Your View: A Piqua Stakeholder Talks Trash

A Resident Shares His Ideas on How a Decision Was Made

One of the principles of this publication is that public participation is a foundational aspect of well functioning communities where trust can flourish. And this publication has always had a very open policy when it comes to residents talking about the community issues that matter to them.

Today, a Piqua stakeholder and former resident, Josh Blackshire, has offered to share his ideas on the recent decision by the Piqua City Commission to outsource sanitation services. His comments originally appeared as a facebook message, but his ability to clearly articulate his analysis of how this decision was made is helpful for the public conversation.

Here are his unedited words…

Here's my personal take on all of this... I was at the meeting last night and I was stunned at the outcome. I am not mad that the Rumpke contract passed. I believe in fiscal responsibility and it WAS the fiscally responsible thing to do, provided there were safeguards in place to prevent them from jacking the rates up once they took over operations. It appears those safeguards were in place so the vote made sense.

What didn't make sense, however, was the fact that whether I agreed with it or not, the Rumpke contract was voted DOWN on January 28th at the previous city commission meeting. It was a very narrow vote, 3-2 in opposition. It made zero sense to immediately revisit the issue after the commissioners had spoken with their vote aligning with the beliefs of the people. It was representative democracy at work.

The other interesting item was that on January 28th, Commissioner DeBrosse held up a page from a slide show presentation showing the cost comparisons between keeping sanitation in-house and the Rumpke contract and specifically asked Brian Brookhart, "Have any of these numbers changed?" Brian's response was, "No." These discussions have been taking place over the past several months regarding the sanitation department, mind you. Commissioner DeBrosse pointed out that by 2030, Rumpke would be $168 cheaper per year on your utility bill. That's $14 a month.

So last night, on February 4th, those numbers were different on the rate increase agenda item. The current refuse rate is $22.38 a month. By 2027, the refuse rates they were requesting would be $48.88 a month. So if they were showing a $14/mo increase by 2030 previously, why were they now showing a $26.50 increase by 2027. Things that make you go, HRMMMM???????

After all those months of discussions and being questioned 7 days prior, those numbers hadn't changed...but shoot, they sure changed after that contract they really wanted got voted down!

But it gets better!

The administration then states that those rates aren't guaranteed either (what happened with all that financial software they HAD to buy to make better budgetary forecasts?) and may not even be able to save the sanitation department. In fact, the department may not even be able to continue providing service soon. Why?

Because after the Rumpke contract was voted down, guaranteeing that sanitation service would remain to be provided by the City of Piqua, the city staff publicly posted the jobs they were supposedly saving for their sanitation employees to transfer into. So what happened then?

3 of the 4 full-time sanitation department employees applied for those positions so they didn't end up getting transferred to "whatever was left" or terminated should the department cease to exist. Anyone want to place bets on whether they were encouraged to bid on those open positions...seems awful suspicious that the moment you're notified your job is safe, 75% of the department applies for a transfer. So now the administration is explaining that as of noon on Friday, the sanitation department would have 1 full-time employee remaining in the department and were unsure if they could continue providing services. Hiring replacements would take approximately 6 months to get the people hired and trained to begin providing the service you would expect. The commissioners were clearly beginning to get uneasy about all of this. So since option 1 had to be an ordinance, it required 3 readings for passage. They treated it as a first reading, then moved onto option 2 which was a resolution and could be voted on immediately. The Rumpke contract.

During public comment, the people still spoke up against the Rumpke contract. I personally hosted polls in both of the community groups I admin. Again, whether I agree with them or not, both polls showed 7% support for the Rumpke contract. Opposition ranged from 87-91% depending on which group you looked at. One resident in particular then came up and asked the question (paraphrasing here), "If this contract gets approved, will the next agenda item be null and void?" The next agenda item was to dissolve the sanitation department still, but allow the residents to choose their own carrier whether it be Rumpke, Waste Management, or another private hauler. The commission response was that they were being presented with all 3 options at the same time so all 3 would be heard.

So the commission holds a vote and one commissioner switches his vote from opposition to support versus the exact same vote a week prior. Okay, they convinced him the crisis required serious reconsideration and he decided dissolving the sanitation department might be the best idea after all.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

The remaining option is asked to be read and the city manager immediately says (again, paraphrasing), "We would like to withdraw this item from the agenda."

At that point, it became blatantly obvious what had just happened. They had no intention of keeping the sanitation department in house and they also had no intention of ever letting anyone opt out of using Rumpke. It is my opinion that they very cleverly orchestrated the entire chain of events to occur in order to force a re-vote on the Rumpke contract. They presented a list of alternative options to make it appear like they were exploring all available options, but they made sure to post those jobs so that the department jumped ship leaving only two viable options and then by withdrawing one of the two, boom, they end up with the contract they wanted all along.

But it's not the end result I am upset about. It is the complete violation of public trust and the huge slap in the face to the citizens that has completely pissed me off. The citizens said, "We want to keep things in house and we'll even accept paying more for it if that's what it takes." The commissioners voted that way, which in my opinion was surprising because it wasn't the cheapest option, but they listened to their constituents. The administration on the other hand basically said, "Nope... that's not going to happen. We're going to make this happen next week. We have a plan." And they circumvented the citizens' desires, fabricated a crisis and then proceeded to create a situation that allowed for a re-vote.

The commissioners ask people to show up to meetings because they want to hear them... but why? Why bother to show up if the city management will just orchestrate a scheme to force the commissioners' hands whenever they don't get their way? Why waste your time getting involved in city politics and attending these meetings if your opinions only matter when the city's management agrees with them. Who works for who again? I forget... because last night, the city commission definitely just showed us that they are ok with the administration controlling them. The most disturbing part of it all was that the commissioners didn't even act upset or call him out for it. They let it happen and then proceeded to act like it was no big deal at all.

At best, it was dishonest, unethical, and not in the least bit transparent. At worst, it may have been malfeasance and/or a violation of fiduciary duties.

The most disheartening part of it of all, is overall, our city manager is NOT a bad city manager. Piqua as a whole is better today than it has been in quite some time, but the morale is at or very near an all-time low because there is NO public trust in our administration or our city commission. It shouldn't be that way. So no matter how good our administration may be, if there is no public trust and no sense of community pride, then it means nothing. And in my opinion, the only way we can move forward and begin to heal is to respectfully tell Paul Oberdorfer it is time to pack his bags and move on.

But the only way we can do that is to convince our city commission to grow some balls and take action.

It's funny how we have leash laws for dogs, but the commission can't even keep their own dog on his leash.

Thank you for your submission, Josh.

What Do You Think?

Our paid subscribers are more than welcome to share their thoughts in the comment thread. Of course, longer pieces are always welcome. If you want to share your thoughts without the limits of word counts and paywalls, you can always send your writing to pinnaclestrategiesltd@gmail.com and it will be run in a future edition of Civic Capacity.

Check out our New YouTube Channel!

Our goal with the Civic Capacity YouTube Channel is to be a centralized location where residents can watch videos of local government meetings in action and also provide comments and insights. You can check out the channel here!

You Can Help Support This Work!

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!