Response to Mr. Bernard's E-mail

Fred:

As I hope that my response will be read as not being about agreeing or disagreeing with Steve's method of communicating (for the most part) I refer to Steve as the "E-mailer" in my response.

First of all, I want to thank you for providing this forum for interactive communication.  Unlike those who send E-mails out to the masses and provide no opportunity or venue (to date) for a response back to the masses, you put it all out there to let us decide what we end up believing.

I will attempt a response to the subject E-mailer.  It will not be detailed as to specific costs, as these have yet to be finalized in a proposed contract.  I will assume in my response that there will be a substantial savings in the event we contract out waste collection services.  I believe that I will make a conclusive case that this is a very, very simple equation with a very simple answer - contact out the waste collection services.

Item #1 can be boiled down to whether or not you agree that Waste Pro or any other contractor, including the other less expensive than in-house bidders, can perform for the quoted price. The E-mailer insinuates (an insinuation is just exactly what it is) that they can't or won't, with no data that says they will not or can't.  My position is that if they say they will, and they sign a contract to that effect, then I say sign the contract and hold them to it.  The firm was vetted as being competent, and they provided references to that effect.  These companies make their money based on making a little on each of many contracts, and their costs are based on volume savings as well.  To not trust this contractor while trusting the many other vendors we utilize as a Village or as individuals, would be disingenuous.

In item # 2 Administrative fees are discussed.  My take is that an administrative fee, appropriate to the type and quantity of administration provided, can and should be charged against the sanitation operation regardless of who performs it.  It is for our Commission to decide if they trust the administration they hired to appropriately determine the amount of this fee.  However the costs are distributed, they nonetheless  exist and will need to be paid for through the severe limits of the property tax system if not the sanitation fee.

In # 3 The Franchise Fee is discussed.  As stated, the fee is common and legal and indeed (no longer less than transparently) is a way of generating revenue for the Village to pay for things we need to pay for with or without a Franchise Fee.  It is a fee paid by the contractor for the privilege of being able to provide us with service by using our public roads - in effect, they are renting our public right of way.  Since we pay the contractor a fee for whatever service they provide to us - it can be presumed that they add the cost of the Franchise Fee into their waste fee structure so indeed we are paying for the Franchise Fee (one more less than transparent revenue producing method is exposed for all to see and appreciate).  This village and every government has a limited number of revenue producing means.  We should responsibly take advantage of the Franchise Fee, recognizing it for what it is and appreciating what it can buy for us to move our village forward.

#4 - the Franchise Fee and the Administrative Fees are different and separate things.  Both are appropriate means of either distributing costs or deriving revenue.

#4 b - If we outsource at a lower cost, the decision to provide (impose a fee) for the repair and maintenance of our roads and storm water collection system is made easier in that we will have reduced our overall personal outflow of cash by the difference of the cost of outsourcing as compared to in-house waste collection services.  We should impose a fee for these items as the work needs to get done and the General Fund can't afford it.

#4 b - Any contract should provide for our ability to benefit from an increase in recycling which correlates to a reduction in the solid waste tipping tonnage.

#5 - "Real Numbers" - indeed, the real numbers say that outsourcing is cheaper.  And once again, there is no evidence that the contractor will not perform as contracted.  If they don't, we will have the same options that we have now: find another contractor at some increase (or not).  We could (assuming the cost of contractor number 2 is too high) also return to in-house service by buying or leasing new vehicles (although it costs little or nothing to keep what we have for a few years as an [in my opinion] unnecessary safety net), and hire some new or the old employees (who it is said would jump at the chance to leave the contractor or other employer to come back to work for us at lower wages).

I have not heard that we would be selling off the Public Works property, and if it was repurposed as the Police station as is proposed, then in the event of going back to in-house services, we would simply be back at the current state of affairs wherein we would need to provide for a new Police station or new Public Works offices.

The E-mailer presumes that the administrative fees are too high as evidenced by their increase from $50,000 to the current amount.  I ask the Commission to decide if for whatever reason the fee was too low at $50,000 and is more correctly distributed at the higher number?  I don't know and it is no longer my job to decide, but since a budget was passed in September that provided for the costs of running the Village, I presume that those costs will need to be paid for by other means if not through the Administration fee.

#6 - Public Opinion - I love it when the preponderance of it speaks as I do, but I really respect when intelligent, responsible, honorable and true to reality public officials inform themselves of the facts and wade through the emotion to come to a logical decision regarding a subject, regardless of my position.  So far, there are emotional arguments that we owe our guys something for things like delivering ice to houses after hurricanes (that was their job for the day) waving at us, helping out people in distress (wouldn't anyone do this?  Yes, they would.), not robbing us of our belongings (seems like in the interest of not getting sued, any contractor would have a vested interest in vetting their employees, just like we do or better).  On the non emotional side, contracting out will put  more money in our collective pockets that can go to improving our community if we so intelligently decide to pull it out of our pockets for those activities.  We will get what we decide to buy at a lower cost than it could be provided in-house.  The price will be held more stable (or completely stable depending on the terms of the contract), whereas the cost of in-house service will likely go up over the same period.

#7 - Appreciated service.  I do appreciate the service I get for the most part and I will appreciate the services of Waste Pro guys, too, assuming they do a good job.  I do not appreciate it now when cans are thrown haphazardly after garbage collection, and there is residual yard waste strew all up and down the streets after collection.  Frankly, unless we really hold a contractor to high standards, I don't expect that to change.  At least it will cost me less in that case.

#8 - lots of questions here (and this is the type of communication I do not appreciate for its explosion of what ifs that tends to make problems where they do not exist.  The insinuation (easily verifiable by the E-mailer as by anyone else) is that the Commission is not well informed.  There is no proof that the Commissioners are not informed, but there is evidence by virtue of their votes that some are ignoring the facts in favor of the hypothetical and illogical (we can fix it in-house) and the emotional (we like our guys and we are willing to pay more for nothing).

#9 - the sky is not falling (but it is getting more likely that residents could fall into the many pot holes in our streets).  The fact of our tax rate near the 10 mil cap is a reality as is the low level of our reserves.  These millage issues may or may not improve as property values go up, but that does not negate the value of outsourcing at a lower cost, which is guaranteed to improve our financial position and will provide the added benefit of permitting the management staff and Commission the time to concentrate on the myriad of other issues that need to be addressed.

There is a point where analysis becomes paralysis.  This decision is just not at all difficult if you have the best interest of the Village and its residents in mind.  More money available for use to pay for things we need.

#10 - the big and very simple picture is as follows.  Outsourcing will save money which will be available for use by each of us personally or by our community for improvements that we need, if we through community processes decide to pay for them.

The E-mailer says that there has been a burning unanswered question out there for 7 years about the General Fund.  Honestly, is there such a conspiracy out there that he as a Commissioner or he as a concerned resident has not been able to get the answers?  They are there in black and white and when necessary through detailed verbal explanation for the asking of thoughtful questions.  The answers of course my not be to the E-mailer's liking and at times to mine either, as each of us may want more or less spent on a given governmental activity.

As to prices of homes going up and the prospect of this increasing revenues, this will indeed, if it continues, increase our revenues and provide for a lowering of our millage rate or for increasing expenditures on things we need.  Great, but is doesn't negate the value of paying less for contracting out services at a lower cost.

I have enjoyed the service of the Village for over 45 years (not that that adds any more validity to my or anyone's argument), but I am now confident that a contractor can provided for these services at a lower cost over in-house service, forever. The presence of several companies in the solid waste market provides for competition that I believe will continue to provide for competitive rates at each opportunity for a re-bid.

Of more value to my property values are the improvements that can be made through road paving and drainage subject to a new fee for those community improvements that I will pay for with dollars saved on my Waste fee.  The additional funding provided by the franchise fee will also provide funding for community projects or a lower tax bill.

To conclude, it is prudent and advisable to contract out the waste collection services of the Village and we will be missing a timely opportunity to do this now before additional funds are spent on new equipment.

Dan Keys
305-895-9920