By Jim Sack

Council last night recommended approval of three legs of a new four-legged garbage contract. All in all, there was applause for most of the content and especially the openness with which it was prepared. There was also unmitigated praise for a consultant who helped the members of the task force that helped formulate the contract. Like most things, there is a good side and a bad. This guy clear was assigned the white consultant hat.So, there are four parts to the contract. It was broken up that way, on the advice of the white hat, to secure the best prices for each part of the work: solid waste collection (no problem); recycling collection (high marks); recycling processing (a resounding yes) and solid waste disposal (a resounding thud… a clear no …five to three with Councilman Tim Pape absent). The concern on disposal was not the price which was hailed as the talk of the industry for its low, low cost, but rather the fear that an escalator clause should gas prices go higher would end up costing rate payers more. There was also concern for the length of the contract. Council members Mitch Harper, Tom Smith, John Shoaff, Liz Brown and Tom Didier voted against, while President Marty Bender, Councilwoman Karen Goldner and Councilman Glynn Hines voted for. As it was explained the cost of the contract would go up $.30 for each dollar’s rise in the cost of fuel, and down in the same ratio should prices fall. We are currently paying $29 and change for disposal, the new contract starts at $24.70 for this part of our service, so fuel would have to go into the stratosphere to bring the contract in line with current costs. But, as one councilman said with his eye on the coming elections “taxpayers get very angry any time you raise rates.”

The length of the contract, seven years, was also disputed. Some suggested three years of remarkable savings would be better than seven or ten years of remarkable savings. It seems that a competitor, the Earth First group, will come on line in three years, hence the discussion.

Now the horse-trading will begin. The vote by the full council in committee session was whether to recommend the four legs of the contract to the full council in regular session. I hope you understand that distinction without a difference. In the next week National Serv-all, the white hat consultant and the various members of council will negotiate revisions to the contact. The administration needs two votes and they will have to change parts of the proposed contract to get the votes of Smith, Shoaff, Harper or Didier. Liz Brown voted against three of the four provisions of the contract, mostly because she was against the contract including $50k annually to promote recycling. The one spat of the evening occurred between Karen Goldner and Mrs. Brown over that matter. It was minor, but you could see from the gallery that Ms. Goldner took personally a comment by Mrs. Brown.

You can expect Mr. Shoaff and Smith, perhaps Mr. Didier to find bouquets of roses strewn in their paths as they walk. Mr. Shoaff, the principle critic of Harrison Square might do a little horse trading of his own.

Otherwise, the contract will save us all on our bill. Trucks will not roll past your window before 6am. We will get a 50/50 cut on recycling earnings, and other steps will be taken to make the disposal process easier.

Oddly, Mrs. Brown wanted large refuse to be left out of the contract – refrigerators, furniture, move-out debris. No other council members supported this. Some noted that other costs to the city would greatly increase and that more household odds and ends would find their ways to river banks and abandoned lots if Mrs. Brown’s idea were codified. It was not.

Other matters last night: a new playground, Taylor’s Boundless Dream, brought nothing but smiles and unanimous support. It is designed so kids or all sorts and with all sorts of “challenges” can play there. As Parks director Al Moll said, they are getting support from all over the country for this and are a candidate in an on-line vote to gain even more. It is a remarkable project. Council added its $834,900 of support.

Tax abatements were discussed. There was an interesting mini-debate between Republican Mrs. Brown and Democrat Glynn Hines. Mrs. Brown wanted to put pressure on businesses that had not delivered on their promises in application for abatements. Mr. Hines scolded that these are tough times and we want these businesses here, they are our partners. Mr. Hines sounded all the pro-business Republican, Mrs. Brown (“We need to be stricter.”) the business-critical Democrat. The extension of the law passed easily, but Elissa McGauley, the administration official in charge of the program (“I am pro-business.”) was pressed to be more aggressive with businesses that fall short of their promises. Falling short is 74% and below. Promise 100 new jobs and hit only 75 and a company gets a pass, 74 and fewer draws a letter. Some of the companies on the abatement rolls have fallen far shorter.

And, the ordinance requiring publication of contracts for all goods and services was tabled again. The administration is working on a similar ordinance and Ms. Goldner thought it best to harmonize language in the two bills. Mr. Harper chimed in that there might be other bills on the same topic. It was mentioned that the city will soon have much of this on-line on their web-site Thursday. Mr. Harper noted that publishing the salaries paid for each job in city government would help Fort Wayne avoid the Ball, California disaster where the lack of a local press to peer into local books allowed the city manager and members of council there to pay themselves at obscenely high levels.

Oh, yes. The City Light Lease was mentioned in passing. The city is buying a third generator for the water filtration plant to make sure supply is constant and at pressure, even if all hell breaks loose. During the discussion President Marty Bender quietly reminded the city that the original contract with I&M required them to ensure this service to the city at I&M’s cost. City officials later said the matter is in dispute with I&M and is part of the on-going negotiations.

It was a long, long meeting. Three and a half hours. Mrs. Brown, it should be added, was quite patient with a witness who did not answer her clearly stated questions on the first, second or third attempt. She got her answers and should be complimented for her forbearance.

If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.

No related posts.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am and is filed under City & County Government, Fort Wayne. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.