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.
#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.
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
Milt,
ReplyDeleteThere are many things that could be said, but you and Dan have really covered all of them. The one thing I would underline, which both of you have addressed, is the idea that neither decision, to outsource or not to outsource, is an irrevocable commitment. If we don't choose to outsource, we can do it in the future. If we do choose to outsource, and it doesn't work for us, we can reclaim the program.
As it happens, the present moment in time is a uniquely opportune one, if we want to outsource. The argument made by many people who don't want to outsource is that if we did, we would be at pains to reclaim the program, because we would have to replace trucks and other equipment which we would have jettisoned at the time of outsourcing. As it happens, we now have three garbage trucks, one of which essentially doesn't work, and the other two of which are very old and beginning to fail. So right now is a time that we would have to replace trucks even if we don't outsource. We are just now experiencing exactly what the anti-outsourcers dread: we have to rebuild the hardware part of the program.
If we did choose to outsource, this would be the ideal time to do it, since we now have exactly the same task we would have if we had outsourced, then decided to undo outsourcing. The only task that is not identical is the possibility that we would outsource, some of our current employees would transfer to WastePro, or not, and if we then recreated our own program (which Dan has already separately said he is confident we would not feel a need to do), we might not be able to rehire the same people. (And let's remember that at least three of our current PW employees would not be outsourced, even if we outsourced the sanitation program.) Some might prefer to stay with WastePro, and some might decide they would rather do something else, or they would have gotten mad at us for outsourcing them in the first place. So we might wind up with a proportion of different PW employees. But that has happened over time anyway. We have had staff reductions imposed by our Managers, especially Ana, and some of our past PW/sanitation employees have retired or quit in recent years. As you pointed out, the one PW/sanitation employee, the only one, who did us the extra service of calling in something that looked suspicious, has retired and moved out of state.
So in this sense, we really have nothing at all to lose by outsourcing, if we choose to do it right now.
Fred
By the way, the last resignation/retirement we had in PW/sanitation was an employee who came to work one day and announced he was retiring on the spot. He then left and has not returned. This had nothing to do with what later became our discussion about outsourcing sanitation.
DeleteFred
Milt,
ReplyDeleteI would like to take a different view than you did of something. At the beginning of your piece, you note that Steve "chose not to attend either of the WastePro workshops or gather any other information directly from the source." You add that this lapse, failure, abdication, or demonstration of irresponsibility "not only put him personally at a disadvantage," but provided him an opportunity poorly to serve his readers, by sharing with them the same lack of correct information, leading to faulty reasoning.
So where for you "Why [Steve]...felt the need to send out his opinions is not the purpose of this discussion," for me, it is the sole purpose of any response to him now. There are many and better reasons for you and Dan Keys to present facts, correct numbers and data, and cogent perspectives, but for me, the only reason to use Steve's communication as a basis for these presentations is to confront his methods. Why, indeed, did he choose to do what he did, the way he did it, and when he did it?
I will confess that I have been accused, by "areaderfromdade" and others, of making an ad hominem argument instead of a substantive argument, and this is, in a way, not wrong. But for me, the ad hominem response IS the substantive argument under this circumstance.
It is like the difference between making a mistake and lying. Confronting someone who has made a mistake is a relatively simple procedure. You simply provide correct information to replace incorrect information. Confronting someone who lied is an entirely different conversation, and the conversation is about entirely different things. Or, as in this case and under present circumstances, we might consider the timing of Steve's argument, and the distorted circumstances under which he offers it.
For me, it is entirely fair to argue that the response to Steve is to tell him that his argument is made too late, and that it should simply be disqualified, because he made no attempt to construct a reasonable argument. As you correctly pointed out, Steve chose not to educate himself as all the rest of us did, he therefore leaves himself at a hopeless disadvantage in being unequipped to address the matter properly, and the salient response to him and his readers is to confront those failures.
The complication for Steve, and for his readers, and for the rest of us, is that he leaves himself incapable of presenting a coherent and adequately founded argument. And our best reply to him might well be to ask him why he handicapped himself, and everyone else. Will he tell us he was unaware of what all the rest of us knew, that there were two purely informational meetings and a relevant Commission meeting? Will he say he didn't realize the chosen outsource contractor was WastePro, or he had no idea how to reach them for answers to simple and straightforward questions? Will he tell us that he was simply too busy to expend the time the rest of us did to listen to presentations and ask questions (although he seems to have found plenty of time to put together his self-admittedly very lengthy synthesis)?
And do we care what his explanations and excuses are? I know that you and Dan have not gone to the considerable trouble you both did for Steve's edification. There is no reason to imagine that Steve is at all interested in any of this. Presenting a storm of questions, many irrelevant and of spurious origin, and always at the 11th hour, is typical for Steve, and it does not suggest genuine interest in any of the topics. (We're back to the question you decided not to ask: "Why [Steve]...felt a need to send out his opinions.") But you and Dan ignored this question, and instead reached out to Steve's readers and the rest of us, to dispel misinformation and distorted argument. I'm grateful to both of you for doing it. I don't think your approach is necessarily better or worse than asking the question you chose to deflect. But for me, it's a very fair question to ask.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteI can not present a reasonable argument to any of what you stated above. I believe that I can speak for both Dan and myself in that our attempt was to clarify misinformation and point out clear benefits for both the Village and our taxpayers.
As to any alleged motivation to deliberately mislead... I will refrain from further comment on this as history has already answered this question.
We continue to be at a loss for good-enough arguments against outsourcing. Last night, I heard what I consider to be a candidate for one. (Why I'm presenting this argument, instead of having those who made the argument present it, is another matter.) I hope Gary and Barbara Kuhl won't mind if I mention them, but I spent my evening with them yesterday. Gary pointed out something which is of value to him. If I can read between the lines, I think he was actually invoking and combining two arguments.
ReplyDeleteGary described a typical interaction he was with our PW/sanitation workers, and he has it with some frequency. He has come to know these guys, and he feels they know him. They take the time to talk to each other. There is not only a familiarity among them, but what Gary experiences as a genuine interest. Gary feels that our familiar employees, to whom we are familiar, too, are in a unique position to monitor what happens in the Park, and would be considered uniquely interested and motivated to be of assistance, if something was not right. Gary, as is true of some others, is reciprocally concerned that "outsiders" might be predatory, instead of protective. For a number of reasons, I think that's out of the question, but this is how Gary feels.
The second argument, which Gary did not make, but which might enable the first argument, is that perhaps it's true we create a somewhat more relaxed working condition for sanitation workers (at least more relaxed than a private outsource contractor might create), and it is this slower pace that allows BP sanitation workers to take the time and trouble to pay much attention to what's going on around them, and to consider calling in something that may strike them as unusual or questionable. As I said, Gary did not at all say this, but it seems to me inherent in the argument he did make.
Gary and Barbara consider this kind of dynamic indigenous in the system that is Biscayne Park, and they think it represents special value that is worth literally paying for. I would like to see them, and anyone else, make these kinds of arguments themselves, since they'll argue them better than I will.
Some of what we're discussing is practical and numbers-driven. Frankly, I don't think there's much real argument about the numbers. But part of it is philosophical, and anyone's philosophy is as valid and worthy as anyone else's. I hope that in these remaining days before the 5/6 Commission meeting, we can read some more of these competing philosophies.
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDeleteDuring the workshop presentation we learned about the Waste Pro-Tection- Community Awareness Program. “See Something, Say Something” type initiative partners with local law enforcement.
So with their interest in hiring own our workers and having this monitored training program in place, I do not feel this is of any issue or concern. Facts simply do not support the point as mentioned above.
Milt,
DeleteThis is why I did not want to make someone else's argument for them. You're preaching to the wrong choir.
I have no reason to think the person whose argument this is is even looking at these comments. I wish the people who have conflicting (to yours) opinions and positions would state them themselves. Then, they might be more interested themselves in the responses.
Fred