The Facts Speak for Themselves
One local resident, who claims to be following the contract negotiations for household waste collection, urged that the city’s sanitation operations remain unchanged and that the residential fee be raised by $7 a month, a 50% increase.
“Ultimately, I believe I will pay as much or more for service with a for-profit business.”
I’m not sure what the resident means by “ultimately,” but a 50% increase today with the current sanitation service level must be compared to a 15-month freeze, followed by CPI-indexed rate increases in 2007-2013. And a cap on that is part of the negotiations, with fuel costs possibly complicating it.
The cap under discussion is 3% annually. Forget that under the current structure the collection fee would be raised each year by that same amount (but starting at a baseline equal to 150% of the current rate).
Rates under the restructuring
100(%) today through the end of ‘06
103% through ‘07
106.1% through ‘08
109.3% through ‘09
112.6% through ‘10
115.9% through ‘11
119.4% through ‘12
123% through ‘13
That’s a 23% rate increase spread over the next eight years. That is what is on the table. It is what Mayor Garner told two dozen people in an open forum. If it holds, the rate in 2013 will be no more than $16.91. Without the restructuring, the rate in 2013 will be $25.52 per month.
That's $306.24 a year under the current sanitation operation vs. $202.92 under the restructuring. And not all of that is going into the pockets of ID. The actual rate to the city is proposed at $10.62 today. The remaining funds will be used for public sanitation operations. By 2013, ID will be collecting $13.06 per household (one can), and the city will be using the remaining $3.85 to fund public sanitation strike teams.
If by 2013 there is no company willing to make a reasonable offer, the city can then consider whether it can provide the service more effectively with public employees. Those who oppose the mayor's restructuring have yet to even mount a case that the city can provide the service more effectively today or tomorrow under the current system.
“Ultimately, I believe I will pay as much or more for service with a for-profit business.”
I’m not sure what the resident means by “ultimately,” but a 50% increase today with the current sanitation service level must be compared to a 15-month freeze, followed by CPI-indexed rate increases in 2007-2013. And a cap on that is part of the negotiations, with fuel costs possibly complicating it.
The cap under discussion is 3% annually. Forget that under the current structure the collection fee would be raised each year by that same amount (but starting at a baseline equal to 150% of the current rate).
Rates under the restructuring
100(%) today through the end of ‘06
103% through ‘07
106.1% through ‘08
109.3% through ‘09
112.6% through ‘10
115.9% through ‘11
119.4% through ‘12
123% through ‘13
That’s a 23% rate increase spread over the next eight years. That is what is on the table. It is what Mayor Garner told two dozen people in an open forum. If it holds, the rate in 2013 will be no more than $16.91. Without the restructuring, the rate in 2013 will be $25.52 per month.
That's $306.24 a year under the current sanitation operation vs. $202.92 under the restructuring. And not all of that is going into the pockets of ID. The actual rate to the city is proposed at $10.62 today. The remaining funds will be used for public sanitation operations. By 2013, ID will be collecting $13.06 per household (one can), and the city will be using the remaining $3.85 to fund public sanitation strike teams.
If by 2013 there is no company willing to make a reasonable offer, the city can then consider whether it can provide the service more effectively with public employees. Those who oppose the mayor's restructuring have yet to even mount a case that the city can provide the service more effectively today or tomorrow under the current system.
posted by All4Word at 12:17 PM
1 Comments:
But they've looked very colorful in mid-venom-spew.
Grandstanding like that is impossible to teach. It's simply genetic.
Post a Comment
<< Home