$2MM No Bid Recycle Contract Not Worth the Risk

On Monday, Oct 21 at 7pm Council will vote on whether or not to extend the lucrative Kimble trash contract to 2019 without going out for bids.

Despite a month of meetings, it’s difficult to understand the ‘emergency’ of the legislation. The only info we have to go on is what the Administration and Kimble’s rep Don Johnson have told us in presentations or in answer to specific questions.   

This $2million a year contract is not a simple extension. There are significant changes, hence the need for a contract:

- An increase in per stop charge from $7.45 to $8.25

- A decrease in tipping fees from $42.50 to $39.75/ton

- An increase of fuel surcharges from $2.65/g(diesel) to $4.02/g(diesel).

- Moving to automated pickup;

- Outsourcing recycling

But with the vote just 5 days away, Council doesn’t have a copy of the contract.

Monday’s vote comes down to two issues:

1. The City’s claim of $500,000 in savings over the period of the extension;
2. The City’s claim that recycling tonnage will increase by 25%

ISSUE 1 - The City contends that Council has the ability to waive competitive bidding “if the reason is in the City’s best interest. In this case, the savings over the period of the extensions is over $500,000.”  

That’s misleading at best. In-house recycling is expected to exceed $100k a year. The extension is for five years. The $500,000 in savings is based solely on the fact that the City would not be doing its own recycling. The City would save $500,000 no matter WHO it contracted to.

As to the new charges, according to Service Dir Bock, “I believe there would be a savings of just over $400,000. This savings is done by a lowering of the tipping fee that [Kimble] charges at the landfill. The amount of tonnage, due to the automated recycling would be lower and hence lower cost.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa –Backup! The City is ASSUMING an additional 2,153 tons will be recycled. At the current price of $42.50/ton, that’s $91,502.50 the City ASSUMES we will save. The Administration is counting non-existent tonnage as a savings. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. Delving further, according to Kimble’s numbers, currently, the City is paying $678,257.50 in tipping fees for 15,959 tons. Under the new contract, for the same amount of tonnage, the City would pay $634,370.25. That’s a DECREASE of $43,887.25.

Sounds good, but then Mr. Bock said, “The fuel surcharge would be virtually eliminated. What I mean by that is [currently] once [diesel fuel] goes beyond [$2.65 a gallon] at that point a fuel surcharge kicks in and we pay a fuel surcharge. That fuel surcharge under the current agreement runs us on average about .55 cents per home per month [for a total cost of $7.45].”  We’re virtually eliminating the fuel surcharge at .55 per home/per month. That’s where we obtain the savings that are projected in the new contract if it were to be done.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa –Backup! Per Kimble’s own numbers, currently the City is paying $1,471,792.20 for 16,463 stops. Under the new contract rate of $8.25ph/pm the City would pay $1,629,837.00. That’s an INCREASE of $158,044.80.

When you put the two together, it’s a net loss of $114,157.55 per year – which virtually wipes out any savings from outsourcing the Recycling program and negates the argument for bypassing the bid process.

ISSUE 2 – The City anticipates a 25% increase in recyclables with automation.

The City contends that, “In all communities where they have gone to automated recycle collection with the larger carts, they have seen a substantial increase in tonnage.” That may be true, but the communities used as examples have two things going for them that Euclid does not. They have an aggressive Reduce/Reuse/Recycle educational program/policy and they have relatively stable populations.  

Euclid has yet to put in place a comprehensive educational program or any kind of policy that encourages landfill reduction. Mayor Cervenik has told Council that under automation people will be allowed to continue putting out as much trash as they want every week. Unlimited trash disposal does not encourage landfill reduction. In other automated communities, excess trash is permitted once a month. If the City put that in place, folks would think twice about bagging their grass or pitching items that could be restored, re-used or recycled.

Another reason to question the increase is the City’s high transiency rate. How is the City planning to inform and encourage new residents to recycle? What motivation does it plan to use for renters who don’t pay the garbage tax and who can pitch anything in unlimited quantities? Or for landlords clearing a recently vacated property?

Unless the City implements a true educational program and/or stabilizes its neighborhoods it cannot anticipate significant landfill diversion.

The way I see it, despite the Mayor’s assurances to the contrary, the City’s recycling program has become a money pit. What originally was going to cost the City nothing is now going to exceed $100,000 a year.

The Mayor is stuck in an increasingly costly in-house recycling program. Extending the current Kimble contract conveniently gets the monkey off his back that he put there. That’s why this is an emergency.

Council should vote Ord. 320-13 down. Let the City limp along for the remainder of the current contract. Use the time to put in place an aggressive Reduce/Re-use/Recycle policy before a new contract is awarded. A well thought through program can divert significant landfill tonnage. The full time Administration’s attempt has been a dismal failure. Here’s hoping the part time Council can do better. 

Latest Forecast on Recycling Savings Is Suspect

Every forecast Cervenik has
made has proven wrong

Bill Cervenik should have been a weatherman. No matter how many times his forecasts are wrong, he never apologizes. He ignores failed predictions as though he never made them and presents new forecasts with confidence. Like the weatherman, Cervenik is never held accountable for his failed projections no matter how often he makes them. The amazing thing is Councils past and present continue to believe him. Case in point…

On Monday, Oct 21, Euclid City Council will vote yes or no to grant a 4yr 9mo extension to Kimble, the company picking up our trash. The extension is contingent upon Kimble doing 3 things: Moving to automated pickup; taking over Recycling; and lowering its tipping fees for landfill trash. There’s also a mutual option to extend the contract out for another five years, again without a bid.

The current contract ends Feb 28, 2015. The way it’s supposed to work is that in the Fall of 2014 the City normally would go out for the lowest and best bid for trash pickup. Four years ago, 4 companies bid – J&J (now Kimble), Republic, Rumke and Waste Management. Kimble offered the lowest price, and won the $2million-plus contract.

If this new deal is approved, the City will bypass the bid process. With the mutual option to extend, the City may never go out for bids again. It’ll just keep extending never knowing if it could get a better arrangement in price and service. The Administration contends that Council has the ability to waive competitive bidding “if the reason is in the City’s best interest. In this case, the savings over the period of the extensions is over $500,000.”

Service Director Lee Bock has said the savings would be over $400,000 over the next year and a half. Well which is it - $400k or $500k? IT IS NEITHER. In fact, it’s more likely the contract will INCREASE the City’s costs anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000.

In the Fall of 2010 Mayor Cervenik assured Council that if it approved in-house recycling he guaranteed it would pay for itself. He even said it very likely would show a profit. In the 3 years since, every forecast Cervenik made regarding the program has been wrong.

Forecast #1 Sept 22, 2010 – Curbside Recycling Will Cost the City Nothing: “The bottom line is, we can do curbside recycling basically for free and with the grant money being used initially until we build up to 4,000 tons, we really cost the general fund no money at all in doing this.”(Cervenik, Sustainability Committee Meeting) FACT: 2012 cost the City $62,949.80. 2013 is expected to cost the City about $100,000.

Forecast #2 Oct 4, 2010 – Recycling Tonnage Will Exceed 5,000 Tons: “I believe we can get 5,000-6,000 tons and with the revenue from the consortium, we will save money and actually make money or save expenses on our trash contract.” (Cervenik, Council Meeting) FACT: The second year (2012) brought in 1720 tons. Tonnage remains relatively flat.

Forecast #3 A New $90,000 Truck Is Adequate For the Job – Prior to approving a small 1-ton truck, Cervenik told Council, “Since [the crew] won’t be picking up that much on a daily basis we feel the size of the truck which is 12 yard compactor will allow us to have to do only one trip if in fact we decide to take the recyclables out [to Kimble] rather than having them pick them up.” FACT: “Although the one ton can complete the task, it is certainly not the most efficient, nor effective means to do so.” (Service Dir Randy Smith Jan 24, 2011 Sustainability Committee)

Forecast #4 Purchase of a Used Truck Worthwhile – Because the Rabbit Truck had proven inadequate, the Program needed a second truck to haul recyclables to Kimble and act as backup. In Feb, the Administration came back to Council requesting approval to buy a second 9-year old BIG recycling truck for $30,600. Cervenik assured Council that, “If you permit us to purchase the second truck…I certainly expect it to last longer than five years because of its limited use…. This should be the final change of the program.” (Cervenik, Jan 24, 2011 Sustainability Committee) Once again Council prostrated itself at the weatherman’s feet and approved the purchase of a second used truck. All except Gilliham, Minarik and Langman. FACT: The truck expected to last five years continues to break down and will probably be sold for scrap. Council has been told the program must buy another truck to continue.

Mayor Cervenik has been wrong on every forecast since the program’s inception. So Why Is Council Accepting His Projected Savings as Fact? Not one councilperson has challenged the $500k savings in the legislation. If tonnage does not increase significantly, this contract will cost the City.

Should Council negate its responsibility to go out for bids, it will do a disservice to the residents. It will lose the opportunity to negotiate potentially better service and lower costs in a year and a half. Council should find out what the competition has to offer before locking itself into a 5 year contract. But it has not even asked. It should demand implementation of the long-promised education program first. But it's not.

Cervenik told Council the no-bid contract is, “worth taking the risk.” Relinquishing one’s freedom to choose is never a good idea. Given the Mayor’s history of bad forecasting, this is a risk Council can’t afford to take. Given Council’s history, it probably will.

Euclid City Council To Consider 2 More Years of Garbage Tax

Mayor Bill Cervenik has asked Council to approve legislation to extend the Garbage Tax for two more years. Council will discuss the extension Monday, June 10 Wednesday, June 12 at 6:30pm at the Executive Finance Committee meeting. The public is encouraged to attend. 

Cervenik's removal of a critical section in the
original legislation is costing homeowners
hundreds of dollars



In 2010 Council initiated a Garbage Tax on every household in Euclid in the amount of $108 a year. After the first year of direct billing, the tax was placed on property taxes as a Special Assessment. Council has approved one year extensions since then.

This legislation like the Street Lighting Tax piece has problems.

For starters, how many people know they’re paying for Garbage Pickup. Special Assessments are not broken down in a property tax bill. Most folks don’t even see their bill because they have a mortgage. We have a lot of new people since 2010 that may not know the tax was even passed. The City should consider sending out a notice regarding this and the street light tax.

Next, at the June 3^rd Council meeting, Mayor Cervenik stated publicly that, “[The fee] is $108 a year for those that have trash collection.” That’s not true.

Vacant lots are being charged $108 a year for trash that is not collected. On my street, we have a vacant lot that was recently purchased by the owner next door. The vacant lot has been and is being assessed a garbage tax of $108 + $1.08 SPA fee. The SPA fee is for the County to administer the collection and distribution of the Garbage Tax. Until and unless he consolidates the two parcels, the new owner will pay $218.16 for garbage. He is single.

Now, the original language in 2010 included a discount for Seniors and disabled persons with a household income of less than $20,000. That still holds. However, the 2010 legislation also had a Section that is missing from the current legislation.

Section 3 of Ord. 36-2010 read,

“That the Director of Public Service is hereby authorized to provide rules for property owners to apply for a fifty percent (50%) reduction in the payment of the fee in the event that the property has been vacant for more than ninety (90) days until such time as the property is occupied. Any reduction provided shall be nullified in the event the property is reoccupied and the property owner fails to timely notify the City to resume collection of the fee amount.”

I guarantee you that Mayor Cervenik and Law Director Frey are completely aware of the missing section. They drafted the legislation. So why was it pulled? My guess – greed, pure and simple.

Let me explain what impact this change in the original legislation means to a large number of homeowners. I looked up my street Abby Ave on the County Fiscal Officer’s web site. We have 3 owners of doubles who occupy their homes and choose not to rent the other half. They are all single – no kids. 2 are seniors. They are each paying $216 + $2.16 SPA fee.

This garbage tax on land and units that are uninhabited is unconscionable, doubly so in light of the fact that the 4 persons used here as an example, together don’t put out half of what the family up the street puts out. Yet they are paying double the amount of garbage tax.

At best, Council should completely eliminate the garbage tax on vacant lots and owner occupied doubles that choose not to rent the other half. At the very least, Council needs to re-instate Section 3 of Ord. 36-2010.

The Campaign of 1994 or....

....How We Got a 2.85% Income Tax

Let me ask you a question - if you were offered a 64” HD flat screen TV with access to 900 channels, and you were told that it wouldn’t cost you anything… would you say Yes or No? Well you’d probably say, “Yes, thanks!”

Now what if you knew that that 64” TV with 900 channels was not a gift from the person offering it, but was in reality being taken out of someone else’s paycheck - a stranger who hadn’t been asked and had no say in the matter. Would you still say accept the TV?

Hold that thought while we go back to the joint income tax’s inception….

In November 2012 a non-resident business owner filed a complaint against Euclid Schools and the City of Euclid claiming the portion of the income tax the City collects from non-residents is illegally shared with the Euclid School District. For those of you not familiar with how the Joint Tax came to be, here’s a brief history.

Back in 1994 the Euclid Schools were facing much the same problems they face today – transiency, unfunded mandates, the high cost of special ed, health care costs.    

The City’s argument for raising taxes was a potential budget deficit in coming years. The rising cost of Fire and Police and a desire to increase the two forces necessitated the need for additional revenue.  

In 1994, Euclid Schools had 3 ways to raise revenue. In addition to property tax, Ohio schools could put an income tax on the ballot. That tax would function as a resident tax. Business profits and payrolls could not be taxed. All residents would pay a tax on their income, but social security income was exempt. The third option was a joint tax between city and schools on payroll and profits. The proposed rate would increase the City from 2 to 2.38%. Schools would receive .47%. The joint tax was selected and Council approved putting the .85% increase on the ballot.

The City and Schools targeted Seniors. The Schools touted the tax as an alternative to property taxes. The City’s message to Seniors was simple and repetitive – the increase will strengthen Safety Forces and you won’t have to pay it.

The City and Schools barraged voters with literature on all the wonderful things this increase would do to improve Euclid and its Schools. The Joint Income Tax was a dream come true. Seniors would have strong schools, they’d have strong safety forces and best of all – Seniors wouldn’t have to pay for any of it.  

In November voters approved the tax. It passed 8,715 to 8,126. Non-resident workers who couldn’t vote on the tax had to pay it from their wages. Businesses who weren’t asked for their input, had to pay it on their profits. 

In the 18 years since the tax passed, Euclid has lost population and wealth. Its police force has not increased. Housing values have plummeted. Neighborhoods have declined. Job growth is stagnant at best. The Schools remain in Academic Watch.

The business owner who filed the complaint has every reason to feel grieved. He was forced to buy a 64” widescreen TV and can’t even enjoy it.

For an expanded history, click The Campaign.  

R.I.P. Bridge Builder

I got to know Jerry Corbran in the ‘90s. I was new to Euclid and a bit outspoken in my ideas. He sought me out. He was always seeking out new voices and fresh faces to bring in to the political fray. I’m glad he found me.

There are people in life that are like the flames of a fire. They are spectacular, drawing others to them and lighting more flames until you have a conflagration. They burn hot and fast serving their immediate purpose, but then burn out.

There are others in life who are hot coals. They are the flame-starters. Jerry Corbran was a flame starter. For me, he was my touchstone, listening, advising, helping out at a moment’s notice.  

If greatness is measured by one’s accomplishments in life, then no, Jerry probably wasn’t so great. But if true greatness is, as I believe, measured by one’s faithfulness in life, then Jerry Corbran was one of the greatest men I have ever known. He was faithful to his God and to himself, to his family and to his friends, to his country and to his community.

Jerry fell asleep Sunday, Jan 13^th at the age of 87. His passing is the end of an era. He now awaits the return of his lord. Ours was a friendship that spanned nearly 20 years, though I must admit, he was a better friend to me than I was to him.

There is a poem that epitomizes the life of Jerry Corbran. It is “The Bridge Builder” by Will Allen Dromgoole….

An old man, going a lone highway,

Came at evening, cold and gray,

To a chasm, vast and deep and wide,

Through which was flowing a sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim;

The sullen stream had no fears for him;

But he turned when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

“Old man,” said a fellow pilgrim near,

“You are wasting strength with building here;

Your journey will end with the ending day;

You never again must pass this way’

You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide –

Why build you the bridge at the eventide?”

The builder lifted his old gray head:

“Good friend, in the path I have come,” he said,

“There followeth after me today

A youth whose feet must pass this way.

This chasm that has been naught to me

To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;

Good friend, I am building the bridge for him.”

I shall sorely miss Jerry’s counsel and his patience, but I am thankful he counted me as a friend and I am grateful for the bridge he built for me. He was after all, an engineer!

Visitation will be from 2-4 and 6-8 Thurs Jan 17 at the Corrigan-Deighton Funeral Home, 21900 Euclid Ave. Mass will be celebrated Fri at Sts Robert & William on E.260th.