68°
NORWALK, Conn. – Diane Lauricella let her opinion be known last week as Norwalk officials voted to move a controversial contract out of a Common Council committee and on to a final vote.
"Shame on you," she said.
The Public Works Committee had voted to move along the proposal to contract out the city's garbage pick-up to City Carting for 10 years, recommending it be accepted by the full Common Council Tuesday night and sent to the mayor for his signature.
Lauricella thinks council members should be ashamed for taking Department Public Works Director Hal Alvord's word without doing their own fact checking. Others have different issues with the proposal, including the speed with which the council is expected to vote on it.
"How come the savings are already included in the plans for this coming fiscal year?" asked Council Minority Leader Anna Duleep. "Something seems to have already been in the works. I've had a lot of constituents reaching out to me and expressing concern. I will tell you that gut reaction, I can't think of family members I would sign a 10-year contract with."
A six-person panel that included Common Councilman David McCarthy (R-District E) and Common Councilman Bruce Kimmel (D-District D) considered the bids from Finocchio Brothers and City Carting for the right to pick up Norwalk's garbage. City Carting was selected because it offered single-stream recycling as part of the deal Alvord said. The company's two existing contracts with the city would be amended, lengthening the terms and altering the fees in a matter that Alvord said favors the city.
"I got a feeling that it was just the sheer economies of scale that City Carting had that allowed them to bid significantly lower than Finocchio," said Management and Budget Director Bob Barron, a member of the panel. "However, we got both bids – Finocchio I think was 50 percent higher than City Carting. We countered with the same counter proposal to both of them, to give them each an equal opportunity."
Mayor Richard Moccia will be authorized at Tuesday's meeting to execute the agreement with City Carting, according to Common Council Member Michael Geake (U-District B). "I'm betting 9 to 6," he said, adding that he was voting for it. All seven Republicans will probably vote for it, as will Kimmel, he said.
Kimmel said last week that he didn't think the books were cooked to favor City Carting. "I sat with both vendors and watched their reactions: one of them, especially Finnochio, would have noted it ... I didn't see it. I'm concluding that they thought the numbers were fair."
Geake thinks the process was fair even if City Carting had a slight advantage, in that it was already in Norwalk. He does think, "Fundamentally we were setting it up that it was going to be one company doing both" recycling and solid-waste pickup. "It does seem to be that way in that none of the other companies could have bid on the other two contracts without also winning the solid waste," he said. "I really don't like the two other contracts reopened without bids. I mean, I see the point to it. I'd have been happier if there were a mechanism where the other companies could have bid on those, too. But I'm not going to oppose it because of that."
If the agreement is authorized, City Carting will take over garbage collection on Oct. 1. The eight city employees currently doing the pickups will be reassigned to driving other city trucks and will take a $8,000 a year pay cut. They will receive $8,000 lump sum one-time payout, as compensation for their first year of reduced pay.
Alvord said none of the solid waste will go to City Carting's Meadow Street facility, but will instead continue to go to the city's transfer station, into city equipment. Single-stream recycling will begin July 1, 2013. This means that city residents will no longer be expected to separate types of recyclable materials, and will instead dump everything into one 64-gallon toter provided free-of-charge by City Carting, Alvord said.
Alvord misdirects the lay-people on the council, said Lauricella, who wishes council members would talk to officials in other cities about their experiences with how they handle their garbage pick-up and recycling contracts. "It's a serious, serious matter and it's not the first time he's done it," she said. "I believe these three contracts need to be sent back to committee. The council has duty to do their due diligence. They are elected, they swore. Everyone took an oath, the mayor took an oath."
Duleep said she is surprised the council is being asked to commit to a 10-year contract, but that many people are not surprised City Carting won the contract. She said, "I would like to have the time to really vet this and to look into some of the allegations that have been made, and I don't know if that will happen."
Comments (19)
It is a really simple choice for the council people. Either vote based solely on what Alvord tells you, or make an INFORMED DECISION, after being duly informed , and then vote. There is no rush. You can take away people's jobs anytime, but don't be manipulated into a RUBBER STAMP VOTE on party lines because you have been misled on the potential savings, or on the urgency of voting tonight.
The employee contract should be in negotiations now. I doubt the union is negotiating for anybody to lose 8000 a year, ( big money for these men) but, if both sides are negotiating in good faith, there are opportunities for savings that need to be resolved before any fair comparison can be made with Alvord's City Carting Co deal.
Solid waste is already brought to the meadow st location, why wouldn't they bring more once they get the contract..
Table this item until the September 11th or 25th Common Council meeting, and move the effective date to November or December.
This would be satisfy those who still have questions as to the process and the legitimacy of the spreadsheet numbers, and would also go a long way towards goodwill with the "other side of the aisle" and your constituents.
After all, how much savings could we theoretically lose by starting the new contract just 30 or 60 days later?
Maybe they'll never be enough time for those opposed to this contract, and maybe the signed contract can't come soon enough for those in favor, but the fact remains a "peace offering" to extend their due diligence period for another month can result in everyone doing their own homework, and coming to their own conclusion, pro or con. It's kind of like chicken soup for a cold: may not cure it, but certainly can't hurt.....
I have a good idea of how large 55 Gal. drums are,..are these recycle bins for residential use truly 64 Gal.?
Why don't you jump in one and let us know,
We decided to bring the contracts to the Council tomorrow evening because some members accused DPW and the city of planning to sneak them through at our August 14 meeting, which was the original date. They said members of the Council, as well as the public, would be on vacation in August. Thus, we decided to see if we could wrap things up in time for the second meeting in July. And now we're being accused of ramming them through without discussion.
There have been countless hours of discussion, which have included what's happening in other towns. And Council members received all the pertinent information a week ago -- which had been vetted by both our law and finance departments. Most Council members attended last week's special DPW committee meeting, where there was a lengthy discussion of this issue. I find it interesting that one of the Council members quoted in the above article, who believes we are moving too quickly and has questions about the contract length, chose to attend a BOE meeting while the Council members were discussing the three DPW contracts -- including the reasons why a 10 year contract is a much better deal for the city.
The savings were built into the budget last winter because the city won the right, via binding arbitration, to outsource. The city won that right simply because the local union did not bother to present a counter offer, which meant, under state law, they had to lose. If, in the end, we do not outsource, it will not be difficult to adjust the budget.
I do not like outsourcing. And we strongly encouraged the union to present a proposal so that they could be part of the bidding process. Most Council members would have done all that we could to make sure they were the winning bidder. But, unfortunately, they decided they had philosophical differences on this issue, and did not present a proposal. All this happened while the city was desperately trying to figure out how to not lay off 20 teachers.
As a Council member from District D, I cannot walk away from these proposals; I am certain they will save taxpayers money in the years to come.
What time this weekend did you go to City Carting on Meadow st and observe almost a million pounds of trash outside the gate sitting there smelling horrendus Bruce?
Bruce your thoughts on this so far is not what the concern is of those who live near this disaster waiting to happen..
yes one has to respect your judgement yet what real meeting have you had with those who may be effected?
Trafic studies done where are they Bruce for the intersection of Meadow and Wilson or are those not connected to this next vote you are making the studies are done when school isn't in session and its done on Sat and Sun. and close to te transfer station on Meadow.
What other cities have you contacted with problems with the same deal Norwalk has and I don't mean City carting as the contractor?
This one is very important Bruse what is the diversion rate in Norwalk concerning the trash stream? I trust you can answer this without looking it up thats why you were elected to exhaust all questions on the facts not what you were told by others who could care less about traffic safety and health.
This was a good example of you simply not doing what it is you were elected to do if you hadn't ,,then again if your wrong because you have spent little time understnding the situation maybe you can tell us why if the bids went out as independent bids why is the other company parking the trucks and dumpsters on City Carting land this weekend?
Was there any release into the environment this weekend on Meadow st where Village creek would be concerned about?
Read us the part in the contract City Carting made for meadow st insuring certain things would be done protecting those who live there in fact bring that contract to the next neeting and show us all you have read it and are not concened City Carting has not met the rules the State has given the ok on..admit if you have to things have been done wrong
You may be respected in a lot of areas you vote on but if doubt looms over you one this do you just go with your gut or ask for some facts that you yourself can read or see on site,be interesting if you do save us all money on this issue ,the city has so much to do after this hurdle has been taken.
Can't trust anyone not informed again when did you go to City Carting this weekend on meadow st to ensure those who trusted you enough to vote for you were protected by the fact you showed up and saw the condition of the facility on meadow st this weekend.
What shoud of been done is a short quiz of what was voted on and passed years ago then maybe you would understand your vote was just not a money impact but a quality of life decision for those who live there.
Some have made statements before about the industrial setting of Meadow st yet things have changed,HUD has residents taxpayers who live in the effected area who have the obligation to make a home safe for those who can't move once that is repected among those who think Meadow st is fine for more trash simply take the operation to Norden no one will see or smell any garbage there in a industrial setting will they?
Bruce is it not just money that motivates this vote or have you the information I suggest you should be reading and yes pass it on to others who have so much passion for those who live near City Carting on Meadow st
Something stunk this weekend some said if you live a 1/4 mile away you could smell it,I'm sure where you live it wan't a concern or an issue was it?
10 year contracts are a good deal?What planet did you live on before you came to Norwalk?
Using the school system to pit against the trash contract and not police and fire was what pitiful?
Wrap things up without producing some facts on Meadow st and its operation there?
Bruce if we havn't got time to do it right the first time where do we find the time to do it again if its done wrong?
You have lost my trust
Like the new fire station it will need beacons on it to alert planes from driving into it what in the hell are they building?Others before you thought it would grand where are some of those councilors now?Some no longer live in Ct and yes it was in our best interest then also and that was just a building that didn't involve the people who live near the trash facilitys.
Take the time to start asking some questions the ones here are only a few show us the contract and service plans for Meadow st and show us the diversion rate for the city including private pickups..
The rec dept has trucks that compact and seem to be very small and not industry standard did City Carting plan on taking over those routes as well I'm sure by now you know exactly what i just asked its a trash pickup as in those extras in Sono when rats are found running around with overloaded cans what provisions were made to keep the city safe?
Homework do some let us know what you found when was the diversion rates done and is the market for glass paper and steel still the same when contracts were signed before?
conflict of interest was brought up by some is it possible there is no checks and balance in place to ensure Norwalk is playing by the recycle rules and when is hazardous waste day in Norwalk next?
I did not go down to Meadow Street; Mr. McCarthy did. The Meadow Street facility is not part of our solid waste disposal operation; all of it goes through the main Transfer Station. Actually, many of the issues you raised, such as market rates for glass, etc., were discussed during our negotiations. Thank you for taking the time to follow this issue.
thank you for not saying too much I didn't understand your diversion rate formula take.
Norwalk Housing goes to Meadow st along with many other Norwalk city concerns how is that the Meadow st facility is not part of the waste disposal stream for Norwalk?
I honestly doubt at this point you have all the bases covered.
This now shows your not open to any suggestions and maybe you would be better at other type of negotations.
admitting you talked about them leaves us with no fact,has the media not asked you for your take or any of these facts?
all of it goes through the main Transfer Station now I have serious doubt on what is the truth and what the pictures say,I'm sorry it now has become clear homework will not be done well,so much for facts when if in fact you didn't realize Norwalk Housing uses Meadow st.along with other city departments.
Next you will be telling us city hall rubbish in the back of pickups in 64 gallon buckets don't go to meadow street aa well.Pictures don't lie only people do.Not directed towards you but maybe the people who tell you gospel are not telling you everything,that has been suggested by others.
Was those negotations taped?
Yes I want to save money but over the health of others didn't seem to ba concern in the response.
What about the rec dept and the trash compactors that pick up at all parks was that absorbed thru the contract? (by the way the barrels on Lowe st need to be emptied the day workers could get sick)
What about special pickups ect has the leaf fill been now included in the contract as well?Sunday pickups in Sono or the Oyster fest?
I do thank you for stepping up to the plate and coming out here showing us you do care no sense in insulting your efforts to answer some questions I look forewood to your full response on them later political responses doesn't do any of us any good.You didn't satisfy my questions and I can't even spell well.
Bruce
Did anybody really believe the union local had the resources to bid against a company the size of City Carting ? The only real opportunity the eight men who now collect our trash have to offer any proposal to save their jobs is during ongoing contract negotiations. The argument could be made that the city, by pushing through outsourcing in such a hurry, during negotiations with the union, is not negotiating in good faith.
Hal Alvord wants us to believe the proposal by City Carting company will save money. It is not hard to understand how City Carting can collect our trash with their one man trucks cheaper than our DPW, under Alvord's leadership, with three man trucks. City Carting's proposal will require the use of standard 64 gallon containers, already being used by their private customers. It has not been made clear who is paying for those containers. The language published so far makes it sound like City Carting will sell them to us at their cost. If we all have to buy a new 64 gallon container before City Carting will pickup our trash, we are already faced with another fee for service, just like the sewers, and parking.
Until the city finishes GOOD FAITH NEGOTIATIONS with the union and we know the results, there is no possible way for the council to make an INFORMED DECISION and vote tomorrow. City Carting isn't going anywhere, what's the RUSH ? Does Alvord have some other motive ?
My question Oldtimer is did the city workers/union try giving something back? We all know that all and I mean all city workers and family members do not pay for there MEDICAL benefits. That is right they do not pay we pay for them and there family members with our taxes. I know the city of Norwalk can pay for every employee that is employed by them, but because they have also pay for the family members the problem of money comes into play. So why don't they pay for there family member like maybe $200.00-$400.00 a month like most of us do that do not work for the city. we want to save jobs and keep Norwalk city worker employed but they must also give something back to us the tax payers. Maybe the money can be saved and used into the education system or for emergency issues.
Negotiations, when carried out in good faith, require give and take on both sides. The contract the City finally got through arbitration covered only three years and that three ends this year. Both sides should now be working diligently on a new contract. Are they ? We would both be amazed if the union side started off by offerring give-backs, just as we would not expect the City, in this economy, to start by offering big increases in wages and benefits.
The garbage collectors are not highly paid now. They fully understand the process is changing all over the country and they expect the City to be looking to make changes. They did not expect their jobs to disappear without, at least, some conversation on the order of; this is what we can get your jobs done for by others, can you come anywhere near matching their numbers ? They might not have reached complete agreement right away, but they deserved the conversation.
We have started down a slippery slope where dollars seem to be the only consideration. What happens when some private security company comes along offering big savings on Police service ? Will dollars prevail then, too ? Are their other considerations we should value, or not ?
Firefighting used to be a private enterprise business and still is, in some communities. Will we, as a community, go back to privatizing other essential services, if the PRICE is right ?
What will happen if City Carting workers go out on strike ? As a private employer, not a municipality, City Carting is not protected from strikes. What will we do with our garbage then ?
@Old Timer
The article above states that the new 64 gallon containers will be provided free of charge by City Carting.
I share your questions about whether or not all the savings achieved by City Carting's one-man trucks could be achieved by the City if it simply bought new trucks and negotiated a better deal with DPW workers. Hopefully this will be asked and answered at the meeting tomorrow.
The bottom line for me is whether or not the City will save money on this. The fact that Bruce Kimmel analyzed the figures and concluded that the savings are real tells me that they probably are.
You forgot to add that the fact that your puppet master told you to post is all that you need to know.
You one string banjo paid stooge for the administration.
We hope that is true, but the first mention of the 64 gallon containers, indicated that City Carting was going to supply them "at it's cost". That suggests that we would be paying, but City Carting was not taking any markup. That would be a good question to get answered Tuesday Night.
Did you take the time to research property rights schemes and the Galante case ? There are several newspaper stories and FBI press releases.
When I read "at its cost," to me that means THEY pay. We would only pay if it said City Carting will provide the containers "at cost." In any case, I'm sure it will be clarified on Tuesday.
I did look at some old articles but I fail to see a connection to what's happening here. We can accuse elected officials on both sides of this issue of being corrupt until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean anything unless there's any actionable proof. Failing any actionable proof, what I really want to know is, will taxpayers truly see a savings of approximately $850,000 per year from outsourcing, plus what I assume is another $850,000 per year in savings on other contracts, over the next ten years? Also, back when this issue was first debated, Bruce Kimmel took issue with counting savings from an anticipated reduction in workers comp claims as real savings. Do the recent figures provided regarding savings assume a reduction in workers comp claims? If so, how does Kimmel feel about that now?
I would also be interested to know what kind of escalators, if any, exist in the proposed contract which could lead to savings not materializing under certain conditions.
At the last line in this story, the word "ALLEGATIONS" is highlighted. If you click on it, it will bring up a newspaper article about CITY CARTING and it's general manager, Joseph A Fiorillo jr. A contract City Carting won with Westchester County carried a condition that Fiorillo and another person would NOT be involved, because of prior associations with Tommy Milo in a company called Suburban Carting in Mamaroneck.
NY state has a law requiring screening of vendors bidding for government business for organized crime connections. Similar law has beem proposed, but never passed in CT.
Fiorillo is not only the general manager for City Carting, but also a principal in MEADOW STREET PARTNERS, the company that owns the real estate City Carting uses on Meadow St.
I read this article, from 2004, two times but still don't see where Joseph Fiorillo was charged or convicted of anything. In any case, I would hope and expect that the contract the City is contemplating has provisions that allow the City to exit if City Carting is found to be involved in illegal activities.
As I said, what I really want to know is, will taxpayers truly see a savings of approximately $850,000 per year from outsourcing, plus what I assume is another $850,000 per year in savings on other contracts, over the next ten years?
There are over 40 articles on the trash escapade relating to Mob ties and a few showing Norwalk many years ago courting those who lobby for trash haulers tucked away in listings on the net.This was not something that just happened. Bruce could of seen when this first came up in Norwalk recycle material was at a all time low in fact some items were put back into the trash cycle because it cost more to pick up sort and send to market paper was one of the items.The public unless followed it thru the news would of been able to see other cities like Norwalk go to the larger recycle bucket and one stream years ago while Norwalk was trying to fight regional transfer stations.Once City Carting won those it was time to direct the attack on the Norwalk taxpayers and they did a great job reading what we are reading now.
In fact the State and Federal grants helped other cities to hand out recycle buckets to their residents years ago maybe these buckets we are getting for free have sat in some warehouse already bought by tax dollars somewhere else wouldn't that be funny as we are thrown some bones aleady paid for.Nothing would surprise those informed.
City carting has a large facility in NY next to Stew Leanords we can now trust one council member never signed any contracts with city carting years ago and now is voting tonight.
Its always been said to be a council member in Norwalk you get couple of thousand dollars a year and wonder if we paid more we would get more as in the job of the Mayor.
We always talk money yet never realize what everyone is making right down to dept heads,recently it was said a police officer was collecting two checks for the same job makes you wonder if that could be true?Like some reporter is going to ask Tom if thats true based on rumor.
Norwalk is the city of smoking mirrors its become good at it while we are are hearing how much the DPW is making on pay and perks the other depatments have been ignored in where we can save more money,this trash stuff is conveniant for those who may be milking our system in other areas it would seem.
Misinformation and facts have always been an issue among council members they are the first to tell you most of what they know about some subjects they read about first and are never told by department heads or the Mayor,its not the way to run a city when the flow of facts depend on who you are once elected to Norwalks boards.
Some Council members in fact think subscribing to the media is the best way to find out whats going on in the city why is that?