Garbage Rates To Increase?
Well, it seems, according to the newspaper, that
consideration is being given to the idea of raising the collection rates for
garbage. As one of the more efficient
operations run by local governments I commend those responsible for the
collection of garbage.
To raise the price at this time seems a very painful burden
to impose on city residents and businesses.
With Obamacare about to take more from the pockets of
citizens, increasing medicare with-holdings increasing food prices and the true
cost of living increasing almost daily those on fixed incomes are being asked
to pay even more so others can have wages that will allow for a better
lifestyle and new unneeded equipment can be purchased.
What’s a few cents added to each customer, we are asked. Well,
I agree it may not be much but then what is a few cents added to a gallon of
gas? Is the money really needed by the city, I think not and here is my
reasoning.
First, why is there a need to go to a completely new system
when the one we have is working just fine. The cost of continuing the current
system with the current machinery cannot begin to compare with the total cost of
a new system requiring new trucks and new polycarts. The only real benefit mentioned for this
change would be to do away with a job in garbage collection. Now that is really
something we should embrace doing away with more jobs during such high
unemployment. Many of our seniors have
trouble handling the current carts and to get even bigger more awkward ones
will only add to existing problems they experience. It
seems unreasonable to me, that city residents are currently paying county taxes
that provide for the pick up of dead animals from around the county at no
charge. While the two, county and city residents, are very different in many
ways one thing they share is the dwindling population and lack of income.
If the report in the paper is correct then there are many
questions that arise about the cost. At one point it is reported that it will
cost $55,000 a year for eight years
which adds up to about $440,000 but later in the report it is stated that
$750,000 in capital outlay notes will be needed to purchase the equipment. With
interest that will be over a million dollars. So is it half a million or over a
million that it will cost? Is this another case of being sold a brown milk cow
only to get it home and find it’s actually a white goat.
How much does the city pay PES to handle its billing? I’ve
been told over $30,000 a month, if that
is correct, why? If it’s incorrect then give the correct amount. Could there
not be a large savings to the taxpayer if the city handled this task. Is it
true that the city under the former mayor made this deal to prop up PES when
they were about to go bankrupt?
The third thing MTAS, Municipal Technical Advisory Service,
recommends this change. Well, please excuse me if I cringe. MTAS is nothing but
a twin of CTAS, and both are nothing more than the dummy for the cities and
counties ventriloquists. They provide a
buffer between the people and the politicians allowing the local politicians to
claim innocence on most all spending as the fault of either MTAS or CTAS.
Neither MTAS nor CTAS are accountable to the people so they are the perfect
foil to hid behind, they are asked to provide cover for the wants of local
politicians who fear not being re-elected.
Contact your Alderman and ask them to vote down this
unneeded expense and spare their constituents this added burden.
posted by Allen Barrett | 9:27 AM
62 Comments:
As I read this in the paper I wondered, "Will this do away with jobs?"
I guess the city don't feel like the county, "we've done it this way 200 years and nothing is wrong with it."
WAB, adding to your topic, we the taxpayers pay for MTAS and CTAS through our taxes yet they claim to work not for the taxpayers but the aldermen and commissioners.
WA< you hit this one well and truly on the nail. Thanks.
Isn't it funny how this came out
AFTER the election. Sneaky, Sneaky politicians. I personally cannot afford any more taxes or increases in anything. Way to go City Aldermen. Keep taking advice from a person who was raised with a silver spoon in his month.
Has the city replaced all the 100 year old sewer and water pipes that are running under Pulaski?
Do you smoke or drink alcohol 11:01? Do you only eat meals at home or do you go out sometimes? Do you drink cokes or have an iphone? Do you have cable television or a big car payment?
What does it matter 8:08? Do you want more taxes for unnecessary purchases so that every one has less money to enjoy life?
8:08 what dumb questions that have nothing to do with anything. Whether a person has those debts or not has nothing to do with whether there is a REAL NEED for this very expensive change. A question you might ask is who will actually benefit the most from these new purchases? There are some aldermen, mayors and employees of the city who have increased their wealth considerably while being in those positions.
Why not implement mandatory recycling as most other cities do throughout the USA. This is an opportunity for this county/city to recoup costs associated with garbage collection by being able to sell recyclables. It works everywhere else so why not here?
I'm no bleeding heart liberal tree hugger, but it is just the right thing to do before the next landfill is built in your back yard by one of our commissioners. Don't think it can't happen, because it will folks. Let the bashing begin.
this is about the only county that pays to have a recycle program most of the others are making money from recycling but we pay to recycle, go figgur.
Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:08:00 PM
What do you want everyone in the poor house but you?
I think it is stupid to claim you can't afford something when you waste money on things you don't need. Apparently nobody wants to answer the question.
6:41 and I think it is stupid to spend money on something that is not needed especially when it can go towards paying down the debt Dan the Man left us with and saving tax payer dollars. In addition I would rather have one or two more people working in Pulaski than higher taxes and state of the art garbage trucks.
What is the increase? $2.50 a month? I don't want my taxes to increase, but an extra $2.50 a month for a necessary service will not bankrupt me, especially if it means one of the hardworking garbage collectors will keep his/her job.
ROJ
From what I understand the rate will increase and a job will be done away with. But with the economy the way it is for some people and jobs not being plentiful in Pulaski why put an unnecessary burden on any one. We already pay the highest sales tax in the state.
We do not pay the highest sales tax in the state. In fact we are at or below the average for the state. I just looked at sales tax rate for the state online.
You need to look again because I looked at it as well. When the tax rate was raised for the refurbishment of Sam Davis Park it was maxed out at 2.75%, the highest the state allows. It can go no higher.
Is it a problem with paying attention or comprehension or what, but how can two people read the same article and get the exact opposite information.
The paper stated that one job would be moved out of sanitation or in other words a job in sanitation would be lost.
The state has set the limit on which communities can raise the sales tax. Pulaski is at the maximum level so unless every other community is maxed out there is no way we could be at the average rate. Being at the maximum level puts us at the highest level possible until the rules change.
The problem that needs to be focused on is why the need to change the entire system. What study has been made that shows this need and what savings if any will be realized and how long before that savings is realized? Is this just an arbitrary decision by someone with too much time on their hands.
I will answer Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:08:00 PM's question.
Sometimes I eat the small hamburger and small coke off the McDonald's menu. Can't afford the other. I drive a small 10 year old car.
I have a phone in my house and I do have internet. Yes I have cable and internet for my old computer and 24 inch TV. I would love to ave other good things for my family but can't afford it.
So you see there are some out there that can't afford the good life like you do.
Are you happy now?
9:53 Looks like 8:03 don't want the other people to have anything. Give everything to the government so he/she can live high on the hog.
You are a moron 2:44. Crawl back in your hole. Nobody said anything about giving the government anything. It is a service that is provided to you. You could shove you garbage up your rear and it wouldn't cost you a thing. I can't believe the stupidity of some people on this blog.
Yea, like your stupidity 6:14!
6:14 break it down for us. Is the system in place for garbage pick up that bad that it has to be changed at the tax payers expense and fire an employee in these already hard economic times. You seem to feel that the garbage pick up needs improvement. I feel that the system in place is very good so why are you so adamant in changing it? Do our trucks need to be replaced? At least one of them looks new to me. Maybe you have the figures. Who would we be purchasing the new trucks from?
This is not 6:14, but the current polycarts are obsolete. The new ones are nicer and less bulky. One new truck will be needed for several reasons. Rates will go up from about 9.25 to 10.00 per month. Rates have not gone up in years. It is time for this upgrade.
This is 6:14, and I will refer you to the post at 8:59. I don't think there should be any more questions or concerns regarding the issue.
So 8:59 rates should go up just because they haven't gone up in a while. So maybe salaries should go down because they haven't gone down in a very long time. Your thinking is so typical of a government worker.
Have you seen the new carts, if so does that make you one of the people making the decision to change the system. Just what advantage would the new system have over the old and didn't the city just purchase a new truck and that is why there are no reserves left?
So far I have not read or heard of a single solid good reason for this very expensive change, perhaps you could provide one but understand it's not reason that says change just because we haven't changed for a long time. I also do not understand how only one truck would have to be replaced if the new carts can't be used with the trucks we have and if the truck we have can pick up the new carts what in the world is the more than 700,000 dollars going to be used for.
I have to agree Barrett. I have not read one good reason for changing the current system by the geniuses at 8:59 and 9:41. Seems they just want to spend money. If I recall correctly the city just bought new polycarts because the old ones are the ones that are obsolete and not the new ones.But then again the geniuses seem to have insider information and the lowly citizens should not have any concerns or questions because the government has spoke.
I have to agree Barrett with the exception I believe the comments that are taking such offense come from an elected official. I don't think any employee wants to see a job done away with, with the exception of the city administrator. I have not read one good reason for changing the current system by the geniuses at 8:59 and 9:41. Seems they just want to spend money. If I recall correctly the city just bought new polycarts because the old ones are the ones that are obsolete and not the new ones. But then again the geniuses seem to have insider information and the lowly citizens should not have any concerns or questions because the government has spoken.
I have noticed that anytime someone tells the truth on this blog, Barrett has to try and post to redeem his topic. The person that posted twice after Barrett needs to go back to high school.
This is the dumbest stuff on the internet.
Did the little baby get her feelings hurt 11:07? Just like an elected official, all suggestions and no real answers, just spend spend spend.
In addition to the carts, from my research are not obsolete, it is only the shorter longer carts that can not be ordered, we know the annual outlay for maintenance on the trucks we have now. What will the annual outlay on the new trucks going to be, provided nothing breaks down. How many years before serious maintenance needs to be performed? Is there a neighboring city that is using the new trucks? How many years have they used them? And again, because it seems a particular vehicle has been targeted for purchase, who is it being purchased from? But more importantly, if the system in place is not broken, why try to fix it. Have we used up all the depreciation on the current equipment? These are questions that concern me when I see so much waste in government.
11:07 If you think this is the dumbest stuff on the internet and you contribute to it then what does that say about you? And as far as your suggestion as to me going back to high school, I have a suggestion as to where you can go.
Hate to stop the flow but got a question? Is it just me, that WKSR is to lazy to go out and find local news and report. Everything is from what they pick up on the media elsewhere. Who cares about Athens, (unless it reveals something about Tee Jackson) or any other town until they tell local first. Listen to Lawrenceburg to get any news or anything good on the radio.
9:18 You're not alone. I've often thought that.
To:
Monday, December 17, 2012 11:07:00 PM
Did you get your little feelings hurt.
5:53 Good post. Proud of you.
One idiot being proud of another. How wonderful.
If you want to get into intelligent debates on this forum, you will leave the name calling out of it. It does nothing to promote a healthy discussion. Actually, it deters it.
All local public officials are not bad, and there are many reasons to make this, and other changes, including moving into the future.
Jobs can and will be lost, at times, with modern technology. This usually happens by attrition. I can't imagine any taxpayer not wanting their elected officials to pursue technology with a payback.
I hear ya 5:56. One day they are complaining about the amount of janitors at the courthouse and the next they are complaining about something taking a job away.
One day they say we are living the same way as 200 years ago and the next they complain because we are trying to move forward. I can't wrap my head around it. It would help if they would choose a side and stay there.
So why can't we keep living like we did 200 years ago? I read where someone said it was good then and still is. laughing at all of you.
Is the technology proven? More moving parts mean more chance for the need of repairs. Who is qualified to repair the vehicles. What will the down time be if the vehicle does break down and will we have to go back to the old system even for a short amount of time, in which we will be short of staff? Is it a faster system or one that will block the main streets and cause congestion? Is there a cost savings when figuring in the depreciation of the already recently purchased equipment. No one questions upgrading technology when necessary,but when factors could wipe any savings that may be incurred, I question their thinking. If we do not purchase the new type of vehicles and containers will their be an increase in our sanitation fees. If not then leave the system alone.
As stated above our sales tax can not go up any higher via state law and we have millions in debt already so why are a few so adamant about a new system.
What other cities similar in size to Pulaski are using the equipment?
What company is providing the vehicles when purchased?
All good questions. The bottom line is that many of the current polycarts are in need of replacement. As time goes on, there will be more and more. The new polycart system is proven. I am not certain about the maintenance of the new truck, but I can't imagine that it is any different from the old ones.
It is time to begin to make these changes.
The City is reasonably responsible. Much more thought and preparation goes into their decision making when compared to the County.
Yeah right. I have been to their meetings and you do not seem very qualified to answer the questions at hand since you only seemed to know that some of the old polycarts need to be replaced. Making a $700,000 investment because of a few old polycarts and raising the fee to the residents of Pulaski does not seem wise. If this system is tested, then by whom because if it is supposed to be the cost saver you say it is the fee would not go up it would be used for the payment of the vehicle.
I love this comment:
The City is reasonably responsible. Much more thought and preparation goes into their decision making when compared to the County.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:59:00 PM
Mrs. Vanzant and commissioners what do you think about that?
The truth hurts.
The City is fiscally responsible. The City runs a balanced budget. The City has not "lost" taxpayer money. The City has not raised taxes in years. The City meets four times per month. The City officials are reasonably informed on their subjec matter based on number of meetings and electronic availablility of minutes, resolutions, reports, etc.
This just scratches the surface! The differences are huge!
The sales tax rate has been raised in the last few years.
Yeah, and the citizens voted for it. Can't blame that on the Council. Moot point.
I can't say there is a way to fairly compare the city and county governments.
I do believe if a completely new system is bought and begun it should include weight or the number of times the can is actually emptied each month as the determining factor for the cost.
The dumping fee is based on weight at the landfill.
Older folks and those who recycle have far less garbage than those who have large families or don't recycle yet currently every resident pays the full amount. Currently some residents, not disabled ones, are having their polycarts picked up at their door and returned to their door. Why?
A person who creates only half a cart of garbage per week or doesn't put their cart out weekly should not be charged the same as someone who has an overflow every week.
WAB. Really? Really? You can't compare fiscal responisbility? You can't compare preparedness? You can't compare onese abiliy to be heard?
As far as your comments on the new system, the costs of monitoring the amount picked up would potentially offset any savings by reducing fees.
For 700,000 the trucks should be able to sort the recyclables, weigh the garbage, retrieve the bin from a persons door step and clean the streets.
In reality I just do not believe this is going to save the city money. It seems it is costing the taxpayers money and there will be no savings and more congestion in heavier traffic and pick up areas such as the square.
Those guys hustle with minimum slag. One on each side of the street, and they get it done. My question is what is the job function of the employee who is to be cut with this new system? If it is one from a truck I guarantee the trucks are going to use more fuel because the routes are going to take longer, both sides of the streets are going to have to be worked with the truck, and there is going to be more traffic congestion.
I am curious as to what other cities our size are working these new trucks? And whose friend or family member is selling the truck and the new bins to the city?
Whoa 9:16, slow down and read the words, they have meaning. Really, really they do.
I stated, "I can't say there is a way to fairly compare the city and county governments".
It's as easy to compare the end results of city and county leadership as it is to compare the end results of apples and oranges. The problem lies in getting to those end results.
Certainly those three topics you mentioned are extremely strong points that reflect very well on the city.
As the saying goes, "Mussolini had the trains running on time" but at what cost? Certainly, before you have a stroke, I am not comparing anyone in the entire state with Mussolini much less anyone in the city.
The thing is the more concentrated the power the better somethings can be accomplished.
The city has less and very different responsibilities than the county. The city mayor is much less involved in micro managing than the county executive which has led to a far more competent result. The City business seems to be run with far less intimidation and vindictiveness than county business. While a Machiavellian footprint may be seen in both city and county governments, it certainly is far bigger in the county.
Vicky, is that you writing on here again Dec. 19. 4:18 and Dec. 19 8:03?
You need to listen to what the people on here are saying. It's not a good thing to fix something when it's not broke.
And the troublemaking just keeps on coming. What a rotten shame.
4:20 Adding fuel to the flame?
4:20? Isn't that slang for smoking the wonderful devil-weed?
Why I never...
Why does it seem that the cost for the proposed garbage changes keep getting more and more like the federal government is doing the adding?
In a recent City Council meeting the numbers that were discussed were $184,727.00 for a new truck and $192,000.00 for 4,000 polycarts. First National Bank bid a loan to cover this at 1.1% interest.
Earlier in December it was reported that a loan of $750,000.00 would be sought to purchase the new equipment needed. So is the cost $750,000.00 or $440,000.00 or is it just a floating number to be revealed after approval is given?
The council owes it to the people to publicly explain just what the situation is and why there is a need for this change, especially since they have stated that a new truck will have to be purchased whether the new system is adopted or not.
A public Hearing is scheduled to be held at noon on 31 January to discuss this issue but since they have already begun the voting process to approve will the public hearing even be held before the decision is made and if so why bother with the public meeting, oh yea, it's a legal formality.
It's sort of like the Nancy Pelosi form of government pass it then we'll find out what it is.
WAB, sometimes you say some of the dumbest things. What the hell is this crap about not paying $10/mo. for trash pick up just because you didn't fill up the container? Do you expect to pay less for a 1st class letter to be delivered by the USPS just because you didn't enclose a full 1 ounce in the envelope?
Besides, 80 cents is $9.60 a year or less than 3 cents per day per year. You can easily make that up by returning an item or 2 for cash that you originally purchased on your EBT card. Then buy some beer in 12 oz. cans & turn them in for cash at TVR - they're 62 cents/lb. right now.
Or, just illegally burn your trash out in your yard, or street if you don't have a yard, like those folks out in the county do.
This saves landfill space and saves money.
Do you want my idea as to what to do with the old trash containers? (Hint: portable housing by the time Jan. 21, 2017 rolls around)
You’re right anonymous Sunday at 8:56, I probably do say some dumb things at times but this wasn’t one of those times. If you would spend as much time reading the words as you do criticizing the thought you would not have to ask about being charged the full amount for less than full containers, as it was fully explained in my post. Do you believe that an eighty year old widow living by herself will generate as much garbage as a family of six? Think real hard before you answer. The widow is being hit not only with the fee for garbage removal that she does not fully incorporate, she is supplementing the pick up from the six member family (dumping fees are based on volume/weight not how many new trucks make the delivery). Now, in addition to getting shorted on her personal garbage she also is required to help pay for dead animal removal for a guy that got over a hundred thousand dollars from the government is supplement payments for having a non-producing farm. Of course it’s much simpler to just charge everyone the same but there will come a time when each household is charged much the same way they are charged for water and electricity.
I have re-read my post on this issue and could not find anything where I added $.80 to $9.60 and stated the result was $10.00. Sorry but I don’t have an EBT card and beside I understand that it is illegal to make a purchase with an EBT card then exchange the item for cash, surely you would not suggest I do something illegal…. Would you?
To date I haven’t sold any beverage cans I prefer to recycle by giving the cans to others. Do you need some? I can save you some.
Again you suggest I engage in an illegal activity, why would I seek to break the law when it’s no problem to get a burn permit and do it legally? Do you normally operate so much outside the law and encourage others to be law breakers? You do realize if I followed your suggestion you would be an accessary to a crime?
I expect there is more validity to your idea of the present poly carts becoming “portable housing by 2017” than you may realize.
The real problem isn’t the rate increase but the reason for that rate increase, spending over half a million dollars for a totally new system just because someone wants it is absurd when the current system provides just as efficient a method as the new one would offer.
I think it would be a good idea if the water and electric bill was the same price for everyone. Say three hundred dollars a month then the widow or family of two would be helping pay the same as the family of six with a large house.
Just about as stupid as your post, 8:56
Maybe smaller Polly carts could be used for people having less garbage and the price fit the size of cart.
My bill would be high because I would need a BIG cart.
You say more dumb things than just about anyone I have ever met Allen. It seems to be a habit of yours.
WAB
Paul Manke reported in his front page article in the Jan. 8, 2013 issue of the Pulaski Citizen that the Pulaski City Council recommended "Raising the cost of garbage collection 80 cents to $10 a month...." That implies that the current garbage collection rate is $9.20 per month. The 80 cents per month recommended increase IS A TOTAL INCREASE OF ONLY $9.60 PER YEAR ($0.80 x 12=$9.60). Nine dollars and 60 cents divided by 365 days per year is about 2.63 CENTS per DAY.
The mailing of a 1st class letter that weighs less than 1 ounce in comparison to having a less than full container of trash being picked up is valid analogy in this case whether it's you, me or anybody else. It's a cost that people, as members of a civilized society, accept for the overall use of a public service.
Also, for your information, disopsal fees for domestically produced solid waste to be landfilled are based on volume, not weight.
Anyhow, you didn't answer my question in regards as to whether you expect a discount just because you didn't fill up your envelope with a full ounce of mail.
The use of the word "you" in the remaining portion of my posting is meant to be used in terms of a collective pronoun. The words "one" or "anyone" can be substituted. The rest of the paragraph is meant to be humourously cynical.
As far as saving the aluminum cans for me, nah, just pitch them out your car window like all the others, but I do appreciate the offer.
And WAB, the Division of Forestry issues open burning permits. That Division is a part of the State's Department of Agriculture. Part of their job is to promote the forest products industry, and prevent wildfires. The Division of Air Pollution Control of the Department of Environment and Conservation, however, regulates the types of items which can be openly burned, regardless as to whether, or not, you have a permit to open burn. Household trash and garbage which contains any rubber, plastics or paper products among other items cannot legally be burned. So if you are burning your household trash and garbage you are burning illegally regardless as to whether, or not, you have a Division of Forestry open burning permit. Burning in a "burn barrel" IS considered to be open burning by Division of Air Pollution Control regulations. Are you burning your househlod trash, garbage or refuse in a barrel?
And lastly, I think having a disposal mechanism for dead farm animals to be carried offsite and away from this county is a good thing. I appreciate certain services that benefit the entire community.
To Anonymous 11:52
It’s commendable that you have such wonderful math skills but wonder why you didn’t take it farther along and show that it’s even less if figured by the hour or even minute. What’s the point of whether it cost everyone $.80 extra a month or less than three cents a day. The question that remains to be answered is why there is a need to completely change the entire collection system when the one currently being used is more than adequate. According to the report in the paper there are many unanswered questions that arise about the cost. At one point it is reported that it will cost $55,000 a year for eight years which adds up to about $440,000 but later in the report it is stated that $750,000 in capital outlay notes will be needed to purchase the equipment. With interest that will be over a million dollars. So is it half a million or over a million that it will cost?
Another question that hasn’t been answered is at the end of eight years are we to believe that will end the expense or will that be about the time for replacement trucks and carts or perhaps another completely new system? For me the increased cost isn’t nearly as important as the overall cost and the reason for the change.
Apparently you don’t believe that there should be different charges for different amounts of garbage collected so should we understand that you strongly oppose businesses paying more than individuals?
You state, “Also, for your information, disopsal fees for domestically produced solid waste to be landfilled are based on volume, not weight.”
Well for your information, try to find someone to read and explain to you the thirteenth line of my statement, which you apparently refer to. It states, “(dumping fees are based on volume/weight not how many new trucks make the delivery). You see that little slash mark between the words volume and weight has a meaning, it stands for “and or”. Some landfills charge by weight and some by volume.
“And WAB, the Division of Forestry issues open burning permits”. Anonymous, the city of Pulaski also issues burn permits with greater restrictions than the Forestry service requires.
You ask, “Are you burning your househlod trash, garbage or refuse in a barrel?” The last time I burned anything in a barrel it was a mixture of diesel fuel and human fecal matter along with some contaminated medical waste and no one was concerned about the pollution factor.
Lastly you state, “I think having a disposal mechanism for dead farm animals to be carried offsite and away from this county is a good thing.” I certainly agree with you on that statement, the problem is in who should be responsible for that dead animal and pay for having it hauled off?
A restaurant is responsible for disposal of their waste, a garage is responsible for disposal of old mufflers as a cost of doing business, a dog owner is responsible for disposal of their dog if it dies, so why isn't the farmer responsible for disposal of their dead animals as a cost of doing business. Isn't it true that when a cow dies the owner can use it as a tax deduction? I appreciate certain services that benefit the whole community such as police, fire, education, health etc but not to the degree that they abuse their positions with excessive and unnecessary expenses.
Claiming a dead cow as a tax deduction is only allowed if the farmer purchased the cow to begin with. If the cow had been born on the farm it cannot be used as a tax deduction if it dies.
Great post, William! I particularly agree with your comments on the dead-animal issue.
I have county garbage service, so all I'll add to that subject is that if it's not broken, it doesn't require repair.
Ray
10:09 I bet you still believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
Post a Comment
<< Home