Analysis Paralysis?

Greetings, BP Neighbors,

On April 28, Steve Bernard circulated an email based on his views, and he provided a sanitation out-source analysis of sorts. Why Mr. Bernard (as a resident of Biscayne Park) felt the need to send out his opinions is not the purpose of this discussion. However, there is a need to correct the numbers, other misinformation, and show why the proposed outsourcing of our sanitation service based on the real numbers makes sense for our Village. As his email was quite lengthy, and for the sake of brevity, I will refer to each “topic point” of any substance and make the proper corrections.

I feel that part of the problem for Steve was that he chose not to attend either of the WastePro workshops, or gather any other information directly from the source. That would have been the proper time to ask questions and voice any concerns. This not only put him personally at a disadvantage, but it also potentially misled those on his email list.

For starters, his introduction was incomplete. What was left out was that during the meeting (April 1, 2014) our Manager was also tasked to provide a side-by-side analysis of the outsourcing proposal vs. keeping our sanitation service in-house (see below for comparison). This has now been completed, and I will quote directly from those numbers. This will remove any guess work, misinformation, and other incorrect assertions. 

#1- Qualifying the Bid: There were mistakes in the administrative fee numbers and others, but this is somewhat understandable as Steve was not privy to the correct data at the time of his writing. However, his assertion of faulty math (mentioned throughout his email) in trying to suggest that WastePro’s bid is too low for their services is totally incorrect. What was ignored (directly or indirectly to support his opinion) was the simple fact that our contract in essence is a cost share with WastePro's other customers.  We only have to pay them for the two days’ work they do in the Village. Not a hard concept to grasp once you understand it for what it is.

#2- Administrative Fee ($145,522 or $189,936) Incorrect: See above. The correct administrative fee is $84,475.00 or a 42% decrease from the previous year if we outsource. The proposed in-house administration fee is $132,136.00 / $134,334.00 Note Manager's report.

#3- Franchise Fee: Mistake and an incorrect assumption. This is NOT a fee “charged to our residents” but a fee absorbed and paid by Waste Pro to the Village for any unrestricted use.

#4- Math: See above for the correct Administrative fee. This is not an “either/or situation” and Steve should know better as a previous commissioner. We will still allocate staff to handle some sanitation requirements and ALSO receive the proposed Franchise fee from WastePro. Again, see the Manager's report for details. #4b- Of course, any additional recycling will reduce our tipping fees and is exactly the same concept regardless of who performs the service. It was a reach on his part to suggest an in-house advantage that makes no sense.

#5- Real Numbers: See above correction as stated in #1. If approved, we will have a contract that guarantees both performance and rates with a no opt-out clause. Another incorrect assertion made by Steve. The rest of his opinions provided are simply irrational. We are not “at the mercy” of anyone… including WastePro.

#6- Resident Requests: This issue should be based on what is in the best long-term interest for our Village… period. What Steve omitted is that according to our Audited Financial Statement (no secret or hidden information and easily found on the Village’s website), over the past 10 fiscal years our Village has had a deficit in 8 of those 10 years!
http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/CAFR_FY_2011-12.pdf  page 69/70.

Our General Fund in 2003 =$1,377,604. In 2012 =$537,078. This is a loss of $840,526 over 10 fiscal years. How is this sustainable? It is irresponsible to attempt to manipulate sentiment to try to hide these proven facts. THIS IS THE VERY REASON WE NEED TO LOOK INTO ANNEXATION AND OUTSOURCING. You do not need to be a major in finance to see the truth of the above numbers and the critical need to increase revenues and reduce expenditures.

#7- Working, Appreciated Service: A personal opinion and as such is irrelevant. Steve’s biased comments on that “our employees hired by Waste Pro would be fired by the time the ink dries on the contract” is both unfounded and absurd. Further, the math does indeed work; see #1 again to illustrate how a professional sanitation company can use its economy of scale to benefit our small Village at a reduced price. 

One of the two most preposterous and ridiculous concepts in his entire email is the imaginary idea that having “our guys” is some major factor in community safety.  There have been only two cases of a PW or sanitation worker reporting any safety issue, and they were issued from the same worker. And that employee is no longer working for the Village. So facts simply do not support this statement. To suggest that Waste Pro employees (remember they want to hire “our guys” with a 45%-65% raise) staff would be “less loyal, less capable, less caring people (that are not hired to our standards)," is ludicrous. This clear attempted scare tactic coming from a former commissioner is unacceptable.  

Hurricane Cleanup: The Village has an outside contract in place in the event of a hurricane. Steve should know this and is yet another misstatement. WastePro also will assist per their contract.

#9) The Sky is not falling? Incorrect, misleading, and another false assertion. Again, see #6 above for the financial truth of our dwindling reserves and budget shortfalls.

The other preposterous statement from Steve is that some data “have not been publically revealed and are somehow being kept secret.” Let me put this fear to rest by simply suggesting to go to the Comprehensive Financial Report and read it for yourselves. http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/CAFR_FY_2011-12.pdf

Draw your own conclusions. There are no secrets being kept from you.

Now Finally to the REAL NUMBERS based on the updated Manager's Report:

Waste Pro’s Projected Solid Waste Assessment

October 1, 2014 $432.00 (includes a one-time fee to purchase new recycle containers)

October 1, 2015 $366.00

October 1, 2016 $385.00 (with maximum 5% adjustment per contract)

October 1, 2017 $405.00 (with maximum 5% adjustment per contract)

October 1, 2018 $426.00 (with maximum 5% adjustment per contract)

Proposed road and storm water assessment beginning October 1, 2015

Road and Storm water Assessment= $230.00

Total Annual Non-Ad Valorem Assessment $662.00 ($432.00 + $230.00)

Based on the terms of the WP contract, the estimate annual revenue to the Village is as follows:

Contractual Obligation                                        Revenue

Franchise Fee                                                    $38,893.00

Special Events Donation                                    $5,000.00

Recycling Rebate                                               TBD

Solid Waste Avoidance Rebate                          TBD

Total Estimate Annual Revenue:                   $43,893 plus rebates

BP Projected Solid Waste Assessment (4 options)

$689-$755 per residential unit annually (59% to 75% higher based on year 1) 

BP Proposed road and storm water assessment (again, 4 options)

$919.00- $985.00 per residential unit annually (39% to 49% higher)

So to conclude with this corrected analysis, by keeping our sanitation service in-house each resident unit should expect to pay $689.99- $755.00 or 59% to 75% more in higher taxes.

If the proposed road and storm water assessment is passed (October 1, 2015) add $230.00 annually per residential unit which increases the tax to $919.00- $985.00 or 39% to 49% in higher taxes.  

As listed above, under the same road and storm water assessment (+$230.00) the WastePro assessment would increase to $662.00 per residential unit annually. This is a savings of again 39%-49% compared to BP in-house fees.

For those yesterday asking for backup as to the mistakes and misinformation contained in his email, hopefully this has provided you with what you were looking for. Should you have any additional questions, please leave them in the comment section below.

Milton Hunter

Biscayne Park Resident

Dammit! This is SO Frustrating!!

On Monday night, April 28, Steve Bernard sent the following e-mail to his flock (my comments follow):

Good Evening Everyone,

On April 1, 2014 a majority of the Commission passed a Motion to direct the Manager to
proceed with Contract Negotiations with Waste Pro to outsource (and therefore dismantle)
our Sanitation Department.

They will be making their final vote to out-source on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, at which point 
they will theoretically have a negotiated contract to approve, as well as an estimate to 
keep Sanitation in-house.

As an architect and contractor, I review and qualify bids and budgets on a regular basis,
and I felt that some important facts have not yet been conveyed to the public. My analysis
is based on available public facts and my own experience, and my purpose is to share my
observations of the data - even though there are still questions left to be asked and
answered. Anyone (including our Commissioners) could have come up with this analysis
if they chose to, and I have provided the source material at the end of this email... as 
always, I am willing to make myself available by phone or email to articulate further any 
part of this analysis. 

I would apologize for the length, but it’s a complex issue, and a lot is riding on the May 6, 
2014 vote… the following is my assessment of why I think it’s a very bad idea to out-source
our Sanitation Department:

#1 – Qualifying the Bids:

a.  WASTE PRO BID

In the simplest of explanations, the Waste Pro Bid is $388, 932. (1)

Subtract from that the following hard costs:

Tipping Fees (2)                                           $183,340  

Recycling (3)                                                $   46,728  

Gas & Oil (4)                                                 $  16,620  

The Subtotal for these items that

must be paid, no matter who does it is:    $246,688

The difference Bid and hard costs is:      $144,244   

Therefore, Waste Pro says that they will perform their Contract (not including the above
hard costs) for $144,244. This amount must cover Employee Costs, Management,
Overhead, AND profit, not to mention a CEO's salary.

b.  BP SANITATION COSTS

The total BP Sanitation Enterprise Fund Budget is $733,178.  (5)

Subtract from that an “Administrative Fee”              $145,522   (6)

(I’ll get to this later)

Subtotal for Total Budget:                                            $587,656

Subtract from that the following hard costs:

Tipping Fees (2)                                                       $183,340  

Recycling (7)                                                             $   35,000  

Gas & Oil (4)                                                              $  16,620  

The Subtotal for these hard costs:                        $234,960

The difference Budget and hard costs is:                       $352,696 

 c. ANALYSIS:

Waste Pro will supposedly do for $144,244 what BP has been doing for $352,696.
This is $208,452 (about 40%) less than what we’ve been doing for years.

The cost for our 7 full time employees ALONE is $264,688. Waste Pro says they will hire
our employees and give them raises and better benefits, but how can they do that with only
$144,244 to spend on employees plus overhead plus profit?

d. Other Bids  (1):

There were a total of 3 bids for the option to retain current services:

Waste Pro -  $388,932.

Southern Waste Systems - $383,013,

Republic Services - $534,257. This is $145,325 more than Waste Pro and $53,400 less
than BP’s Budget without Admin Fees.

Which is more realistic, Waste Pro’s savings of $208,452 or Republic’s savings of $53,400
on an adjusted total of $587,656?

#2 – Administrative Fee ($145,522 or $189,936):

a. Current “Admin Fee” Amount - It’s $145,522 (6), and it’s a pretty big chunk of money.
Supposedly it’s to ‘pay back’ the Village for various Administration time. In reality, it’s just
a thinly veiled means to transfer money from the Sanitation Enterprise Fund (which is
supposed to be "Money in, Money out) to the General Fund. When it first was proposed in
2009, it was $50,000  (7) and it has only grown from there… because it’s probably legal,
as long as we provide a half-way reasonable breakdown of what it’s for – which
Administrator puts in how much time for how many Sanitation workers, etc. (8)

b. Proposed “Admin Fee” Amount: - It’s shown as $189,936 in the Proposed In-House
Estimate (9), an increase of $44,414. Is this because after out-sourcing, our Administrators
will somehow be doing MORE work to Administer Sanitation? Of course not, it’s part of the
plan to shift money from our Sanitation Fund to our General Fund.

If we outsource, we no longer pretend that there can legally be an “Administrative Fee”.
Which means we lose that $145,522. Or that $189,936. And for what? For a Franchise Fee.

#3 – Franchise Fee ($60,000):

Not included in the Waste Pro Bid, but what will likely be included in the Contract is a
Franchise Fee. This is a fee that Waste Pro will charge our Residents, that will then be add
ed to our General Fund Revenue. It’s legal, and it’s common, and it’s a
less-than-transparent way to get Residents to pay more into Village General Fund
Revenues.... and you will pay every penny of it, so it’s not like Waste Pro is gifting it to us.
So how much is it worth? The Document handed out at the Workshops (10) says it can be
between 10 and 20% of the Contract, so if we use a 15% rate, we’re talking about $60,000.
(388,932 x .15 = $58,339).

#4 – Math:

A $60,000 Franchise Fee is much less than a $145,522 Administrative Fee, and even
more less than the proposed $189,936. If we outsource, we can get the Franchise Fee,
but what about that larger Administrative Fee?

#4 a– Math for Non-Sanitation Funds:

According to page 16 of the Workshop Document, there’s a line item for one option called,
“Reserve For Future Stormwater, Roads & Other Capital Projects”, in the amount of 
$163,548. It seems to be a way to balance out the current rate of $572 per resident per 
year, and might be done as an additional fee to the residents. 

What this does is maintain the existing yearly resident Sanitation fee, because of the 
supposed savings of Waste Pro's low bid... but if those savings don't materialize, the 
amount would go lower. I do not know how the mechanism would practically be done, or 
even if it is a yearly fee, but it might be as a special assessment that theoretically could be 
done with or without out-sourcing Sanitation.

#4 b – Recycling/Environmental Math

As long as we keep our own Sanitation service, we have the ability to increase our
Recyclables at no extra charge, which reduces the tipping fees for ourselves. What we
have now (with the proper education and procedures) can be good for the environment
and good for our pocket book. I do not know if Waste Pro offers us that same opportunity.

#5 – Real Numbers:

Because Waste Pro’s bid shows they will do the same work, INCLUDING Employee costs,
Administration, Overhead AND Profit for $144,244, as compared to BP’s $352,696,
someone (Waste Pro) is either very low, or the BP Budget is very high.

Or, more likely, we are looking at both - Waste Pro is likely low to win the bid, and the BP
Budget is higher that it should be.

a.  What’s the problem with a low bid?

Have you ever hired a contractor because he gave you the lowest price, but it later turned
out that he couldn’t perform the work for the price he had quoted -- after you’ve committed
to him and spent money to hire him? What happens if the service is substandard (because
of their lowball bid)? What if we can’t afford the next bid? What if Waste Pro, knowing we
have no choice, decides to terminate our contract for a better one, or if they get bought out?
Once we out-source, we lose our facility, our employees, our equipment, our trucks…
never to be created again. This puts us at the mercy of the contract fees from other Waste
companies, including Waste Pro.

b.  What’s the problem with a high budget?

We’re seeing it right now. It’s being used as an excuse to out-source, even though a close
look at our budget shows costs that aren’t being used for Sanitation, and not enough
Maintenance expenses to keep up our trucks and equipment. It’s bad business to inflate
numbers, just so the General Fund can be increased.

Here’s a simple bit of math that doesn’t add up: In 2009, the total Sanitation budget was
$738,190, with the Admin Fee being $50,000. Five years later, the Sanitation budget is
$788,178, and the admin fee went up to $145,522. Why did the budget increase by only
$50,000 while the Admin Fee increased by about $100,000? Clearly, because it was an
artificially high budget.… and yet there’s no money set aside to maintain and repair 
the trucks.

Keep that in mind that when the numbers come out to show "how much higher" keeping
our Sanitation service in-house and intact will be... and remember that what was artificially
high before will continue to be artificially high, maybe even to skew the data into proving
that we 'must' outsource. As it is, we already know that the new Admin Fee is set to be
$189,963, or $44,414 more than it currently is. (9) Why?

#6 – Resident Requests:

By a margin of about 24 to 4 at the last Commission Meeting, residents were against
out-sourcing. The Commission voted to proceed anyway. It may be a tradition for
Commissioners to ignore requests from Residents, but why do it when the math doesn’t
prove it, and the Residents are so clear about it? How many will show up AGAIN, to
express their displeasure? Seriously, how many times does someone have to take the
time to go to a public meeting, only to be ignored, before they stop going? And when they
don’t show up at the final one, the Commissioners will look around and say, “gosh, no one
is opposed to this”, let’s out-source. Or Annex. Or anything else that most people don't
want, but not might be aware of or don't have the time to continue attending meetings.  

#7 – A Working, Appreciated Service :

Ask yourself if you’ve had any problems with your garbage and trash pickup. Ask your
neighbors. As a Commissioner, I can recall only one or two complaints, and they were due
to the timing as proscribed by the Commission, not the work our men did. Ask our
employees if they are confident that after they are hired by Waste Pro they will be able to
stay longer than the time it takes for the ink on the Contract to dry. I've heard some 'concern'
 from those that want to outsource that Waste Pro will pay them more, treat them better,
give them better benefits... but how, if the math doesn't allow it? In any case, our
employees are very much not in favor of not working for Biscayne Park directly, so the
concern you're hearing ought to be taken for what it is - one more push to out-source.

Because our employees have been loyal and watchful for many years, and that loyalty
equates into a feeling of community and safety. And if (or when) our employees get fired
from Waste Pro, there will be less loyal, less capable, less caring people (that are not hired
to our standards) are coming into our Village and our backyards.

And that's not even mentioning Hurricane Cleanup - if we have our own forces, we know
clean up is at least partly within our control... will Waste Pro guarantee that Biscayne Park
will be a priority?

#8 – A Real Analysis:

If you get a chance, ask those Commissioners who voted to proceed with Contract
Negotiations if they did their own analysis of these bids before they voted. If they are
willing to put in writing that they want to charge you an Administration Fee for an outsourced
 Sanitation program, or for Road and Storm Water through a Sanitation fee. Ask if they did
the math, and looked at the downside of out-Sourcing. Because this seems pretty much
like their approval to Annex – only looking at the upside, denying there’s any 
downside. Just ask them why they think Waste Pro can do a decent job for $200,000 less
us, when the next highest bidder is $150,000 more than theirs.

Do we need one or two new trucks? Should we buy outright or lease/purchase or borrow
for 5 years or 10? Do we count both new truck costs and depreciation? Do we have the
proper number of employees? According to that Admin Fee, there's a whole lot of money
going to non-Sanitation salaries, what happens we no longer can charge Sanitation fees?
There's been no real analysis or budget discussed yet, and to approve a contract now is
more than premature.

#9 – The Sky is NOT falling:

If you got this far, you will see that outsourcing will likely COST  the Village General Fund
Money, even though those pushing so hard to do this claim it will MAKE the Village Money.
 This is why they want to do this, to bolster the Village General Fund. They aren’t doing
it because we don’t like our Sanitation Service, or that people are complaining about our
rate of $572 per year… it’s pure money. And why?

a. We’re Going BROKE!!! No, not necessarily, that’s just what you’re being told. The data
has not once been publically revealed, and the sources and assumptions made are as
equally secret. What I was shown by the Manager is that in 5 years, we may have about a
$150,000 deficit. No sources, no references, no data as to why, just a chart showing that
number. But you know what? Our budget (11) is $2,329,231. So saying that in 5 years we
will be down $150K is like saying that we’re losing 6.4%, or 1.3% a year. And this is based
on non-proved sources… so why are we moving forward with Annexation and Dismantling
our Sanitation for 1% a year? If this was your household budget, and someone told you
(without a shred of proof) that you’d be bankrupt in 5 years unless you sold off your assets
today, would you do it without a full analysis? How about if all you had to do was find 1%
of your income in savings each year…. would you still do it?

b. Our Reserves are dwindling down to nothing!!! Again, not really. You’ve heard this,
but you’ve never been shown it. You’ve never been told WHY our reserves have gone
down… an important part of any financial analysis. I’ve asked, and haven’t gotten an
answer, but I can say that as a Commissioner for 4 years, the only reasons we’ve spent
reserves is due to old Worker’s Comp claims, not operational funding. So this Commission
moves forward with Annexation and Out-sourcing, but hasn’t addressed those old
Worker’s Comp Claims? Do they even know what we’ve spend the reserves on?

c. There are many options available - if we outsource, if we don't... decisions still must be
made, but they must be made with facts. Will outsourcing be less expensive? Maybe, at
least in the short term... but is that the long term view our long term residents want? Can
we reduce the yearly resident fee without hurting our General Fund? Can we be assured
that our leaders have taken both the good AND the bad into account?

#10 – The Big Picture:

According to this analysis, out-sourcing is a bad idea – it hurts our bottom line, it replaces a
way a known system we all enjoy, and it leaves us no control for the future. If it’s used to
bolster our General Fund, it may fail miserably, and if it’s to save Residents some money
in the short term, it could cost us much more in the long term – because the bids and the
budget don’t add up, literally.

If the goal for all of us is higher property values (and once again, sales are going
significantly up), then in-house service, at least in my opinion, can contribute to that end.
For 23 years, I have enjoyed and appreciated this service, and to watch it go the way of a
more commercial process would be a shame. 

But for those that are concerned about the General Fund, here’s my question for you, and
it’s one I’ve been asking for 7 years – if our Sanitation Budget is inflated, isn’t there a very
good chance that our General Budget is also inflated? I don't believe that out-sourcing is
the way to solve our problems, but I know that demanding actual fact gathering, real
analysis and a zero based budget will take us very far.

If we can resist the urge to try to get something for nothing, and if we can budget what
actually is required and not a penny more, we as a Village can come out better and
stronger than we are right now.

Please let your Commissioners know your thoughts, no matter where you stand on this
issue. Or, stay silent, and watch it happen... it's your choice.

Here are your Commissioner's emails:

David Coviello, Mayor

Email: dcoviello@biscayneparkfl.gov

Barbara Watts, Vice Mayor

Email:  bwatts@biscayneparkfl.gov

Bob Anderson, Commissioner

Email: banderson@biscayneparkfl.gov

Fred Jonas, Commissioner

Email: fjonas@biscayneparkfl.gov

Roxanna Ross, Commissioner

Email: rross@biscayneparkfl.gov

Sincerely,

Steve Bernard

Resident

305-588-6177

ps  Thanks for making it to the end!

(1) Bids begin on pg 167 of the 4/1/14 Agenda - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_COMPLETE_Regular_Commission_Meeting_04_01_2014.pdf

(2) BP Tipping Fees - pg 2 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)

(3) Waste Pro Recycling - pg 192 of the 4/1/14 Agenda -http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Agenda_COMPLETE_Regular_Commission_Meeting_04_01_2014.pdf

(4) BP Oil & Gas costs (if Waste Pro can buy gas for less, it would be offset by the daily
travel to the Village) - pg 2 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)

(5) BP Sanitation Budget - pg 1 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not
online)

(6) BP Admin Fees - pg 3 of the attached 2013-2014 Sanitation Budget (it’s not online)

(7)  BP Admin Fees in 2009 - pg 67 of 09-10 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/2009-10_Adopted_Budget.pdf)

(8) Admin Fee Calculations, pg 89, 2012-2013 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/2012-13_Budget_FINAL.pdf

(9) Increased Admin Fee - pg 14, Estimated Sanitation Assessment to Maintain Village
Services – http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Sanitation_Workshop_03_24_2014.pdf

(10) Franchise Fees, pg 15 & 16 of the” Review of Options for Garbage & Trash Collection
Services Presentation.pdf”http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Sanitation_Workshop_03_24_2014.pdf

(11) pg 4 of 13-14 Budget - http://www.biscayneparkfl.gov/vertical/sites/%7BD1E17BCD-1E01-4F7D-84CD-7CACF5F8DDEE%7D/uploads/Proposed_FY_2013-2014_Budget_09_24_2013(1).pdf

Yes, as Steve acknowledges, it's very long.  I, for one, did make it to the end.  Steve raises
many questions, a few of which are worth answering.  He even makes the rare good point.

Steve has expressly formed an opinion about this matter, he suggests his readers should
join him in adopting his opinion, and he advises his now opinionated readers to contact
Commissioners.  I thought I would save Steve the trouble, so I reached out to him.  He did
not answer the phone, and he did not return my call, although I left a message asking him
to.

Both of the people who sent me Steve's e-mail pointed out the many factual errors and
distortions.  Did Steve refuse to talk to me, because he is already confident that he couldn't
have said anything that was not correct?  Or does he not want to have to examine the
things he said and the foundations that led him to say them?  It appears we won't know.

Steve points out in his e-mail that he has special knowledge and perspective, once having
been a Commissioner himself.  Has he forgotten that in a small neighborhood like ours, it
is neither necessary, practical, nor good politics or good judgment to hide from one's
neighbors?  I suppose that if I said the kinds of things Steve says, I'd want to hide, too, but
because I know I'd react that way, I don't say those kinds of things.

It's really a terrible shame to have someone like Steve skulking around, spewing
nonsense, and stirring up discord.  It's much worse that he likes to do it guerrilla-style.  It
would otherwise be funny that Steve so frequently commented that he didn't know or
comprehend one thing or another, while at the same time, he absented himself from every
one of the meetings and workshops that would have given him exactly the information and
understanding he now complains he lacks.

And he can't even bring himself to talk to me about it.  Well, he has four other choices
among Commissioners.  Maybe he'll talk to them.

Really? Over "Telephone" Poles?

We're all too young to remember the time before telephone poles.  But there was such a time.  No one had a telephone, since they hadn't been invented, and no one got electric power, either.  People had kerosene lamps, and they cooked with wood.  But at some point, people were made a wonderful offer.  No more dangerous and smelly kerosene, and stoves and lots of other things could run off electric power.  All people had to do was flick a switch.  And people could have telephones, so they could easily communicate with others who didn't live within walking distance.  There was a catch, though.  We had to receive the electricity and the telephone connection from wires, and those wires were to be strung up all over town, draped from one large wooden pole to another.  I wonder if anyone was up in arms over the appearance of these impositions, which fouled the view and had that mass of wires on them.  And can you imagine how many trees had to be felled to produce all of those wood poles?  I shudder to think.

But we all got used to it, and we fell in love with the convenience of easy power and easy communication.  I doubt there has been a moment since, when anyone imagined what it would be like to have to do without them.  We do find out from time to time, though, when some event, usually weather-related, interferes with the wires or the poles.  I don't remember any happy campers from the summer and fall of 2005, and we're all still talking about the days and weeks without power and telephones.

Those who bring us the utilities we crave have had more trouble with this than we have.  They're without services, too, and they have the considerable expense and trouble of restoring our services, which, at times like those, we nag them mercilessly to do.  And our suppliers have to figure out how to make repairs quicker, or, better yet, prevent the interruptions.  Our big supplier, FPL, hit on the idea of making more secure poles and better connectors.  The poles are to be concrete, not wood, and they're bigger.  Many of them don't look much bigger, because most of the increased length is buried deeper in the ground than the wood poles are.  They're bigger around, though.  Not huge, by any means, but bigger.  FPL calls this project network "hardening," and it's these poles, more than anything, that make the network harder.  It would take much more force to bring these poles down, or to bring down the wires that rely on them, and the poles last considerably longer.  It costs FPL a lot of money to replace wood poles with concrete poles, but they don't want us to be without power (and we've made it clear to them we don't want to be without power), and they are also trying to save themselves the trouble and expense of repairing or replacing wood poles damaged or brought down by storms.  Problem "solved?"

It turns out it's not quite so simple.  It turns out some of us, although we like the power and the convenient communication, somehow don't like the new concrete poles.  I have no way of knowing whether these people would have been precisely the same people who would have shrieked and catastrophized over the wood poles in the first place, so long ago, but they might have been.  They're certainly shrieking and catastrophizing now.  Word like "monstrosities," and "Oh, God" are heard.  In one case, the reaction was described as "apoplectic."  Over poles that are the same height as the wood poles, light, instead of dark, in color, and somewhat larger around at the bottom.

And it's not simply a complaint about the appearance of these new light color, somewhat-larger-around-the-bottom poles.  Although that is part of it.  They are portrayed as hideously imposing, industrial, non-organic, essentially dehumanizing in their appearance.  I guess that's the equivalent of saying some people don't like them, or prefer the familiar look of the wood poles.  But no, it's more than that.  There are adventitious imaginings, like that these poles will destroy the neighborhood and deflate property values.  And worse, that these poles represent the further dehumanizing domination of the corporate behemoth (that's FPL, the electric company that supplies the cheapest power in the United States) over the plain folk of the small towns of the area.  Municipalities like our little Biscayne Park.  First, like a conquering horde, they crushed us with a Franchise Agreement that gave us nothing (except a reliable income stream) and took nothing from us, and now, they want to prevent us from being without electricity if a hurricane comes.  And their weapon, which is seen by some as being used against us, is poles that are about the same height as the previous ones, light, instead of dark, in color, and a little larger around at the bottom.

Now to be perversely fair to the plaintiffs, they do not believe, or at least they don't say, that the replacement concrete poles are in fact much like the wood poles, except for the color and the circumference at the bottom.  Some of them claim, or claim to believe, or just want others to believe, that the new concrete poles will be much higher than the old wood poles, and sheathed in metal, and strung with very heavy distribution cables.  They invoke images of the poles and lines along 135th Street.  What's curious here is that we already have some of the new poles, and they're not remotely like the poles on 135th Street.  They were installed 2 1/2 years ago.  A few more concrete poles were installed a few weeks ago, and they're nothing like the 135th Street poles, either.  They're exactly the same as the 2011 poles.  So it's a little unclear why the rebels say the poles will be the same as the 135th Street poles, since they're patently very different.  It's even more unclear why, or if, they believe it.  We're left with the unpleasant task of deciding whether these critics are dishonest, or instead, not in touch with reality.  Sort of a no-win problem for all of us.

There is some good news about the replacement poles, apart from the fact that they are not large and imposing after all.  They also, as it turns out, do not decrease property values.  From all indications (the judgment of experts and a review of property assessments), it seems the new poles, and the improved reliability of the electric network, either have no effect on property values, or they increase them.

And concrete is inert.  Wood poles are organic, and they lean, warp, and split over time.  In order to prevent their deteriorating as fast as nature is inclined to dictate, they are treated with various preservatives which are usually toxic and which leach into the ground and ground water.  Not so with concrete.  And for those of us who care about such things, no trees are cut down to make concrete poles.  Concrete poles, seen by some as so unnatural, actually allow us to preserve nature.

So this is all pretty much of a non-issue, except that some of us make a great issue of it.  It's just not at all clear why.

If you want to witness some of the sturm und drang of this non-issue, the May 6 Commission meeting might be a good opportunity.

Let Me Ask You This, Milt. And Brian. And Brad. And You, Too, Anti-Outsourcers.

Milt,

On a few occasions and in a few ways, we have assessed what our neighbors want.  At our first "listening sessions," our neighbors approached a podium, one after another, and pleaded to keep sanitation in house.  It looked to me like 100% of them wanted that.  At the ends of those sessions, we took a secret poll of those who wanted to be polled, and we found that 50% of respondents wanted sanitation in-house, and 50% wanted to outsource it.  We don't know if minds were changed by the content of the sessions, or if different people voted than the people who spoke.

Some of our neighbors wrote to all of the Commissioners.  Obviously, I don't know about the ones who didn't write to all of us.  Of the ones who wrote to all Commissioners, I would say that about 75-80% very much did not want to outsource.

At the last Commission meeting, many of our neighbors spoke openly.  I kept a tab, and about 25 speakers didn't want to outsource, while about 5 did want to outsource.  So about 84% of speakers did not want to outsource.

It seems clear to me that our neighbors have heard what the issues are.  They get it.  They understand that keeping sanitation in house will cost more.  They're willing to pay it.  You might complain that they're generous with your money, but they say they're also generous with their own money.  The only thing they have not offered to do is compensate the Village for the Franchise Fee that outsourcing would have brought us.  But they haven't refused, either.

If what seems like a majority of our neighbors want something, and are willing to pay for it, on what basis do you or we deprive them of it?  Because you or we didn't want what they wanted, or we thought they were wrong, but we got outvoted?  What we don't know is what the real majority of our neighbors want.  We have never heard from the real majority.  As I have said before, I could guess what they might be likely, based on their behavior, to want, but I'm only guessing.  We have to assume that a "majority" has spoken.  That's how elections work.  The majority of voters decide who wins.  Those who don't vote have nothing to say about it.  (And for purpose of discussion, if we polled everyone in the Village, and 84% of all residents wanted to keep the sanitation program in-house, and were willing to pay for it, would you still want to outsource it?  Would you still propose to take it away from the very sizable majority of your neighbors who say they want it and say they're willing to pay for it?)

Fred



Anti-Outsourcers,

As best I can tell, we all agree about one thing.  Well, most of us agree.  We agree that we are trying to save the Village, not only to keep it from failing as an independent municipality, but to build it into a functioning place that meets its proper responsibilities and is a credit and a pleasure to its inhabitants.  It's true that there are some of us who either don't care if the Village fails, or who actively hope it does.  Some seem to be sowing seeds of sabotage.  Their fantasy is that we would fall, but only gently, into the waiting and loving arms of Miami Shores.  We would become the Shores' "Historic Biscayne Park" district.  So the fantasy goes.  But that appears only to be a minority of us, and we can set them aside for a while.

There's another seeming minority I would propose we set aside.  I met some of them when I was campaigning last fall, and the inflammatory issue was whether we should pursue annexation.  When I confessed to those who asked that I not only wouldn't rule out annexation, but I actually thought it was a good idea, some people ended the conversation immediately.  They didn't exactly slam the door in my face, but it was close.  A couple of anti-annexers did have a conversation with me, and they let me know that as far as they were concerned, annexation was out of the question.  Whether it was some concept of its changing the Village, or something simply not articulated, they just wouldn't hear of it.  If I said the future of the Village was at stake, their only suggestion was that we think of some other solution.  They themselves didn't have one, except to economize better.

You like our traditional in-house sanitation service, and you want to keep it.  If someone tells you we have also traditionally budgeted poorly for this service, and that the cost will go up, considerably, you agree to pay more.  Although you also say what the anti-annexation people said: maybe if we economized better, we wouldn't have to charge more, or at least not much more, than we would with outsourcing.  But you've made clear that even if did have to charge a good deal more, you would agree to pay it.

If the sanitation program was entirely self-contained, it might be hard to disagree with you.  You did say you were willing to pay whatever it costs.  But there are two important leaks in the plumbing of this system.  One is the administrative component of the sanitation fee.  This is the part of the sanitation budget that is essentially transferred to the general fund, to cover the estimated proportion of "staff" time that is used to manage the sanitation component of the PW department.  This transfer has gotten some notoriety, in part because your effort to suggest economizing has focused on this fee, about which a number of you complain.  You suggest the administrative fee is padded, and you would like it to be lowered.  But what if you're wrong?  Or what if this transfer is part of what allows the Village to work fiscally?  We still have to pay our administrative employees.  If we don't use the administrative part of the sanitation budget to do it, and we can't raise our ad valorem tax rate much more, don't you jeopardize the whole Village budget?

The other leak is the new influx of unrestricted cash that comes into Village coffers if we outsource.  You have offered to pay what the sanitation program costs, but I don't think you have offered to compensate the Village for the "loss" of this new revenue.  We can't try to preserve this benefit by adding it to the in-house sanitation budget, because everything in that fund has to stay within sanitation.  That part of the advantage of outsourcing would have gone to the general fund, to help us pay for things other than sanitation.  What do you propose to do about that "loss?"

One last question: you have often argued that with an in-house program, the Village has more "control."  In fact, the Village has considerably less control when the program is in-house.  When we own and run the program, we are vulnerable.  If employees don't come to work, or equipment breaks down, we're stuck.  We can't get the work done, or at least not on time, and we incur expenses, either for overtime or for repairs.  If we don't outsource, how do you propose we confront these problems, and the lack of control they present to us?

Fred

Brass Tacks

Well, it’s been a couple of weeks since our last Commission meeting and hopefully we all have taken this time to reflect and gain a better understanding of the outsourcing proposal and most importantly the reasons behind it.

I realize that this “hot potato” issue (and opportunity) is an important step towards securing some degree of financial security and future independence for the Village. With this in mind, I took it upon myself to study the proposal closely and even to visit with Waste Pro’s staff at their office for a tour.  And what I took from that meeting is simply this. We, as a small municipally will never be in a position to provide a similar business model and efficiency platform such as Waste Pro has… regardless of the excess money charged to our taxpayers in an attempt to match their proposal.  And speaking for myself, I have no interest in paying what could be *double the actual cost of the service just to keep it “in-house” or to appease those residents who prefer status quo over fiscal responsibility. And I believe that the majority of our taxpayers will feel the same. Trash and recycle collection is not such a specialized service as to mandate an unnecessary overcharge when you look at it objectively.

But that’s the sticking point for some isn’t it?

*and this does not include the loss of the Franchise Fee paid to the Village by Waste Pro.

In hindsight, it was an error to have the public speak before hearing the Managers recommendation and the reasons behind it. I do believe that many of our residents that did come to this meeting to be heard did not attend the workshops, did not read the Managers recommendation prior to their outcry and have not studied our current financial status. Nope, they just wanted to make their point and then walk away with their fingers lodged firmly in their ears. Sorry, I know this sounds harsh but this is the truth as I and others saw it.

Excerpts from comments made by Jorge Marinoni on April 2: “We had people that had not attended any of the 2 workshops and never heard the manager's presentation coming to the mike to talk and comment on an imaginary situation. If we are not willing to listen and consider to all the points made, then we are wasting our thoughts and energy pursuing imaginary scenarios that have little to do with reality. On top of all that, a lot of our neighbors that were vehemently against this outsourcing option just walked away before they could hear the manager explain all the hard work and research that was done. I respect the opinion of the neighbors that went to the workshop and opposed the outsourcing because they made the effort to get informed and some points raised made a lot of sense. But I didn't like the crowd ganging up trying to bully the commissioners into complying with their feelings. We need cooler minds and smart decisions for the good of our village.”

You know, Harvey Bilt said something during the Meet the Candidate’s night that struck a chord in me and was a pearl of wisdom. He stated and I quote “you’ve got to give in. If you don’t agree, then come up with a solution.”   

So, I ask this to those who oppose the opportunity to add much needed “free use” capital and to reduce our service costs, what is your alternative solution? Let’s look at the numbers again to illustrate what some are willing to walk away from in order to preserve status quo.

1. The Franchise Fee paid to the Village from Waste Pro. For this discussion let’s simply use a 15% figure to be balanced. Based on their proposal this would generate new “ free use revenue” of $58,350.00 annually
2. The elimination of both the eyesore and costs associated with the police trailer.  Cost  $5,500.00 annually
3. The cost associated with outside storage of records. Cost $ 3,204.00 annually
4. If our sanitation service was outsourced, this would free up our remaining PW employees to focus on the maintenance and mowing of the medians. Savings $27,000 annually

Total=$94,054.00

Based on our current reserves and expense factors, we have been told by credible sources that we have 4/5 years left before we run out of money.  It is projected that we will be running $152,000.00 in the red within 5 years. What then?  So, as mentioned earlier … what is your alternative solution? Another benefit we need to consider is not of a financial nature but rather one of safety for our administration staff.  The repurposing the PW building for the police department will not only benefit our administration staff but I feel the police department as well.

Brad Piper brought up some compelling points recently: “I am not sure I understand why this is such a difficult decision? Appeasing those residents that are afraid of any change is not helping this community. WE CANNOT WALK AWAY FROM THE FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE; IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE WHEN OUR COMMUNITY COFFERS ARE DWINDLING. Save $$$ moving the police headquarters (eliminate the trailer, and costs associated) and eliminating the need to build ($$$$$) I am really counting on the commission to be strong enough and show the leadership to get our community back on track. Delaying and avoiding the inevitable is why we are facing this situation right now. Do what's best for our community, make tough decisions, and do it with compassion.” POTENTIAL NEW HOMEOWNERS.... how does the most expensive trash bill in Miami Dade, a virtually maxed out millage rate, and no revenue look to new home buyers? What does this mean to our property values? Not hard to figure out.

And Fred, shame on you to suggest that you would knowingly consider supporting those who have not offered any other viable solutions.  Your role as one of our elected officials is not that of a popularity contest. It would be irresponsible to allow the Village to fall further behind when you have studied the numbers and know the result of inactivity. We cannot forever live in the world of status quo. This is akin to asking our community to follow the sheep in front of us off the edge of a cliff… in this case a financial cliff.

You and the rest of our Commission need to support what is in the best interest of our Village be that a popular decision or not for some.  And that includes making whatever decisions necessary to insure we have an independent Village beyond the next five years. The facts are that few Commissioners and/or residents possess any previous experience of what is required to run a municipality. This is the reason why we hired a professional Manager. We all need to defer to her recommendations and in my opinion, show a greater degree of respect than what was illustrated during the last meeting. And part of her job may indeed be to attempt to protect us from ourselves.

I am reaching out once again to those who still oppose possible sanitation outsourcing with a straight forward question… what viable alternative plan do you have to replace the lost money and benefits to the Village as listed above? As Harvey stated, “If you don’t agree, then come up with a solution.”  

The floor is now yours neighbors. Let’s use this blog as a platform for discussion and to attempt to bring some harmony and mutual understanding to this topic.

 

PS To Our Helping Each Other

You will need some talking points, other than the ones that are obvious to you.  I have met with the Manager and the Assistant to the Manager, and I have numbers for you.

If we buy two new trucks, which is what we need, we can either finance them for five years, or pay for them outright.  If we do the former, and we give our employees raises to match the County's poverty level, our bill will be in the $900s per year.  If we buy the trucks outright, instead of financing them, we can drop into the $800s per year, and add a one time assessment of $250 per home.  The difference is that with the one time assessment, it's $250 once.  With financing, we will each pay $555 over the five years.  So it's much cheaper if we pay it now.  Also, if we chose to lease/purchase, and we later decided it was better for us to outsource, we would be stuck continuing to pay a very high price for trucks we no longer need.  It would be much better if we owned the trucks, so we could sell them.

In addition, there is some question about the raises.  It has been pointed out that our employees have not asked for a raise.  In fact, they seem proud of the fact that they're not asking for a raise.  And we pay them considerably below the poverty level.  These are employees we say we treasure and who say they would sacrifice almost anything to remain Village employees.  I hope I'm not the only person who sees some very curious problems here.  We can save more money if we don't give raises, leaving our bill in the $700s, or the $600s, if we buy the trucks outright.  But could we continue to live with ourselves, now that we know we are abusing our employees?  And what does it mean that our employees claim they don't feel abused and actively resist opportunities of various kinds to make more money?  Something is wrong with this picture, right?

To complete the picture, the adjusted cost of outsourcing is about $400 per year.  That results in reliable service, potentially from the same people who provide it now, an unrestricted influx of between about $40K and about $80K a year, and freeing up the Assistant to the Manager to pursue projects he can't do now.