Week 23 (Sept 8-12)
Be a roving reporter! Send us your pictures! We'll publish them here. Send them to uapetition@aol.com.
Click a button below for other news.
WEEK 23 - DAY 5 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Michael Schadek Phone: (614) 554-5607 On Monday evening, September 8, the Franklin County Board of Elections voted to uphold its certification of the Upper Arlington Solid Waste Initiative on the November 4 ballot. The City of “We appreciate the Franklin County Board of Election’s understanding of this situation and the professional manner in which they went about the review process. We are pleased with the outcome,” stated Michael Schadek, the initiative’s organizer. “Certainly it means a lot for the residents and voters of “On a broader scale,” he continued, “this is good for every community in A “YES” vote on the UA Solid Waste Initiative, Issue 52, seeks to return trash collection service to what existed prior to Council’s service-changing vote to in December, 2007, by restoring garage-side trash pickup by the city’s own employees, with no annual fee for trash collection. Information on the Initiative is available on www.uatrash.org. # # #
The City says it's estimated that it will cost $8 Million in the first year to transition back to the old service.
That seems just a tad sensationalist.
Now, just where's that credibility meter?
Ah ... there it is.
What is the City buying? Gold plated packers?
They sold 10 of them, plus a "Roll-Off" plus 3 "Roll-off Containers" (whatever the heck they are) to the contractor for a mere $366,500 just 6 months ago. And, they "transferred" to them (i.e. GAVE them FREE) two of the buggies. The remaining buggies are still in the city's possession, being used by other departments.
And in terms of bringing back the now-ex-workers, all the city needs to do is send these folks a letter and ask them if they would be available to come back to work on thus-and-such-a-date. There is a 3-year recall provision in the Severance Agreement. Plus, three of the highest longevity (and highest paid) workers have now retired, so they could bring in employees at a far lower rate.
So .. where is that $8 Million coming from?
From damages claimed by the contractor? I don't think so.
The whole arrangement was rushed into by both parties, and from the outset, it has been on shaky ground. The city wrote a contract that in no way incorporated the scope of work necessary to match what the city employees did (and is incurring extra costs because of it). It forgot to include garage-side pickup of recyclables and yard waste for medical exemptions, its "pilot program" that picked up paper at the schools and select local businesses, and background checks.
And the contractor didn't follow its own "Deployment Schedule" during the transition period, resulting in an April 7 start in which contractor employees were learning the job on the fly. Their facility was leased with just one month to go until start, the project manager started the week before service start, and they never, ever shadowed the city workers to see how the whole thing operated. No wonder there was no readily-apparent schedule. 
More importantly, no one in the city monitored nor held the contractor accountable for these missed milestones. And they still don't. The contract called for "Weekly Meetings" between February 1 and April 7. That would have amounted to 9 meetings. They had just 2.
The one milestone they did meet was ordering equipment ... they ordered it BEFORE they had been let the contract. On December 3 -- a week before the city manager had been given Council's approval to enter into the contract -- the contractor's representative told staff and Council that the equipment had already been placed on order "ummm ... not for this contract ... but for safety purposes."
That does not make sense. Why would a company order close to a million dollars worth of equipment "for safety purposes" before the contract award decision had been made?
And NONE of the promised "penalties" (click here to see the Scope of Work and the Penalty Schedule)
have ever been levied in spite of the City Manager's promise of February 25. The city had every reason to collect a boatload of fines, but it never held the contractor accountable. (Remember .. this is YOUR money.)
It hasn't been a joy ride for the contractor, either. They've had to deal with long wait times at the recycle facility (made worse by the fact that the container/paper recycle trucks that were brought in only hold 3-4 tons rather than the 10+ tons of a regular packer), and awkward pickup logistics for some of the private drives/condos. Plus, they can't be around schools during certain hours, can't go down the middle of streets, must abide by both a Ohio Revised Code and a City Ordinance that prohibits workers from hanging off of vehicles while in transit, and no, I'm sorry, you can't pull 35,000 lb packers into resident driveways.
BUT, here's the clincher. Contractor representatives were FULLY AWARE of the initiative before they signed the contract, and, according to a January 16, 2008 email (before the contract was signed) from the Finance Director to one of the contractor's representatives, they were "concerned" about it. But they still signed on. (Click below to see the email.)
And what about potential claims for lost profits?
A tabulation in one of the contractor's memos shows that approximately 12% of the total cost to the city is in the form of profit. The yearly cost is around $1.6 million, and the contract lasts for 3 years with an optional 2 years.
So ... 12% of $1.6 million times 2.25 years (we've already gone through 6 months of this) is $430,000.
And that's assuming that the contractor really is making a profit. Remember that back in May, they offered a no-fault termination with NO DAMAGES WHATSOEVER. Would they have done that if they were raking in the bucks?
So, you see?
Both the city and the contractor contributed to the problematic situation that ensued after April 7. The city licked its chops because it thought it had found a company that claimed it could do the job for less than what the city was paying at that time (the other two bidders were over the city's then-current costs), and the contractor found an "opportunity" through a clipping service that looked like a run-of-the-mill job. But it wasn't quite that easy.
So ... to return to the old service, the city could buy back the equipment it sold to the contractor (for obviously less than the original $366,500 sale price), retrieve the buggies from the other departments, rehire the old solid waste crew (and find new workers to make up for those who've already found jobs), and pay the contractor AT THE VERY WORST $430,000 for lost profit.
That's a far cry from $8 million.
We have a PRR into the city to see their spreadsheet showing just from where the $8 Million number is coming.
We also have a PRR into the city to see from where their publicized $200,000 per year savings is coming, because based on our calculations, there's a good possibility that they're LOSING money ... even compared with the old back door service.
Don't drink the "Kool-Aid" the city is serving. From the outset, this whole thing has been a fiasco, and the city's been trying to save itself for the last 7 months ... at our expense.
If they end up incurring the $8 million in charges, it won't be because of the initiative. Remember? It has no power whatsoever. At least that's what we've been told over and over again.
So, we'll ask it yet again ...
Why don't they want us to vote on this????
Article in the Dispatch, "UA sues to keep trash issue off ballot."
We'll keep asking the following question over and over until we get an answer. For the last 6 months all we've heard from the city is that the vote is meaningless because they have a contract.
Just what is going on that they've gone to the Ohio Supreme Court to prevent us from voting?
What are they not telling us?
WEEK 23 - DAY 4
The City has filed in the Supreme Court ...
Click HERE to see the docket listing and the filings ...
Why don't they want us to vote?
The Board of Elections, for the second time, denied the City's protest of the initiative this afternoon.
YARD SIGNS ARE IN!!!
Be the first on your block to get one!
Contact Mike (554-5607, email uatrash@aol.com) to get yours!
WEEK 23 - Day 5
There is yet ANOTHER hearing tomorrow (Friday) afternoon at the Board of Elections at 4 PM ...
I guess our City Attorney is under the impression that no decision was made on Monday ... "Did they make a decision?" she asks, according to the UA News article. I guess she needs clarification. If I were a member of the Board of Elections, I'd be a little tired of UA by now.
Why, oh why, is OUR city goverment obsessing on this?
Why don't they want us to vote?
WEEK 23 - DAY 4
Article in ThisWeek ... "City will appeal Election Board ruling"
Article in the UA News ... "UA's solid waste initiative remains on ballot now"
According to the articles, the city's going to file with the Supreme Court this week. What does this mean? It means that they're going to sue the Board of Elections!
Why don't they want us to even vote on this?
Now, I'M confused.
For months, even as late as mid-August, the City claimed that because they had this contract, a majority vote in November to return to the old service would have absolutely NO AUTHORITY/POWER to do so. They had a contract.
Within the past couple of weeks, however, they've changed their tune. The City Manager's "Guest Column" in the UA News is even entitled, "Initiative could present financial problems." If, as they've claimed, the result of the vote has no impact, how could it possibly present financial problems???
So ... why is the City taking such drastic action to prevent us from voting? They're putting tons of taxpayer (i.e. YOUR) money in order to prevent it. And they're doing this in light of the unanimous defeat at the Board of Elections hearing on Monday.
WHY? What are they afraid of?
Why is the city so obsessed with keeping us from voting on this?
If you have any ideas just why they're doing this, please email me at uapetition@aol.com.
Because I sure don't understand why.
Here's another question ... back in May, they had the chance to get out of the contract when the contractor offered a no-fault termination. The City Manager turned it down. And now they're claiming that getting out of the contract will subject the city to billions and billions in damages (my exaggeration ... remember Carl Sagan and his stars? Actually, they are claiming "millions."). So, just why are we, as taxpayers, footing the bill so the City can litigate something that they claim will avoid putting at risk city money that it never needed to put at risk in the first place?
Why is the city so obsessed with keeping the contractor?
Again, if you have any ideas, email me.
Because I'm confused.
WEEK 23 - DAY 2Article in the Dispatch ... "UA trash dispute gets on ballot"
Two things.
First, the City Attorney says that the "potential for damages would be enormous."
We challenge the City to justify that statement with REAL numbers, and have a Public Records Request in to them to provide us with whatever document shows the derivation of what anticipated damages and costs would be.
Let's not forget that in May, the contractor offered a no-fault termination of the contract. Surely they wouldn't have done that if they were rolling in the profits. And legally, you can't claim damages if you aren't making any money to justify them. So ... would the damages truly be "enormous?" Hmmm ...
Remember back in February when we were told that the City would be saving $5 million over 5 years? Way back in March, we reported the mistakes that had been made in the bid analysis and the results of an accountant's audit, showing that this number was grossly overstated. Not once has the City publicly acknowleged those mistakes.
According to the WOSU report from last week, the city says that this number now stands at $200,000 per year. Take a look at the actual financial data from April through July and see what you think regarding the validity of THAT number, too. We have a Public Records Request in to the City to provide a document with its derivation.
Here's a chart showing the City's savings estimates over time (click on it to enlarge) ... based on the trend, it appears that in mid-October, the City will be estimating that they're LOSING money.
Call the City Manager's office and ask for the derivation of these numbers. Let us know what you find out.
If it's accurate, that amounts to $17 per household per year. So ... for a mere $17 per household we could have our old service back? Garage-side? With city employees? Where do I sign up?
Second, the City Attorney states that the City plans to "take the fight to the Ohio Supreme Court."
Just how much more of our taxpayer money is going to be spent on this effort to thwart our right to vote?
They've already spent nearly $6000 in attorney fees and ads. And, present at the hearing last night, were 4 Council members and 6 city employees, including the City Manager and two department heads.
Is it fiscally responsible to be pursuing a case that, as the Board of Elections ruled, has little if no merit?
Call the City Manager's office and ask her just how much of UA's resource base and how much personnel time she's planning on throwing at this.
WEEK 23 - DAY 1
The Franklin County Board of Elections upheld the initiative. The City's protest was unanimously denied.
Thank you to everyone who came out tonight!
YES on 52!
Here's Mike's statement ....
------------------------------------------
We're leaving this up because it clearly compares the two services.
After studying it,
YOU decide which one you want for the next 5 years.
