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.
- 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
- The elimination of both the eyesore and costs associated with the police trailer. Cost $5,500.00 annually
- The cost associated with outside storage of records. Cost $ 3,204.00 annually
- 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.
Agree 100%... the choice is clear to those who have listened to the options and are concerned for the well-being and viability of the village. I hope the commission and staff realize that it's not a popularity contest.
ReplyDeleteHi Brian,
ReplyDeleteYup, me too.
Of Milton's statements, I only take issue with this comment:
ReplyDelete"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" as it is assumed that the Village's landscape and building maintenance personnel already have a full slate of work. It will however free them from the responsibility of assisting the waste guys in the event of an absence in their ranks. It will also free up management to concentrate on things that we need that can't be done now (I sure hope you don't need a listing of these many items). Besides, the outsourced landscape maintenance is more efficient (it costs less) and I am sad to say that at the very least it is no worse than the service we had previously received from our own employees. However, there is room (although currently possibly not the time) for better management of that contract .
I only regret that the Village does not go further in the modernization of the collection system by implementing one arm bandits for at least recycling (there is much evidence of the increases this produces to the amount of recyclables collected - this service could also be reduced to once every two weeks with little negative affect). Commissioner Watts - Consider this as an item to celebrate on our next Earth Day. Adding one armed bandit use for garbage would reduce the amount of small leafy yard debris on the parkways as this type of material could also be added to the garbage bins. We are missing an opportunity to make ourselves truly efficient - why? Why not get a real quote for one armed bandits for Garbage and recycling and the same level and type of service for our yard waste collection. It might be a little more, but apparently we are considering considerably higher costs anyway.
As I have said many times however, don't mess with the type of Yard Waste collection I now receive as this would be an unacceptable reduction in the quality of my services, either requiring more of my labor or more expense in order for the debris to be brought into conformance with size restrictions that might be imposed.
By the way, I am not against paying more, just for paying more for the same service. I will gladly argue for the dollars saved by residents under contracted services to be redirected through appropriate means towards IMPROVING my community in other ways.
Thank you
Dan Keys
Milt,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the people I have theoretically offered to support have not exactly offered viable alternative solutions, per se. What they have offered is their willingness to pay for the service they say they want. If they're really willing to do that, and if enough of their and our neighbors are similarly willing to pay an inflated cost, then that's a kind of viability. It depends, however, on a few things. One is that they not change their minds. Another is that they turn out to be speaking for a majority of their/our neighbors. And the third is that they be willing to pay not only for the sanitation service they say they want, but also that they be willing to pay even more, to compensate the Village for the Franchise Fee the private contractor would have added, unrestricted, to Village coffers. This seems like a lot to ask of the in-house adherents, but if this is what they're willing to do, and if this willingness is sufficiently widespread, I do not feel authorized to take from people what they want and are willing to pay for. Having said that, I do in fact believe that it is not the wisest use of anyone's money to overpay for something. I might take issue with our neighbors having their way with my bank account or yours, but I can't take issue with their seemingly unwise or unnecessary expenditure of their own money.
The other seemingly viable argument made by the in-house adherents, and which would be very supportive of their position, is that keeping this program in house is not as expensive as it has been made out to be, and that with proper management and economizing, it could be not much more expensive than outsourcing. If that were true, I could and would have even less argument. But I don't think anyone's estimation bears out this assertion. I think that at the end of the accounting, keeping the sanitation program in house is simply much more expensive, to achieve the same result, than outsourcing.
To complete the picture, and to be fully fair to the in-house adherents, their other stated concern is that employees who are Village employees care specifically and personally about the Village and its residents. They literally look out for us. Employees of some outsource contractor, like WastePro, are imagined not to care about the Village, or its residents, and even to be predatory, staking out properties that are ripe for theft or vandalism. The suggestion is made that these uncaring workers would simply pass along to confederates which houses to rob. Perhaps mine is not much of a counter-argument, but I simply don't believe it. I wouldn't believe it about very busy sanitation workers any more than I believe it about the UPS guy, the FedEx guy, or the mail carrier. I wouldn't believe it about the various lawn care workers whose trucks are around in the Village. But that's the concern, as I've heard it stated.
I accept the scolding, and I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and what for me feels like a dilemma. I do hear you. It wouldn't feel like a dilemma to you. Understood.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteSince your call to action on 4/15 to those willing to pay (what looks to be double + the actual cost of service) the overage, how many have reported back with any input from their efforts of discussing/convincing other neighbors? Are we anywhere close to majority yet?
As I understand it, it will be nearly impossible to structure what we would lose via the franchise fee into the sanitation bill for general unrestricted use. Again, as I understand it. This still leaves us with a loss of revenue/savings of $67,054.00 annually. I excluded the $27,000.00 (median outsource) as Dan Keys brought up a good point on that. However, the rest should remain.
Of course, I have no idea of the costs of insurances and the extra liability exposure to the Village by staying in-house. I just do not have those numbers.
As to your final explanation, I will refrain from comment other than to say that I do not believe that this sentiment is based on reality any more than you seemingly do.
I didn't mean it as a "scolding" but more of a reminder to focus on the big picture.
Milt,
DeleteAs I look closer into the numbers, the cost of not outsourcing does not appear to be double the cost of outsourcing. It looks more like about 20-25% more. The last reliable figure I saw, that I liked and considered reliable, was about $725. This does not include the Franchise Fee equivalent, though, which it is not clear we can replicate. So I agree with you. It also includes two new hires. I did not get this from our administration. I don't know that they would agree.
As to your underlying question, none. No one has gotten back to me to say they convinced anyone. It's difficult to tell where a "majority" is. Of the vocal people, the very clear majority want to keep this program in house. But the people who don't say anything are far more numerous than the vocal majority. As I have stated earlier, I could guess what they think and want, but I don't know it for a fact.
No, it is not based on reality as I imagine it. It has, however, been clearly stated by more than one person and more than once.
If "shame on you" is not a scolding, I don't know what is. But you are not wrong, and I accept the scolding. I just want to be clear with you as to whence my shameful position could come. I don't expect you to agree with me. It's more than clear to me that you, and some others, don't. I don't fully agree with myself. My option is to take from people what they want and for which they say they're willing to pay (not a good position for an elected representative) or to betray what I believe is in the best long-term interest of the Village (not a good position for an elected representative). The good news is that whichever thing we choose is not necessarily permanent. If we outsource, then change our minds, we can simply re-hire or hire a few people, buy the new equipment and trucks we would have to buy now anyway, and reclaim the program. If we don't outsource, we can choose to outsource any time, and the only real burden for us is that we will be stuck with new equipment/trucks we will have to sell at a loss. Unless we lease, in which case we will have to delay a subsequent decision to outsource until the lease is paid off, or we would have to continue to pay for trucks we will no longer have. Dumb, but possible. If we were to risk making a mistake we would have to correct or undo, I would rather see us outsource, since I think it is not the problem some of us fear, and if we change our minds, simply recreate the program, which is not hard to do. Keep in mind that our outsourcing concept leaves us keeping at least three of our current employees, and possibly more. So there's very little re-creating we would have to do. The biggest thing is that we would have to buy trucks, but we have to do that imminently anyway.
Fred
Waste Pros bid was $446.00 and we should be able to lock that in for 3-5 years. If my math is correct that is 62.5% less than your adjusted number of $725.00. But that $725.00 doesn't match their proposal in benefits for the Village or our employees in many other areas (see above and previous post on the subject) . And what will our in-house sanitation bill be in 3-5 years? We can expect to contain and control our costs much more easily than we have in-house. No?
ReplyDeleteHow do we better control the missing days from workers (that often refuse to make up the time) and the burden it places on our admin. people? But the main point is how do we make up for the lost money? I know you realize the financial situation we're in.
Why not adopt a proactive instead of a reactive posture when the writing is on the wall?
I'm all ears... and okay I guess it was a scolding.
Sorry, Milt, my error. I was using $572 instead of $446. Right you are.
DeleteYou're explaining why it's better to outsource than not to. You're showing that it's more fiscally prudent, and that we have much more control over the program if we outsource. You're preaching to the choir, man. That wasn't the issue.
Fred
Is there no one that can offer a viable alternative solution given the time and effort put forth on this subject? That was the purpose of this post. If not, then you must agree that it weakens your own argument. "Just because" is not a reasonable stance in the face of hard facts.
ReplyDeleteFred has tried to represent you but I'm more interested in hearing from the 25 (or so) neighbors that spoke against increasing our revenues and to provide cost savings at the last meeting. Have you taken the time since that meeting to familiarize yourselves with our fiscal reserves and now understand the reasoning behind looking at every angle of cost reductions?
The Village need solutions from you in order to validate your opinions.... let's hear them.
crickets?
ReplyDeleteYour hearing is better than mine.
DeleteFred