These emails detail problems with Sacramento County during November 1999.
Utility Bill screwup; County web site; 875-5555; Neighborhood Trashing Program
 

This is part 1 of 2 parts.    Click here for part 2.

Don't miss the pictures below!

Roger,

You already know about my experience with the County Garbage truck murdering my mailbox. About me letting the Garbage truck driver go rather than exercising a citizens arrest because of his moving vehicle violation with property damage and leaving the scene of an accident. Next time I'll do better. I'll get the County employee cited if I can. You know about how much trouble I had getting my mailbox claim handled. You know I was out money and my time to correct irresponsible action of a County employee. You know I was given commitments that were ignored. You opted to do nothing even though you were continually advised in a timely manner.

That's over. I have new material. More County irresponsibility.

On Saturday, November 6, 1999, My mother-in-law, who also lives here in Rio Linda, received two bills from the County of Sacramento Utilities. Later that day I found that I also received two such bills for my residence. My bills confirmed her problem.

The first bill she received was for the bill period from August first through September 30th. It covered Garbage, Sewer, and Drainage and was for $69.22. The bill stated that "Payment must be received by October 25, 1999". The delinquent Date was shown as October 25, 1999, twelve days before she received the invoice from you.

On the back of the bill, it says "Charges unpaid at the due date become delinquent, and shall incur a penalty charge of 10%. The delinquent amount shall thereafter incur an added penalty charge of 1.5% per month until paid or placed on the Property tax bill.

Wait a MINUTE! You sent this bill to arrive TWELVE days AFTER the delinquent date! This bill should have been received TWO MONTHS ago, when she would have had $69 available to pay the bill. Instead, it is tendered NOW, with absolutely NO WAY to pay it on time.

But what really happened? She got two bills in two envelopes, one for $69.22 and one for $142.37. The second one was for the bill period October 1 through November 30. She might have paid them both, had my wife not interceded. The $142 bill included the $69 bill, shown as a "prior balance"!  There was no explanation. This is irresponsible for you to send both of these bills. Apparently you screwed up and didn't send a bill on time, then you sent it plus the next bill in the same mail. You scare her with penalties on one that there is no way it can be paid on time, then you include that amount in the next bill as if it was overdue. Thankfully, a penalty charge was not included in the second bill.

What about the people who pay both bills? You will have received their money under false pretenses and thus you must immediately return the overpayment. It is inappropriate for you to keep this extra money and it must be returned. Either that or you should credit them with an amount equal to the penalty charge you would have extracted from them for a payment two months late. If my mother-in-law had paid both bills, that would be a $9.00 penalty you should assess on yourself and credit to her account.

What about the people who could have paid $69 two months ago, and could pay $69 now, but you have now billed them $142? That is unconscionable. They should be granted additional time to pay the amount that is now overdue because of your action. It was your problem that you didn't bill them timely, not their problem.

What about the extra costs for the double mailing? Once you realized you made a mistake, why not send out only ONE bill, with an explanation? Why incur the expense of postage twice, envelope and return envelope twice, invoice twice, and the TWO inserts ("Recycling News" and "Flood Hazard Areas") twice? What did that extra, useless, double printing cost? I paid for it, and I would like to know.

At any rate, I tried to obtain more information. I first called 875-5555, the number on the bill. As it was Saturday, the recording said that the office was closed and for "past due bills" I should call back between 7am and 5:30pm Monday through Friday.

Then I went to the Sacramento County web site. There was nothing under "Drainage", "Garbage" or "Utilities", so I selected "Departments and Agencies". Again, nothing under "Drainage", Garbage" or "Utilities", so I selected "Department of Public Works Administration". Again, nothing under "Drainage" or "Garbage", but there was a selection called "Consolidated Utility Billing" which included "Inquiries on County sewer, refuse, water, and drainage billings...", which I selected. Wonderful. Getting closer. A "404" error was returned. "The web server cannot find the file or script you asked for", it said. Very much like my past forays into the County web presence; lots of fluff but no substance. A dead end. Nothing found. No information on WHY I received two bills or what to do about them.

Why, Roger, do you spend the money on the County web site if you won't do it right? This is ridiculous. Money just thrown away. You need to get competent people to run the web site and stop wasting our tax dollars.

On Monday I called 875-5555 again. After pressing 4 for a "billing related item", it disconnected me, giving me dial tone. I called back, and it told me "We have reached our maximum capacity for incoming calls. Please try your call again."  Then it disconnected me, dial tone again.

After 12 attempts with the same recording, I finally got through to a recording that said "If you have received two bills this time period, please use the bill showing a prior balance to pay from. The second bill is an information copy only, please disregard it. You do not need to stay on the line as our wait time is extremely high. Once again thank you for your patience and we will be with you shortly". Then I was disconnected again, listening only to dial tone.

Note that BOTH of the bills received start with a line called "Prior Balance". It seems obvious that the bill that was not sent out timely was included in the second bill, but the first bill also shows the "Prior Balance" from the previous bill AND shows the timely payment of that "prior balance". Obviously, whomever prepared the telephone recording never bothered to even look at a utilities bill. Incompetent.

I tried again. "Sarah" answered. She was WONDERFUL. She explained that they are changing computer systems, and the employees trying to deal with your constituents had no computer access for a month. Then, when the new computer came up no one realized that two bills went out at the same time until customers started calling. She told me that the recording I heard was written by her supervisor, Anna Dyson, who had taken the day off (Monday). Sarah wasn't aware of the wording of the recording, which she agreed was not accurate. She said the "new computer system went haywire". That's somewhat different from the recording!

Why couldn't the recording say "we screwed up, please pay only the larger of the two bills you received"? I could deal with that, as can most folks. Don't patronize us with the stupid "information copy" lie! If it was only an information copy why did you pay postage on it AND put in the two printed stuffers, "Recycling news" and "Flood Hazard Areas" in both envelopes? This was a VERY EXPENSIVE error, and it would be better received if acknowledged as such. "Information copy"? Give me a break. It was a stupid mistake by whomever coordinated the computer changeover, admit it!

Please tell us about this situation at your community meeting Tuesday at the Community center. Your constituents await your explanation.

Roger, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT 875-5555? YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOU.  Have you ever called 875-5555? Try it. That is what you expect us to do, you should try it yourself. On a Monday.

And don't forget the unbelievable mess you call a "County Web Site".

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

I appreciate you bringing everyone out to meet with us last evening. I'm sorry you had to leave when you did, but that was certainly understandable. I didn't agree with many of Mayor Serna's positions, but he made his points with honor and never changed his story. His loss will be felt for a long time.

Don Lockhart and Dan Regan from solid waste made some very strong statements about how the neighborhood cleanup was to be handled. I was especially pleased to hear the strong statements from Don.

However, tonight I HAVE A PROBLEM.

Based on the encouragement from Lt. Devlin, when my wife observed a pickup with a trailer dumping trash at the north end of my property, just south of 6931 Second Street (my address is 6851 Second Street), I grabbed my camera and drove up there to confront the violator.

I found my neighbor, from 6930 Second Street, was the culprit! I confronted him, and he told me that he was doing exactly what the County had told him to do. He called in this morning (Wednesday) and told the person he talked to that his property had ditches which were not conducive to placing trash. He was told to "put it anywhere you can as long as it is safe". He was NOT told that it had to be in front of his property on the same side of the street!

This is exactly the issue that I worked with Dan Regan to correct, and the doorhangers were redesigned as a result. The doorhangers clearly state that the "Materials must be placed out for collection as follows: IN FRONT OF YOUR RESIDENCE AND ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET" (copied from the doorhanger I received June 4, 1998). Those exact words are the ones I suggested to Dan on April 15, 1998! They were suggested for EXACTLY this reason.

Knowing this, I asked my neighbor if he had received a notice, as I have not received one. He said that he had not received a notice, and that he had to call to find out when the pickup was scheduled. He told me that he was told the trash would be picked up Friday.

I explained to him that the County person was in error, but as he was told to dump by the County, I did not demand that he remove his trash.

I explained to him that if someone is injured, they will sue me, not him. I explained to him that if glass is broken that the County won't pick it up, I will have to do it. I explained to him that if there were things the County won't take, it's up to me to dispose of it. I also told him that I believed the County was in error telling him that the pickup was scheduled for Friday, as I know I will get at least a week's notice according to Don Lockhart. I explained to him that tomorrow, especially because it's a holiday, will draw scavengers and his trash will attract additional dumping.

I tried to reach Dan Regan, but he was not there, and I left a message on his phone. I tried to reach 875-5555 but I received a recording that the office is closed and I should call back between 7am and 5:30pm, Monday through Friday.

Tomorrow is Veterans Day. I have no idea what luck I will have trying to reach anyone.

Roger, you arranged to have a County installed sign on my property, about 400' south of where my neighbor was dumping, that says there is a $1000 fine for dumping. You did this for me after repeated complaints from me about this same exact problem. It was installed (SR47) on July 1, 1997 and was changed out for a different, much easier to understand, sign earlier this year. If you recall, Tom Braun from Traffic engineering originally visited and recommended two signs, one to be exactly where todays dumping took place. His supervisor, Steve Stosich, denied the recommendation, but after repeated calls to Rob Hill ONE sign was finally installed.

Karen Ziebron, your Chief of Staff, will remember our telephone call on February 12, 1996 (she was working on a Holiday) when I told her of additional dumping and spreading by scavengers. She agreed I had done everything I could do, and said she would try to get an immediate pickup for me, even though it was a holiday. During her call, in jest I said that the next thing dumped would be a washing machine. We both laughed, but within hours there was a washing machine AND a stove dumped.

Please review my detailed letters to you on February 3, 1995 and April 22, 1997, about this matter. If you recall, I gave you the April 22, 1997 letter on the day you presented me with the "Citizen of the Year" award. That letter asked for resolution of the 6:45am rude awakening I got that day from a phone call from a Solid Waste supervisor, Mr. Buelna, who suggested I should call my County Supervisor to complain. Little did he know that that was the day I was on the Board agenda. He was calling to respond to my complaint that the pickup had been accomplished before schedule, and I was unable to put out my refuse.

I would like to see the County employee that told my neighbor where to dump fined $1000, based on the sign. The County employee is the guilty party here, but again I have no recourse against County employees, and my time and effort to mitigate this problem, including cleaning up after the County, is not reimbursable. Why bother with signs? Why bother with rules and regulations?

Roger, I expect the trash to be picked up FRIDAY, as committed by the County employee. Further, I expect another trash pickup, after I have a notice that gives me a weekend to stage my branches and trash that I would like to have picked up. This timing was explained by Don Lockhart Tuesday night.

Based on my past experience, I suspect the County employee didn't know WHERE on Second Street my neighbor lives, and I suspect the schedule was improperly interpreted.

Why me?

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

Many alternatives were discussed at your meeting Tuesday about the Neighborhood Cleanup. What I heard was strong support for the coupon system. That is, each resident would get a coupon as part of the utility invoice which would be redeemable at the transfer station or at Kiefer. This would keep the trash off our streets.

I would like to offer my idea on this issue.

First, here's the rates at the Roseville Road transfer station, which apply to us in Rio Linda. I got these today by calling the recording at 363-5330. The recording says the rates are "as of July 1, 1997".

Car or Station Wagon $5.00
Van or Sport Utility Vehicle $10.00
Pickup $15.00
All others $44.80/ton with minimum charge of $15.00
First two Refigerators, Freezers, A/C, etc no additional charge Additional such appliances $20.00 each

Second, here's what we pay, as of December 1987: $0.55/mo. This may have been increased, but I am not aware of the change. That is $6.60/year for the Neighborhood cleanup. Nearly $100,000/yr from our area.

If the pickups were eliminated, saving that personnel/equipment expense, then the numbers mean different things. I'll leave that to you to get data from County staff.

I suggest that each Garbage utility payer be given one coupon per year, part of the utility invoice. That coupon must be signed by its owner and then is worth $30 at the transfer station against any charges. If the charges are less than $30, have the transfer station issue a chit for the balance.

The coupon should be transferable. If I hire someone to gather and pick up my trash, then my coupon should be worth $30 to that person at the transfer station or Kiefer. If he picks up trash that would only cost $15.00 at the transfer station to dump, he might do it for "free", paid only by the coupon. If he picks up trash that would cost $30 to dump, then I would pay him more for his services.

This process would create a new and profitable trash pickup and hauling business in Sacramento County, and it would completely eliminate the problems of placing trash on the street. This would be a positive effort toward private trash cleanup services, a boon to the private sector.

Please encourage the "garbage summit" folks to consider this proposal. But it can only work if the "coupon" is like money and is transferrable.

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

Please help!

Here's a follow up on the dumping problem on my property.

At 7:37am today (November 11, Veterans Day) I called 875-5555. The recording said "Our office is now closed. ... Our office will be closed Thursday November 11 in observance of veterans day". Note that yesterday at 5:45pm the recording said that the office was now closed and that I should "call back between 7am and 5:30pm, Monday through Friday" with no reference to the fact that the next day was a holiday.

This morning I note that the refuse pile has at least tripled in size. I took pictures at 8:45am.

On my return from taking pictures I found my "doorhanger" stapled to my mailbox post. It was placed there this morning. It says that pickup is November 17th, not November 12th, as your person at 875-5555 told my neighbor.

Today at 10:30am I attempted to call your office, at 874-5485. After all, on February 12, 1996, a holiday, Karen Ziebron answered the phone, so I thought I would try. Your recorder gave me the option to press zero for the Clerk of the Board, so I tried that, thinking perhaps someone could tell me if Karen was in the office. When I pressed zero, the message was "You have pressed an incorrect key. To disconnect, press 1 ..." Is there anyone in your Communications and Information Technology department that can help resolve your misleading telephone message?

Oh yes, one additional note. In my email yesterday I referred you to letters I sent to you on February 3, 1995 and April 22, 1997, detailing this problem. What I did not mention was your efforts that resulted in a meeting December 19, 1997, with John Abernathy, Dick Lockhart and George Lynch. My letter to you commending these managers was dated December 23, 1997. Be sure to read that for the "other side of the story". Unfortunately, they apparently haven't been able to successfully implement some of the commitments they made to Don Flesch and me at that meeting.

Jay O'Brien

Please review the attached pictures. They show the problem graphically.

Roger,

Please help!

Here's another follow up on the dumping problem on my property.

I took pictures of scavengers at 9:25am, and they left when I asked them if they knew what they were doing was against the law. English was not their native language so there was a communications problem. The pictures are attached for your review.

My neighbor, who was told yesterday by the County to dump "anywhere it is safe" without restricting it to in front of his property or on the same side of the street, came out when the scavengers left. He told me that he "only put out the clippings" and all the rest has been put there by others. He also said that he didn't place any of his "clippings" so that they touched my fence.

My neighbor commented that he received his notice today. Pointing to the street in front of his home, with the ditches, he said "where am I supposed to put my stuff?" and of course I couldn't answer. He got his answer from the County. He said he called 875-5555 yesterday about 9:30am from his celphone and talked to a "lady" who told him where to dump. Yesterday he told me that she had told him the pickup day was Friday, November 12th. The notice says Wednesday, November 17th.

Much of the refuse is material that the County specifically says to not put out. Much of the refuse is piled against my fence, making it subject to damage by the county pickup vehicle. None of the refuse was placed there by me, yet it is all on my property in the road easement.

Roger, I expect this to all be picked up tomorrow (Friday) as my neighbor was told. I also expect a pickup on November 17th for anything I may decide to put out. Please see to this follow-up of committment by your Solid Waste staff.

Can we get another sign installed as Tom Braun originally recommended on April 24, 1997? The sign I have was located by the County worker who installed it. As he was finishing, on July 1, 1997, I asked him why he put it where he did, because it was NOT where it would do the most good. He explained that he put it in where it was shady (it was a very hot day). Braun would have installed one sign near M street and another exactly where today's dumping is taking place. A sign is sorely needed in the "transfer station" area on my property.

Jay O'Brien

Roger,

This is to bring you up to date on the "transfer station" issue. The bad news is that new items have been added this morning (see attached picture). The good news is that positive communications have taken place of which you should be aware. The "right guy" is already involved, as you will read below. Unfortunately, it appears that he won't be able to do anything today, but at least he is involved and concerned.

Dan (Regan),

Thanks for promptly referring my Wednesday evening call to Dick Lockhart.

Dick (Lockhart),

Thanks for your calls this morning. I'm disappointed that it is unlikely you will do a pickup today, and I do not look forward to the confrontations likely to occur over the weekend. I appreciate your commitment to call and get the Sheriff to patrol this location in the next week for dumping violations, as committed by Lt. Devlin at our Tuesday meeting.

Jay O'Brien
991-2010
6851 Second St, Rio Linda

Diary of effort related to unauthorized and unwanted dumping on my property in the 2nd Street road easement:
=======================================================================
I called 875-5555 at 8:13am, and made selection 5. The recording "Due to the new green waste implementation in many areas we are currently experiencing an unusual call volume..." played three times. After only 12 minutes on hold, "John" answered. I didn't get the dreaded "we have reached our maximum number of calls" recording.

John told me that the person my neighbor talked to could not and would not have made the Friday pickup commitment. John said that my neighbor could have been told to "put it where it's safe" but would not have been told that it was permissible to place the trash across the street. John said that he would refer my request for a pickup today to supervision and that I would get a callback from supervision. John was easy to deal with and concerned about my problem. John told me the supervisor is Matt Tedrow. [Note: Tedrow is the same supervisor that was involved with the destruction of my mailbox by a garbage truck on August 16, 1999.]

Almost immediately, at 8:37am, I received a call from Dick Lockhart. Dick called because Dan Regan referred my message to him. Dick confirmed that my neighbor would not have been told what he claims he heard from the person at 875-5555. Dick said that he would check into the situation and get back to me right away. He said he would see if a pickup could be made today so as to avoid leaving the trash over the weekend, which surely will draw additional dumping.

At 8:55am I called Karen Ziebron (Supervisor Dickinson's Chief of Staff) and informed her that Mr. Lockhart was on board and that there was no need for her office to do more than monitor the situation.

At 9:22am Dick Lockhart called again. He reports that it is unlikely that he will be able to get the trash picked up today. He said he would call the Sheriff's office to get specific patrolling of my location to try to head off additional dumping.

/end of message/

Attached picture shows today's newly dumped items. You may wish to compare it with the pictures I sent yesterday.

Roger,

Here's proof of exactly what good a sign does. This was dumped Sunday during the day! A previous picture I sent you that I took Thursday shows the area under the sign to be clear. Most of the wood that was there when I took these pictures this morning is now gone, scavengers at work.

Jay O'Brien

Dan (Regan),

Thanks for your help. I'm attaching a new picture to show what has happened in just the last three hours. Note the commode, dumped right under the sign. Ugh! I didn't look in the bucket.

This Sacramento County "Neighborhood Trashing Program" has GOT TO STOP!

Jay

"Regan, Dan" wrote:

I have forwarded all of your emails and photos to Dick Lockhart and Steve Starks (Detective).  This situation is discouraging to us also.

The Detective assigned to our Division has handled many illegal dumping incidents in Rio Linda which resulted in a number of citations being issued and the towing of cars, trucks and trailers. The Detective has also used the SHARP unit to monitor the area.

It is our hope that the "garbage summit" will lead to effective solutions for illegal dumping.