John Cooley in November (an automated supporter), said he would not.

“Let the people vote. That’s the process, and they have that right.”

Fort Smith Director Steve Tyler did not respond to questions from The City Wire on Thursday, but he did agree to a request from Merry for an Aug. 14 study session requesting rate differentials between automated and non-automated parts of the city.

As of 5 p.m. Thursday, Weber had joined in approval of the request, which will need one additional supporter to make the study session agenda. Should the request not win a fourth vote, there will be no study session due to a lack of other business. (When the decision is announced, The City Wire will update.)

Advertisement:

Fort Smith Director Andre Good attacked the request in an email to various recipients on Thursday. Good believed it was “a last minute request” targeting the sanitation department and asked Fort Smith Administrator Ray Gosack whether Sanitation Director Baridi Nkokheli had “ample time to produce the information being asked by directors?”

“If so fine, but we have not been able to enjoy the benefits and cost reductions as a result of all of this extra tasking to this department,” Good said.

The e-mail continued: “We have lost savings and future savings that could have been seen with timely implementation of the last rollout. We have expensed 10’s of thousands of dollars this year on educating the community, seeking efficiency and the will of the people that I’m sure will need to be address (sic) in the upcoming budget review. And if I can relate this request to what some directors called a slap in the face to the pet advisory board, this is yet another slap in the face to those involved in and those signing the automated curbside petition to be placed on the November ballot.”

Good added, “Frankly I have had about enough of all this.”

Five Star Votes: 
Average: 4.6 (8 votes)

Comments

legal threat

I will tell you the legal threat -- when Baridi has enough of the harrassment and hostile board micromanagement of his department. It is clear to most onlookers that this director has been treated with disdain by certain members of this board, male and female. Without a doubt, he has his resume circulated, and when he lands elsewhere, expect a lawsuit for the mistreatment he has received.

It's Not About Director, It's About Rates & Competitive Markets

Are the good citizens of Fort Smith expected to vote for a forced “city only” trash service without knowing what the city will be charging for “either option” after the election? Isn’t that kinda like being “FORCED” to sign a contract to buy a house without knowing what the seller is going to charge you for it? That may be fun for the seller, but not the buyer. Maybe that is why Fort Smith residents pay an additional $13 plus taxes, for trash pickup when in Jonesboro, a city growing at 22% versus Fort Smith at 6%, aren’t charged for trash pickup, it is provided through the 8.5% sales tax in Jonesboro. And to think in Fort Smith we have a 9.25% sales tax and still charges for trash pickup. While listening to the residents in the troubled neighborhoods, four city directors were originally seeking 3rd party competitive bidding, but because of a rumored VETO by Mayor Sanders, that vote unfortunately was taken off the agenda recently. 3rd party competitive bidding should be a part of the solution in a competitive community, unfortunately that isn’t the way in Fort Smith. Regardless, the citizens have a right to know what “RATES”, the city will charge for trash pickup regardless which proposal wins at the ballot box
Are the good citizens of Fort Smith expected to vote for a forced “city only” trash service without knowing what the city will be charging for “either option” after the election? Isn’t that kinda like being “FORCED” to sign a contract to buy a house without knowing what the seller is going to charge you for it? That may be fun for the seller, but not the buyer. Maybe that is why Fort Smith residents pay an additional $13 plus taxes, for trash pickup when in Jonesboro, a city growing at 22% versus Fort Smith at 6%, aren’t charged for trash pickup, it is provided through the 8.5% sales tax in Jonesboro. And to think in Fort Smith we have a 9.25% ...>> Read the entire comment.

interesting

Your recall is interesting, Mr. Swink. How is it that there was never a motion or discussion regarding a third party competitive bid, yet you claim knowledge of four directors coming into the meeting originally seeking such an outcome. Isn't that illegal? Please, if you have knowledge of such collusion, would you bring the matter to legal authorities, please.

Convivial, Pretty Straight Forward Veto Rumor Stopped Vote.

Convivial, on 06/14, Director Steve Tyler presented a new resolution for the sole purpose of soliciting third-party bids on the neighborhoods wanting to remain with manual trash pickup. Since it took a vote of 4 to get it on the agenda, don't you think the same 4 were truly interested in serving those people who weren't happy with forced automation? But then on 06/18, The City Wire printed an article on the trash situation and the first sentence read, "Will Fort Smith Mayor Sandy Sanders Veto board action approving the solicitation of bids from third-party refuse collection providers at the Tuesday night (June 19) meeting of the Fort Smith Board of directors? Now, I don't know what you read into that, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me and unfortunately for the citizens wanting those 3rd party bids deserved to at least have that option and the very least know what the rates are going to be before they vote.
Convivial, on 06/14, Director Steve Tyler presented a new resolution for the sole purpose of soliciting third-party bids on the neighborhoods wanting to remain with manual trash pickup. Since it took a vote of 4 to get it on the agenda, don't you think the same 4 were truly interested in serving those people who weren't happy with forced automation? But then on 06/18, The City Wire printed an article on the trash situation and the first sentence read, "Will Fort Smith Mayor Sandy Sanders Veto board action approving the solicitation of bids from third-party refuse collection providers at the Tuesday night (June 19) meeting of the Fort Smith Board of directors? ...>> Read the entire comment.

Swink's take

So, you're guessing then

what do you call a boss?

I agree. There is a word often used to describe a boss who comes out of the blue expecting a major cost analysis with just two days notice. So much for your normal job responsibilities...no wonder we don't see progress. Why wouldn't you want to give you employee ample time to do the best work they can do?

As a stake holder in this

As a stake holder in this mess, I too am tired of the discussion. Had the Board and past Boards and Mr. Baridi done their jobs correctly, we would all have automated trash pick up and the neighborhoods that were designed for alley trash collection would have automated service in the alleys where it belongs. If we are going to call ourselves, A City of Neighborhoods, then the uniqueness of all neighborhoods should have been considered. Now we have citizen's trying to "do unto other" citizens because the Board and Mr. Baridi did not do their homework.

We are All Stakeholders

The prevailing approach of the past board, close to half of the current board (Directo Weber has waffled), and two past directors of sanitation was clear: "same bill; same service" They recognized that utilizing one style of automated truck would maximize the return for all taxpayers. And it has. No rate increase for three years, and the possiblility of perhaps a rate reduction for a short time moving forward. This notion of keeping "trash where it belongs" is out of the June Cleaver era. Technology has presented a better mousetrap, and while not a good fit for the neighborhoods in question, it is doable. As for the alleys, they serve a future purpose as a residential buffer zone and rear of house service portal. Many towns have converted them into easements, restricting public and non essential access. It's high time we move forward, much like you suggest.
The prevailing approach of the past board, close to half of the current board (Directo Weber has waffled), and two past directors of sanitation was clear: "same bill; same service" They recognized that utilizing one style of automated truck would maximize the return for all taxpayers. And it has. No rate increase for three years, and the possiblility of perhaps a rate reduction for a short time moving forward. This notion of keeping "trash where it belongs" is out of the June Cleaver era. Technology has presented a better mousetrap, and while not a good fit for the neighborhoods in question, it is doable. As for the alleys, they serve a future purpose as a ...>> Read the entire comment.

George's Magic Wand

“The whole problem with this thing was the rate increase, and the city coming out and saying the rates are going to go up. The city can’t raise nothing (sic). Only the board can do that." -- so says Director Catsavis. And he's right. However, the board has the fiduciary responsibility to assure that the sanitation department enterprise fund generates adequate revenues and maintains an appropriate reserve. Because the Board does not want to vote in a rate increase, doesn't mean it won't have to. If the funds don't meet the expenses, they have no choice. It's been amazing to think that the Park Hill East and Lutheran Duvall crowd seemed to think all this time that their special rights would not come at a price. The petition clearly showed, the rest of town is speaking up loudly to say, "not off my dime"

This Board....drives me crazy.

"people need to call their directors and not listen to the city" EXCUSE ME?!? Um, let me see here. We elected the directors to represent the PEOPLE of Fort Smith. The directors hire people (through trickle down authority) to focus on specialties of needs in the city, who you would want to be experts or the most knowledgeable about their area of city services. The Board nitpicks TOO MUCH as it is with everything. Instead of looking at the broad picture of improving things as a whole, they are waffling over petty junk. I don't see anyone who lives in those big house off of Free Ferry who have to cart their cans down a big hill complaining one bit. And if they have a MUCH LONGER way to go for services with no complaints....then yeah, I have no sympathy. Also, any director who campaigns against this will get voted out next election they have. Mark my words.

Alley trash pick up

This goes all the way back to when Baridi "told" neighbors when these cans were introduced that we would have a choice, it would be by consensus. We have voiced our wishes for our neighborhoods and our reasons. Not until it became apparent that we weren't going to back off the subject came up about rate increases if we kept our alley pick up. This is the big issue to most voters. I want to know how and what figures were used to come up with the amount of increase, which by the way, hasn't been quoted. We live in these old houses because we want to preserve a part of Fort Smith history and the alleys in my neighborhood have been in use for 100 years, and are a part of that history. They work much better for us because of the design and layout of the property and the house design. I still insist that the sanitation department could make it work if they wanted to. They will still have to use the back loader trucks to pick up yard waste,that will mean more than one worker to a truck, more trouble shooter trucks to help with special needs. I still believe that neighborhoods have a right to stand up for what they want for their neighborhoods. and I will continue to support their efforts

It Was Wrong To Force City Over The Private Sector

Where we as a city went wrong is when we allowed a few to force city sanitation rather than accept the competitive bidding process to function in a proper way. Shouldn't city governance support and encourage a strong private sector rather than to diminish it?

Surprise, surprise..

..the opposition may very well try something here. Whether they are working together to obtain city funds for a project or on something like the trash, they are very determined.