Now…About That Petition

Last week we had the second reading/hearing on the proposed outsourcing of our sanitation services. And this issue [as others have in the past and potentially will in our future] has served to divide our community and in my opinion, unnecessarily so.

Grassroots petitions in Biscayne Park generally have a history of failing to receive much traction. This one was no different.

Now… about that petition. It was neither accurate, complete, nor based on real discovery and honest representation. Based on a preliminary review of the petition this has already been found to be evident. For starters, the count was exaggerated. The sanitation billing structure is based on each residential unit, not each member of said household. The petition's language was also deceiving in that it was typed “to outsource our Public Works Dept.” [mentioned twice] which was clearly never the case. There was a handwritten addition of “sanitation” which looks to have been added after the fact, and only on some of the pages. Very misleading. Moving along… there were cases of signatures from those who do not even live in our Village, and then additional added relatives that also, you guessed it, do not live in our Village. Should renters count? They are not responsible for the sanitation bill, and who knows how many renters were listed. There were some very large signatures taking up several spaces yet counted as each space and so on and so forth. It was suggested that “residents stood up and their voices were ignored.” Simply not true. Not getting the results you wished for doesn’t indicate that anyone’s “voices were ignored.”

But the most obvious omission was the fact that there was no explanation as to why the majority of our Commission voted in favor of outsourcing or the cost saving realized by outsourcing and other tangible benefits for both our residents and the Village. This petition was simply too one-sided and incomplete.

So, with this in mind, let’s look at this topic [petition] from another view:

Dear Biscayne Park Taxpayers,

A group of our residents want to force our Commission to raise your garbage rates by 59%-75% with no cost control for future years! We have rights and our voices should be heard! They also are willing to walk away from new revenues and benefits which our Village desperately needs.

Did you know that we have been told from our finance director that our Village reserves might be consumed in 5 years? That's right, no more financial reserves or community identity. It's up to you to make a stand and protect us from this action before it's too late!

Neighbors, do you see my point?  Every comment made was the truth and factual.

How long do you think it would take me to get 327+ signatures on this petition? As well, with this "other side" explained, many of those who signed would potentially re-think their position.

There were reports of Commissioners (past AND present) who either deliberately misinformed or outright lied to the resident they sought a signature from. Just to list two such examples; when asked about “what was the cost difference” between outsourcing and keeping the program in-house, one current Commissioner said that she “didn’t know.” Really? Was it even ethical for a sitting Commissioner (who had to vote on this issue) to be so involved? There was also the case of her signing the petition for another resident. The other example is of a past Commissioner who stated that the outsourced rate would increase soon after the contract was signed and endlessly harped that the contract would not be honored. This was a clear omission of truth in deceiving the resident of the fact that we have a contract that is price-guaranteed for the first year and has a guaranteed cap for potential future increases of no more than 5% for the remaining four years. Many other safeguards have been worked into the contract to protect our Village. It is shameful that those who have some degree of trust from our residents would resort to lies and deception in an attempt to support their views. But, this has now become a rather common offense. And as mentioned, these are just a couple of examples of what was discovered.

 If we want to be fair, honest and, heavens forbid, "transparent," don't you see the hypocrisy in how this petition was designed?

So, if you must hold onto your ire over this, be sure to aim it at the proper target. And that would be every past Commission that avoided dealing with this issue before the 11^th hour was upon us. This problem did not happen overnight. Ask them why no money was set aside for the purchase of new equipment, or to pay our workers a decent wage …nothing was done.

Knowing that our sanitation department lost $91,397.00 [last audited year] tells me that we really don't do a good job in managing this service ourselves. Never have. This fact proves the problems and inefficiencies of our in-house service. There was a plea of delaying (per usual) and trying to revamp the department ourselves. Tell me, who do we have in-house that can manage it in such a way to compete with WastePro's bid? Because that would have been the only other viable alternative to consider. And if we do have such a person, then why have they withheld this much needed assistance up until now?  Again, no concrete alternative plans were ever disclosed as you all well know. We cannot at this stage bank on “hope” and “good intentions.”

I will state that over most of the 22 years I’ve lived here I was the “model of apathy” as I abhor politics. Why? Well, for all the reasons that we’ve now seeing in our small little Village. Yes, we have now become as corrupt and disingenuous as any other larger branch of Government. And it sickens me. I reached my limit of apathy in what I was seeing transpire within my own community by a small toxic element whose main mission seemingly was to spread contrarian disinformation and create disruption at every opportunity. I could no longer sit back and watch this malignant corruption grow unheeded.

You will not find me writing to only a selected group of Commissioners, instructing/demanding them on agenda policy. You will certainly not see any Commissioner step down from the dais to hand me a folded note as was witnessed during the 5/21/14 meeting.

It is really a shame that it has become necessary to follow up behind this “noxious element” but as long as the lies, misinformation and deliberate community divide is evident, we all need to remain diligent. There must to be a balance of truth and also consequences for those offenders.

To question the integrity and motivations of our three Commissioners and Administration staff that, after careful thought and deliberation made the best decision for the Village is simply unjust.

Yes, I understand that some of you feel that your voices were not heard. There was simply not enough substance behind the position versus the fiscal responsibilities facing our Village at this time.

Again, if you feel compelled to hold on to your ire, just make sure that it is not misplaced.

 Milton Hunter   
miltonhunter@gmail.com

Now THAT'S a Party! Thanks, Joe and Michelle.

If you ever get invited to a party, for any reason, at Joe and Michelle Chao's house, do yourself a big favor.  GO!!!  It's true it's a gorgeous home, but that's hardly the point.  These are hosts like you've never seen.  They were magnificent.  Joe, or Michelle, or whichever part of the whirlwind told me this, said they love to entertain, and they do it a lot.  If I could entertain like that, I'd do it a lot, too.

On Sunday night, the Chaos (I know, we did this before; no, there was nothing chaotic about it) hosted a fundraiser for the Biscayne Park Foundation, of which Joe is a Trustee and the Treasurer.  The Foundation has certainly had fundraisers of one sort or another before, but this one had a very different tone and style than the others.

First of all, it was classy, not casual like Food and Tunes.  The Foundation got a nice discount from Total Wine (GO THERE!) for some wonderful wines.  These were, in my opinion, top shelf drinks.  Joe, a beer enthusiast, also had some better-than-mundane beers.  Not many that you never heard of, but all good.  Then, there was the food.  Amazingly, all the food came from Costco and Whole Foods, and nothing was more than heated, if necessary, and presented.  Everything was delicious, and the presentation was superb.

There were lots of people, too.  I knew some, there were others I didn't know, and some were non-BP guests of the Chaos.  Even Joe's parents were there.  They are very charming people.  As far as I know, everyone made a contribution.  The donation was $30 a person or $50 a couple.  It was a small amount for the endlessly flowing wine and beer, the food, and considering that this was a fundraiser.  And not to mention that it was simply a lovely party.  If you got invited to a wonderful party at your friends' house, wouldn't you bring a nice bottle of wine or something?  Might it cost you $30 or more, because you really like the people, and they're going to provide an exquisite evening for you?  Well, guests of the Chaos got a lot more than just a wonderful party.  Apart from everything else we got was a very nice excuse to make a donation to our Foundation.  The accounting is not complete yet, but it looks roughly like a net of about $600 for our Foundation.  The Foundation's current project is adequate lighting around the recreation center walking path, an improvement many of us have requested.

According to Joe, and Supreme Dorvil, and Marie Smith, and Jorge Marinoni, and Sylvia Linke, this was only the first of these fundraising soirees.  You definitely want to get yourself on the invitation list. I don't know if they will rotate who hosts these evenings, or if non-Foundation members will host them (I heard that might be a possibility).  I'm very hopeful that they will rotate the guest list, so many more of us will have a chance to party with the Foundation.  I guess we'll all wait and see.

Thank you, Joe and Michelle, Total Wine, and Sylvia, who took care of choosing and picking up the food.  It really was a magnificent evening.

The Road Not Previously Taken. It's Time for Us to Put On Our Hiking Boots.

Since its inception, the Village has relied on a Commission for governance.  As far as I know, the Commission was always five members.

For decades, four of those five Commissioners literally ran the Village.  Each one headed a department (Public Works, Finance, the Police, Recreation), and the Mayor did not head a department.  The Village was even smaller and more modest before than it is now, and Commissioners did the best they could, based on interest and willingness, but no real working knowledge.  It's not hard to imagine that Village departments were inexpertly and often inefficiently and improperly run, leading to various kinds of deficiencies.  There was enough play in the system, however, and minimal enough demands, that we could survive this kind of management without much more fall-out than inept departments.  And gradual, but insidious, deterioration.

Culminating in 2005, a Charter Review Committee impaneled by the Commission issued a firm recommendation that the Village give up lay management in favor of using a professional manager.  It was recognized that municipal management requirements had gotten sufficiently far away from the capabilities of residents whose training, skills, and talents were unrelated to the needs at hand that they should no longer pretend to do what they could not do.  The Commission agreed to surrender most of its responsibilities, it symbolized the transition by further agreeing to lower its salary, and it recommended to the general residents of the Park that they accept professional management.  In a referendum in December of that year, the residents of the Park took the advice of the Charter Review Committee and the Commission, and agreed to have a professional manager.

We are now on our third manager.  The first did little for us, but the second was energetic, dedicated, and in many ways effective.  She decided that the task here was such that she needed a full time assistant, so we agreed to hire one.  The manager eventually left for a better job, and we hired our third manager.  The assistant to the second manager stayed on.

The Commission still exists, and its role is to make general policy and hire and fire the manager.  The Commission importantly sets the budget for the Village, on advice from the manager.  The Commission also makes some practical decisions for the neighborhood, but no longer on matters that represent day-to-day functioning.

Recently, the Manager had reason to consider whether it would advantageous to the Village if we outsourced the sanitation function of our Public Works Department.  Because she knew there was a lot of feeling about this possibility, she did not exercise her exclusive prerogative to make this decision, but instead, she turned the decision over to the Commission.  The Commission did whatever it considered to be its "due diligence," the rest of the Village was involved in information-gathering and providing input, and the Commission decided to outsource the function.  This decision was met with satisfaction and approval from some residents, and dissatisfaction and disapproval from a larger group.  On the surface of it, we might conclude "you can't please everyone."

The Commission certainly didn't please everyone.  In fact, it displeased a lot of people.  These people were so displeased that some of them wanted the decision reversed and the Commissioners who voted for it removed from office!  The argument from these neighbors was that if there were a lot of them, and if they stated a preference in this matter, then the Commissioners should do what they, the general residents of the Village, want.

In theory, this is not an unreasonable philosophy.  And that's what it is: a philosophy.  It's a philosophy about the primacy of the governed in a system of pure self-government.  It's hard to argue with that philosophy, too, if the collection of the governed is sufficiently small and available.  We can allow the governed to make the decisions themselves.

So what do we do with the other system upon which we agreed?  We have always had a Commission, although we did agree it was not up to the task at hand.  The Commission hired a manager, but many of us now resent and resist this level of intrusion and expense.  So if we have that small and accessible collection of interested residents, if we resent and resist professional management, if we accept the Commission only on condition that it do whatever the general residents want it to do on an issue-by-issue basis, and the Commission is susceptible to removal from office if it makes an independent decision, then maybe we no longer need anything except the general residents.  Maybe we can change the Charter again, and simply jettison the Manager and the Commission.  The only drawback is inept and inefficient management of public services, but residents weren't complaining about that.  In fact, they made a clear statement regarding sanitation: we don't care if it's inefficient and unnecessarily expensive; we just want it, and we're willing to pay for it, sort of.  There it is: a decision made without layers of scrutiny and management.

It seems now would be a good time to re-impanel a Charter Review Committee.  The Committee has one task: remove the positions of Commission and Manager from the Charter.  Instead, the Village can self-govern, as it seems to want to do anyway, by calling a gathering of its residents together whenever there are decisions to make, and having residents raise their hands, as they did at a recent Special Commission Meeting.  This governmental relic is still active in some smaller New England municipalities.  It's called "Town Meeting."  We can save a lot of money, and we no longer have to risk the consequences of elected officials who get detoured into understandings not shared by the residents at large.  We'll just cut out all the middlemen.

Our Small and Friendly Village. And a Good Deal of it Came to the 5/21/14 Special Commission Meeting.

That's the reason we wanted to keep the sanitation function in house.  It's part of that charm by which we're known.  Some even said people want to live in BP because we have our own sanitation department.  I don't know anyone like that, but apparently others do.

It's that intimate sense we have.  That tight-knit connection we share.  And not only with each other, but with our employees, especially our sanitation workers.  One of our neighbors wrote to me as follows: "I have truly appreciated the friendliness and excellent quality of work these public works guys have given for all these years. I don't know their names or how long each of them has been here, but I do know for 21 years the department has been as neighborly as as my closest neighbors, and they have worked diligently to keep our neighborhood clean. Even though we don't call each other by name, I feel I have a personal relationship with them, and I do not want to see them lose their jobs. They are a part of our community, and I want them to stay (if that is their desire)."

We don't necessarily know their names, but we consider them personal friends and as neighborly as our closest neighbors.  We also pay them very poorly, below the threshold of the County poverty level, but we care about them and appreciate the excellent quality of their work.  That's what a number of us said tonight.  It was never made clear why it never occurred to those of us who are such close friends to these sanitation workers that we weren't treating them very well.  Actually, now that I think of it, isn't there a word for people who do a lot for you, especially to keep your environment clean, but you don't really pay them much for it?

But that's not all.  There were other demonstrations of our closeness and friendliness, with each other.  It turns out that once you stake out a position for yourself, if someone disagrees with you, you demonize them.  Even if they're your friends?  Perhaps especially so.  At least it's much more dramatic if you demonize a friend.  Honest differences of opinion?  What could be honest about a difference of opinion?

I reminded Steve Bernard of something he said, and a public position he took, in January, 2012.  He publicly called me a liar, again.

And when you're discussing an issue, the only real thing of importance is what you have in your own mind.  When it's someone else's turn to speak, especially if you suspect they're going to disagree with you, or tell you something you didn't know and that might change your mind, you walk out on them.  That's pretty friendly, isn't it?  Polite, too.  A number of our neighbors spoke tonight in favor of outsourcing sanitation, having feared being shunned or jeered at last time we had this discussion.  Could a gathering be more friendly than that?

Yes, many of our neighbors came to the Commission meeting tonight.  Most of them stayed long enough to tell us how heartless we would be if we outsourced sanitation, then they left.  How could they have stayed?  After all, weren't some of us about to destroy the lives of our sanitation workers, the ones we love but shamefully underpay?  These neighbors were not one bit interested in the fact that the outsource contractor wanted very much to hire our employees, to do exactly the same job and in exactly the same place, for more money.  Strangely, inexplicably, our sanitation employees weren't one bit interested, either.  No, this was unmitigated heartlessness.

Come to think about it, it wasn't so clear who one's friends were.  Employees who threaten you with a guilt trip if you try to transition them to a different employer who pays better aren't being very friendly.  And employers who pay below the poverty level, and never give it the first thought, aren't being very friendly, either.  Barbara Watts used the word disingenuous, although I think she thought she was talking about something else.  Yes, that's it: disingenuous.  Neighbors and even friends who get furious with you, and brand you with one epithet or another, because you have a different view of a problem and how to solve it, don't seem very friendly.  Care about the neighborhood?  It had nothing to do with the neighborhood.

And what was it we all said we wanted to protect about Biscayne Park?  That small town, friendly atmosphere?  I'm not at all sure we succeeded.

We're Not Called a Bird Sanctuary for Nothing. From Lynn Fischer

About 6 weeks ago I saw this eastern screech owl in her box, but I thought she had left.  Now she is visible every morning, attentively watching all around her. I think her young have hatched!  It's very late in the year for her to be raising a family.  And she has chosen the woodpecker house, ignoring the shaded owl house behind in the oak tree!  It is so exciting to have these special creatures in our neighborhood.  If only residents realized that when they spray their yards the insects the owls eat are poisoned, bringing death to the owls. This is our sixth eastern screech owl family!!

I decided to send this out today, with the message, for the owls.  We had so many in our Village in 1981 when we moved here.  I sent it to those at our build-a-house party, the commissioners, and the manager.  I would love to get the word out of what our spraying does to our wildlife.  But I don't want to sound preachy.  We are so fortunate here with our old growth trees to have such a wealth of diversity!

Lynn lives on the southeast corner of 10th and 117th.  "It's a jungle out there."

                                                    The 2010 owl house building "party."

CrimeWatch/Coffee-With-a-Cop, May 10, 2014

What a nice gathering we had.  There were only two regular officers, our interim Chief, and our Police Clerk, but there were plenty of us.  It was a very good balance.  And of course-- of course-- there was Rosemary Wais and her sinful breakfast goodies.  We all sinned, and we were all happy.

We got to meet our interim Chief, Duncan Foster "up close and personal," and he reviewed safety issues with us.  Apparently, there are not too many times this advice can be given, but LOCK YOUR CAR DOORS when you're home.  The level of sophistication of potential car burglars never ceases to amaze: they try the car door.  If it's open, your stuff is theirs.  If it's no more than locked, they shrug and move on.

We reviewed again the alert reaction of one of our neighbors, a teenager, who heard something in the house, called (her father first), and thieves in the house were apprehended.

We also talked a lot about whether we should do something to improve safety, and maybe lower speed, in the Village.  We're still looking into traffic humps/bumps and possible changes in the speed limit.  This is a conversation to be continued.

This was a good installment in the CrimeWatch/Coffee-With-a-Cop series.  It happens a few times a year.  Always feel free to come, and bring your neighbors with you.

Oh, So Andrew Wants to Know What Happened About the Power Poles

This was the biggest non-issue of all time.  FPL made a presentation in which they showed us what they want to do (install all concrete poles), showed us a modification they're willing to make (10 of the new poles to be wood, instead of concrete), and made sure we understand that they really think all concrete is best.

The available new wood poles, by the way, are not the same as the old wood poles with which some of us declare we are in love.  The old wood poles are 12 inches in diameter, the new wood poles would be 14 inches in diameter, and the concrete poles are 16 inches square.

Four of the Commissioners were in full agreement with each other and with FPL.  We got it: concrete poles are much sturdier and more reliable, and in our opinion, they look better than wood poles.  And whether they do or they don't, we agreed that all one pole material or all another pole material looks vastly better than a mixture.

One of us was unmoved about the poles, sort of.  What had initially looked like a dedication to wood poles turned out not to be a dedication to anything.  It was not a vote for, but a vote against.  Barbara Watts wound up pleading for "wood, composite," or anything but concrete.  If Barbara is OK with "composite," whatever that is, then it becomes extremely unclear what she doesn't like about concrete.  And by the way, once Barbara starts telling us that even wood poles which are warped, leaning, and splitting have a special kind of charm to them (no, I did not make this up), it becomes really hard to stay with her.

The bottom line, Andrew, is that the Commission voted 4-1 to encourage FPL to get those concrete poles in here, ASAP, before hurricane season starts up.  I guess that's not exactly going to happen, since hurricane season starts at the originally-planned project completion date of 6/1, but Aletha Player says the project will take eight weeks to complete.  That finishes it just after 7/1.

Guilty as Charged. Genuinely Remorseful, Too. Commission Meeting 5/6/14.

The problem is that if I had it to do again, I wouldn't do anything different.  I'd just feel bad again.

I have always been the first one to say that Commissioners should accommodate the wishes of BP residents.  Especially when those wishes are legitimate.  Tonight, I failed some of my neighbors, or at least I did not accede to their very clearly stated wishes.  The problem is that I would have failed some neighbors no matter what I did.

The sentiment about outsourcing sanitation was divided on the Commission.  Coviello and Ross wanted to outsource, Watts didn't want to outsource, and Anderson thought it was too soon to commit to doing it.  He was poised to vote against.  I felt it was better to outsource than not to, although I thought Anderson made an excellent point: we could try some adjustments with in-house service first, then see if the problem was solved.  If not, he might be sympathetic toward outsourcing.

I made neither points nor friends in voting to outsource.  My weakest argument was that if we don't outsource, we need to have complete confidence in each other to pay whatever in-house service costs, and I was beginning to see flinching among those who said they would support the in-house program.  I had to trust them without question when the big bills came, and they were not leaving me total confidence that I could.  I hate to see Linda Dillon that annoyed with me, but I earned it tonight.

My better argument, although I don't think it got great traction, was that this is a good time to outsource, if we're going to do it, because the task we would have if we don't outsource (buying expensive new equipment and hiring new employees) is identical to the task many said we couldn't or wouldn't do if we had to consider reversing outsourcing.  If they know we can do it now, then they agree we can do it, any time.

My best argument, in my own opinion, is that not outsourcing leaves us vulnerable to unpredictably and unmanageably escalating costs and a system with too many weaknesses in it.  I cited in particular the cost of the Affordable Care Act.  I consider it very unfair that large employers, let's say like WastePro, get a better deal on ACA costs than do smaller employers, let's say like the Village of Biscayne Park.  We need the help and discounts more than WastePro does.  But we don't get them.  So whatever happens to insurance premiums happens to the Village.  It's not a good place to be when you're on a tight budget.

But why am I reiterating this argument for you?  I was talking to myself then, and I'm talking to myself now.  I did what I thought was best for the Village, I betrayed a lot of people to do it, and I don't feel good about it.  Except that I think it was the right thing to do.

Now I will say this.  In the past week or so, two people have said unexpected things.  One anti-outsourcer said Heidi Shafran made a good argument in favor of outsourcing.  Another of my anti-outsourcing friends told me she had actually convinced herself outsourcing wouldn't be so bad, until she saw the proposed contract and got spooked by some funky language.  And another of my friends, after tonight's Commission meeting, told me she was actually on the fence about this matter.  I had approached her to apologize for my vote, which I assumed was a substantial disappointment to her, in that she had always and consistently spoken against outsourcing.

Here's another reason I felt I should vote as I did.  I asked more than one person, including Bob Anderson, about what would be involved if we didn't outsource, then decided we should.  There was general acceptance that if we didn't outsource, we would have to buy trucks now and hire more workers now.  But I was concerned about the expense of buying the trucks, then deciding we didn't need them after all.  And more than one person said the same thing: we'll just sell the trucks, at a loss.  I wasn't prepared to do that.

So I'm truly very sorry for disappointing some of my neighbors, and moreso because I said I wouldn't.  I really did use my best judgment.  But I clearly understand many of my neighbors would say my judgment wasn't necessary.  All I had to do was represent my neighbors' clearly stated preference.  I didn't.  I failed them from that perspective.

The best defense being a good offense sometimes, though, I will say this.  It was pointed out, many times, that only one non-Commissioner resident spoke in favor of outsourcing.  That person was Dan Keys.  Every other speaker spoke against outsourcing.  But Chuck Ross didn't advocate for outsourcing.  (He later said he didn't want to say the words, because he didn't want people to tune him out.)  Neither did Brad Piper or Brian McNoldy, who were both there and are outsourcing advocates.  Milt Hunter was there, and he didn't comment in favor of outsourcing.  Drew Dillworth came to the meeting specifically, I'm told, to speak in favor of outsourcing, but he didn't.  I'm pretty sure Richard Ederr thinks outsourcing is a good idea, and he didn't speak in favor of it, either.  So you see, I had notable support for my position.  They just didn't agree to take heat for it.  With friends like that, huh?

I do have every confidence this will work out just fine.  I just regret the feelings of resentment and betrayal I caused to get us there.


PS: I suppose I had two kinds of friends at the meeting last night.  My friends who thought outsourcing was a good idea, but who didn't come to the speakers' podium and say so, sort of abandoned me in a way.  I was counting on them, and they sort of let me down.  They're my friends, though, it is clear to me what burden they were under, and I more than forgive them.  My friendships with them are much more important than my wish to have been shown the overt support.  The other kind of friend I have is the kind of friend I disappointed, too.  I betrayed them, and I didn't show them the support they wanted and expected from me.  I hope they can be forgiving of me, and I hope our connection seems bigger to them than whether we try outsourcing of the sanitation function.  It would surprise me greatly if I was a Commissioner in four and a half years from now, when the Village has to decide whether to extend the contract with WastePro, but if for some reason I am, I will have been watching this like a hawk.  If it's not clearly better than an in-house program, I will advocate not to request extension of the contract, and I will be ready to buy those trucks and hire those PW workers we would have to buy and hire right now anyway to keep the program in-house.

What's This?!

Today is Sunday, May 4.  In my travels around the Village the past two days, I have noticed some very impressive piles of debris.  One such pile is on 119th Street, in the 11th Avenue to 11th Place block, and another is on 10th Avenue at about 115th Street.  These piles are of aggressively harvested yard waste.

It appears that some of our neighbors have embarked on ambitious spring yard maintenance.  The evidence suggests not something as simple as raking, but real tree-trimming, bordering on what used to be called tree surgery.

I wonder what got into these neighbors, and what moved them, to make serious and distinct improvements in their landscaping.  Because it was two of them, who I can't imagine have anything to do with each other, I wonder if something more than spring is in the air.  Is it possible that all this talk of sanitation, Village pride, Village maintenance, possible road improvement, and other public improvements is filtering to homeowners' appreciations of their own properties?  It could be nothing more than coincidence, but the Parks and Parkways Board has been talking about a demonstration median improvement project, and the selected median block is directly in front of the 10th Avenue pile.  Have the homeowners heard about this, and are they in some sense competing with the Village for who will have the better appearance?

Could public improvement lead to private improvement?  What about even the promise, or simply suggestion, of public improvement?  Could that motivate people?  I'm not sure I would have thought so, and maybe it is nothing more than coincidence, but I'm not used to seeing clean-ups like these.  And certainly not two at the same time.



I see that a PS is in order.  I had previously noticed some unreasonably low branches from the now pruned tree on 119th, and I'm glad to see the street is now clear of them.  Around the corner, on 11th Place going south, there are many other trees that create the same problem.  I wish those owners would take a hint from the 119th Street owner.

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