SAC CITY, IOWA MARCH 28, 2011
Following is a recap of the issue as seen by City Administrator Adam Ledford:
032811SCCDOC0007
For several months, there have been discussions in all Sac County towns surrounding the issue of discontinuing the contract with the Howard Center for processing Sac County recycling materials and awarding it to Carroll recycling who has submitted a bid of around $70 per ton less.
Sac City Administrator Adam Ledford started the discussion by indicating that the Lake View City Council does not want to act too quickly to discontinue services with the Howard Center because they are happy with some of the changes they have seen recently. He added that Lake View is going to remain cautious about the situation and that they are not committed one way or the other at this point. He apparently learned this in discussions he had with lake View City Administrator Scott Peterson.
Council person Nick Frohardt, the Sac City Council’s representative on the Sac County Solid Waste Agency (SCSWA) reminded the council that this is an opportunity for the entire county to save some money to bank against the cost of future cell* development at the county landfill. He further reminded the council that the only way to get the money for this cell development is to either save the money, or to raise taxes. Frohardt suggested that he feels it is the council’s responsibility to save taxpayers money if possible.
Council person Jim Frederick, who has experience with the Department of Natural Resources cautioned that though there should be a consensus among Sac County towns and townships, there is a need to move slowly so they can react properly to ongoing developments in the DNR’s rules regarding landfills.
According to Ledford, this will continue to be an agenda item at the county league meetings.
SCSWA member Craig Pellersels, who was at the council meeting, asked Ledford what kind of information the cities want from the SCSWA to proceed. Ledford told him that there wasn’t anything in terms of data that could be provided, as all of the cities are in possession of a complete record of finances and landfill data going all the way back to the beginning of the SCSWA’s agreement with the Howard Center. The only question that Ledford indicated remains stubbornly unanswered is what percentage of the SCSWA’s dollars are going into the Howard Center operation.
According to Frohardt, the SCSWA is waiting for input from all of the towns and townships before moving forward. As if in answer to that dilemma, Pellersels suggested that the problem is that there are city representatives who do not show up at the SCSWA meetings frequently enough to have a grasp on the flow of the conversation, which is causing some members to be on different pages. Pellersels seemed to like the idea of the cities discussing this issue en masse at the county league meetings, as long as all of the information is available to be referenced during the discussion.
Said Pellersels, “I think there’s some people that aren’t on board with this because they don’t have the information and the figures.”
Ledford indicated that he has prepared a financial primer containing all of the information and that he has and has made that information available to all of the league participants. According to Ledford, no one has a clear vision on how to proceed. One of the sticking points regarding actually ending the contract with the Howard Center is the question of if the SCSWA will provide recycling drop points in a post Howard Center scenario that they will then contract to have hauled down to Carroll, or if each individual city will be responsible for seeing their recycling delivered to Carroll. According to Ledford, this question, more than any other is on the minds of the city level decision makers and he suggested to Pellersels that this question might be one that the SCSWA wants to address.
Council person Bill Brenny asked Pellersels if the SCSWA has given the Howard Center any guidelines or criteria to meet in order to remain a viable choice for and retain the contract. By way of answer, Pellersels and Frohardt both pointed out that a representative of the Howard Center is at every SCSWA meeting and is fully aware of the agency’s concerns.
According to Frohardt, one of the problems is with how the Howard Center does business. According to Frohardt, when a repair is needed or equipment needs replaced, there is no bid process or SCSWA oversight. The Howard Center simply goes out and purchases/contracts to have whatever it is fixed or replaced and the first time the agency hears about it is when the bill is presented for approval. Pellersels agreed and added that the SCSWA is also billed for the items they own, like the recycling sorting equipment, they are also billed for things they do not own, like repairs to the building in which the equipment is housed. Bringing this back around to Brenny’s initial question, Pellersels said that the Howard Center has not offered to absorb any of the building’s upkeep for which the SCSWA is currently billed. He went on to tell the council that the Howard Center hasn’t offered any counter proposal at all to help them save money.
Another related problem with the Howard Center contract is that there is no real way to know from year to year how much the SCSWA needs to budget for recycling, since the yearly bill varies to such a large degree.
Said Pellersels, “How can we tax our people and assess them when we don’t have any idea what to budget for? And that is a terrible way of doing business.”
Frederick, “The way they’re set up, they have no incentive to not to do it any other way. They’re just spending our money.”
Pellersels agreed with him and pointed out that if Carroll Recycling is going to guarantee the SCSWA $20 per ton for three years, then everyone will have a much better idea of how much recycling will cost which will in turn allow them to have a much tighter budget.
According to Frohardt, the Carroll Recycling operation, aside from being a for profit venture and therefore motivated to be competitive, is mechanized and does not have the costs associated with labor. Pellersels and Ledford both added that according to their observations, the some of the employees at Carroll Recycling are also independent living persons similar to the kind that the Howard Center utilizes.
Pellersels also informed the council that the SCSWA equipment used by the Howard Center is going to have to be replaced, which will just add expense to the contract, expense that the SCSWA didn’t find out about until after the budget was submitted for the year.
Both Jim Frederick and Nick Frohardt indicated that they would vote to direct Frohardt to indicate to the SCSWA that Sac City is in favor of following through in pursuit of a contract with Carroll Recycling.
Sac City Council persons Jim Johnston and Gary Hansen were both present, but did not participate in the conversation. I take that back. Gary Hansen kind of nodded and pointed at one point like he was about to say something.
*Giant holes at the landfill in which garbage is buried.
Copyright (c)2007-2011 TheSacNews.com Inc. All Rights Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment