This from Ray Walker:
(My original comments are in parenthesis.)
Michael,
Good job!
And thanks for asking about some of the content at
http://attackofthegarbagecans.blogspot.com/2011/03/carrie-carrolls-fact-sheet-and-my.html
Per the section containing:
Since the city began its current trash and recycling collection, more than 2 million pounds of solid waste has been kept out of the city landfill, extending its life and postponing a very costly replacement.
(We are leasing the city's landfill to Allied Waste. The city, according to the contract, still shares responsiblities for its upkeep.)
Per the deed file at the County Recorder's office, The City of Jefferson does NOT own, nor never has owned, the land fill. The title that appears can lead one to believe the city does or did, but the fact is that Allied, now Republic, owns the landfill by way of owning the actual shell company that owns the landfill. We have those documents. They are public documents at the Recorder's office so I obtained them and Arthur has filed them.
Per the section containing:
If PROPOSITION A passes, the city will be in violation of its current trash contract with Allied Waste Services (Republic Services) and could face costly legal action. Termination of the trash agreement would mean city residents and businesses would also have no price control over trash service. It is estimated the residential rates will increase. It is unlikely that any new competitors will enter the market. Residents in the unincorporated areas of the county where there are no limits pay 75 percent more than city residents. There would also be no curbside recycling service.
(According to the contract, there is no real price control now. Before we could dump items on Dix Road for as low as twenty dollars a truck load. The current price is sixty-five dollars and up. I understand this price is going up in April.)
What is being overlooked by ALL concerned with defeating Prop A is that this effort is NOT, never has been, about ending the mandatory pick up of garbage. That was included in the ordinance at the same time as the "authorized collector" phrase which we are seeking to remove.
AND also wholesomely being overlooked is that the contract contains the clause that requires Allied to submit a request to the city council for a rate increase. SO THEREFORE: If the rates increase, the city council will have voted to increase them!
AND further overlooked, and egregiously so, is the section 37.1 Force Majeure (see page 23 of the contract, if you have a copy from the start up days) in that the passage of Prop A will be caused by a contingency beyond a party's reasonable control, to wit, compliance with applicable laws or government orders! This is the clause that brings scorn from the city attorney in that, in my opinion, he seems to feel any government controls the people rather than the other way around!
AND also overlooked is the fact that many sections of the contract are NOT being enforced or are being ignored or are in breach! In breach would be section 2.2 Exclusivity of Yard Waste, page 7, where there was NOT a single action by city council to remove this section. And according to the modification clause, section 34, page23, the only way parts of the agreement can be considered modified, altered, change, assigned, or amended in any respect unless in writing and signed by the parties hereto. The city council never passed an ordinance permitting modifying the contract per 2.2 when it awarded the current yard waste contract and did Allied sign such an agreement to modification???
Per the section containing references to fire services:
No one recalls that fire services were once provided by private fire companies similar to the way trash is being handle now-a-days. But did the city allow that to go on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI have researched the Force Majeure clause in the contract, and have recently come to the conclusion that the city attorney is correct in his understanding. If Proposition A is passed it does not put the city in a position beyond its control. In fact the city has another option they can and most likely will use. According to the City Charter the following section reads:
CHARTERARTICLE XIV—SCHEDULE
Section 14.4. Temporary Ordinance.
At its first meeting, or at any meeting held within sixty days thereafter, the council may adopt
temporary ordinances to deal with cases in which there is an urgent need for prompt action in connection with
the transition of government and in which the delay incident to the appropriate ordinance procedure would
probably cause serious hardship or impairment of effective city government. Every temporary ordinance shall
be plainly labeled as such but shall be introduced in the form and manner prescribed for ordinances generally.
A temporary ordinance may be considered and may be adopted, with or without amendment, or rejected at
the meeting at which it is introduced. A temporary ordinance shall become effective upon adoption or at such
later time preceding automatic repeal under this subsection as it may specify, and the referendum power shall
not extend to any such ordinance. Every temporary ordinance, including any amendments made thereto after
adoption, shall automatically stand repealed as of the ninety-first day following the date on which it was
adopted, and it shall not be readopted, renewed or otherwise continued except by adoption in the manner
prescribed in Section 3.11 for ordinances of the kind concerned.
The article places power back into the city's control. Our measure will not render the city option-less or powerless, which Force Majeure requires.
This indicates if the city feels that our proposition creates a hardship(which is not and does not have to be defined) or impairment of effective city government they can respond. Effectively a costly lawsuit to the city would give the city an obligation to pass a temporary ordinance to avoid possible damages. In short the city, according to the charter, still has reasonable control over the situation not like an act of God would constitute. Now if they do this there is one other thing they must consider...public backlash for ignoring the voters decision.
Matt
Citizens Action Committee Member