I think this topic will become very important in the very near future! In today's Sacramento Bee was an article in the Metro section about Elk Grove and Sacramento County having a falling out over their trash contract. Elk Grove was complaining that the charge to use the County's landfill was too high. The County said that they offered Elk Grove the same price that Folsom pays, $26.00 per ton.
Since the City of Folsom has been paying $71.00 per ton to take our solid waste to the prison correctional facility we have all been over-charged for a long time. Stay-tuned for the City's plan to handle our recycling.
Solid Waste
Started by
FIVE STAR
, Apr 22 2003 07:48 PM
33 replies to this topic
#2
intelkid
-
- New Members
-
- 75 posts
Netizen
Posted 23 April 2003 - 03:24 PM
that must be a typo... if we're no longer using that facility and saving that much money, then why are our garbage fees going through the roof?
Something smells fishy around here...
Something smells fishy around here...
I believe you have my stapler...
#3
kanda
-
- Premium Member
-
- 555 posts
Superstar
- Gender:Male
Posted 23 April 2003 - 07:30 PM
| QUOTE (intelkid @ Apr 23 2003, 03:24 PM) |
| that must be a typo... if we're no longer using that facility and saving that much money, then why are our garbage fees going through the roof? Something smells fishy around here... |
Well, the rate hike was approved several months prior to the announcement of the closing of the prison facility. So, that rate structure was predicated on continuing to pay the extra $50 or so a ton.
But, as I understand it, a lot of that rate increase was to pay for the ramping up of the new yard waste recycling program (buying new 90 gallon cans, leasing new trucks, hiring new employees). With the closing of the prison recycling facility, Folsom will now need to do its own solid waste recycling, too. So guess in which direction rates will go next year?
This is exactly why I posted a few months ago that Folsom should at least be investigating 3rd party solutions, instead of immediately trying to double or triple our current homemade service.
#4
FIVE STAR
-
- New Members
-
- 8 posts
Newbie
Posted 25 April 2003 - 10:03 AM
I helped put the rate study together so if you have any questions please ask them here. I also gave this presentation to the UAC last night. We did not get the revenue and expense numbers last night. I think the deficit will be around $ 1 MM in the next budget. I think the City has put the cart before the horse again. This topic is scheduled to go before the City Council in November of this year. Now, if the new budget is approved on July 1 of this year and solid waste goes out and hires new people, leases trucks and buys more cans the opportunity to our-source will be lost.
Sacramento County does not loss money on its solid waste division. We feel the $ 19.55 RATE
Sacramento County does not loss money on its solid waste division. We feel the $ 19.55 RATE
#5
FIVE STAR
-
- New Members
-
- 8 posts
Newbie
Posted 25 April 2003 - 10:17 AM
sorry, I hit the wrong key and lost the message. This rate is very conservative when CH got $12.50. My message to the UAC was that if the citizens of Folsom have all the facts and still want to stay in the solid waste business that is fine. However I think that when the facts are out in the open the citizens will say, let Sacramento County do the job and we can spend the $ 1MM on more pressing needs. This is one of those opportunities that doesn't happen very often. We need to speak up now before the solid waste division grows anymore. If it does it may be many years before we ever get another chance to change direction. Our oversight group is trying to get the City to run more like a business. We want them to spend our money wisely.
#6
kanda
-
- Premium Member
-
- 555 posts
Superstar
- Gender:Male
Posted 25 April 2003 - 12:57 PM
The bottom line choice is, do we want to pay $400 next year for trash collection, or $235 (assuming 60-gallon cans)? Even for those who need 90-gallon weekly pickups, the service is $80 less than next year's Folsom service is planned to cost.
If we were actually asked, I'll bet most people would prefer to pay less, with the more flexible service.
But I'd also bet the message will not even make it out to 99% of Folsom residents. The Folsom solid waste service will continue to expand, and Folsom residents will continue to pay far more for trash collection than we would with a 3rd-party service.
If we were actually asked, I'll bet most people would prefer to pay less, with the more flexible service.
But I'd also bet the message will not even make it out to 99% of Folsom residents. The Folsom solid waste service will continue to expand, and Folsom residents will continue to pay far more for trash collection than we would with a 3rd-party service.
#7
Folsomite
-
- New Members
-
- 117 posts
Veteran
Posted 25 April 2003 - 01:03 PM
Fivestar, you should contact the Bee & Telegraph about this, it is very eye opening.
The first step to getting the things you want out of life is this: Decide what you want.
Ben Stein
Ben Stein
#8
bettyemahan
-
- New Members
-
- 270 posts
All Star
Posted 27 April 2003 - 12:05 PM
This is the latest, if not the worst, example of the dictatorship attitude of our city officials toward the taxpayer/residents of Folsom. The increases we are paying are FOR NO UP-TO-NOW INPROVEMENT IN SYSTEM OR SERVICES, for NON-PAYMENT by the prison for years, and for COMPARISON OVER-CHARGING BY THE COUNTY!.
This City Council pays the highest payroll for the largest over-staffing of any near like community around. If they are smart why do they let the above happen??? If they are stupid why are they in office???
In addition the parking garage in the railroad block of Sutter St. has been approved, WITHOUT CONSULTING RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS again!!!
Folsom is promoted as the best, most progressive, up-scale community to live,---yet this city STILL puts WASTE, HIGHWAGES, MASSIVE HOUSE BUILDING EXPANSION , ABOVE AND BEYOND REPLACING THE DISGRACEFUL EXCUSE OF A LIBRARY, because of "LACK OF MONEY"!!!!!
This City Council pays the highest payroll for the largest over-staffing of any near like community around. If they are smart why do they let the above happen??? If they are stupid why are they in office???
In addition the parking garage in the railroad block of Sutter St. has been approved, WITHOUT CONSULTING RESIDENTS/TAXPAYERS again!!!
Folsom is promoted as the best, most progressive, up-scale community to live,---yet this city STILL puts WASTE, HIGHWAGES, MASSIVE HOUSE BUILDING EXPANSION , ABOVE AND BEYOND REPLACING THE DISGRACEFUL EXCUSE OF A LIBRARY, because of "LACK OF MONEY"!!!!!
#9
FIVE STAR
-
- New Members
-
- 8 posts
Newbie
Posted 13 May 2003 - 08:00 AM
I just wanted everybody to know that we just corrected one slide and added two more to our cost study. The two new slides include the diversion rates for Sacramento County. The five year rate projection for Sacramento County which you can compare to Folsom's. Please go to the April 25th news day and click on the cost study. I think you all will be amazed at the numbers. I will be presenting this info to the city council tonight at 6:00PM.
#10
swede
-
- New Members
-
- 14 posts
Netizen
Posted 17 May 2003 - 08:13 AM
[I] to all you people who are unhappy with the solid waste fees i suggest you move to where the rates are lower and the service stinks have a great day 
#11
FIVE STAR
-
- New Members
-
- 8 posts
Newbie
Posted 17 May 2003 - 08:58 AM
This is a reply to Swede's post today. It is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who doesn't have all the facts. He suggested that we all move to where the rates are lower and the service stinks. Sacramento County did a customer satisfaction survey in 2002 and the results are as follows. 88% good to excellent, 10% fair, and 2% poor. Now Swede, I hope you have a great day and try and get your head out of the sand.
#12
jake
-
- No Politics!
-
- 165 posts
Veteran
Posted 20 May 2003 - 06:50 AM
| QUOTE |
| to all you people who are unhappy with the solid waste fees i suggest you move to where the rates are lower and the service stinks have a great day |
Dude, whatever. I for one am not a big fan of getting ripped off. If you bothered paying attention to what he is talking about you would realize that this is something the city needs to pay attention to.
"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there."
-Yogi Berra
-Yogi Berra
#13
swede
-
- New Members
-
- 14 posts
Netizen
Posted 20 May 2003 - 04:02 PM
| QUOTE (jake @ May 20 2003, 05:50 AM) | ||
Dude, whatever. I for one am not a big fan of getting ripped off. If you bothered paying attention to what he is talking about you would realize that this is something the city needs to pay attention to. |
Just to clarify a few points #1 I do not like paying more on my utility bill just like anyone else #2 I have lived where cities have went with a third party you lose all control over rates at that point it might start cheaper but there is no cap on what it could end up you get what you pay for #3 The city councils of past and present should have never allowed such void in between increases 2% to 3% spread out over time is a lot easier on my wallet but they did'nt it is my understanding that the council will hear every year proposals for future increases on utility bills remember people the big increases on your bills is not just for soild waste it is everything on your utility bill with that rate I want great customer service which I receive if I did'nt City Hall would be hearing from me I am willing to pay as long as I am receiving what I'm paying for
#14
kanda
-
- Premium Member
-
- 555 posts
Superstar
- Gender:Male
Posted 22 May 2003 - 01:34 PM
swede,
A few points of my own in rebuttal:
My experience has been considerably different from yours. I lived in a city for 13 years that is served by a 3rd-party (i.e., non-governmental) company. During that time, the fees increased at a very reasonable rate, and at the time I left they were considerably lower than what Folsom was charging (and that was before the recent Folsom raises). The service was superb, and included a wide range of choices (various can sizes, pickup frequency, recycling options).
You don't always get what you pay for, sometimes you get less. I believe that is the current situation. We are getting far less, and paying far more, than the city from which I moved. You would have me move back? I would prefer that we take this opportunity, and improve Folsom's service. A 3rd-party service needn't be without rate caps. If you look at slide 23 of that presentation featured on myfolsom.com's home page, you'll see that Citrus Heights signed a 7-year contract. And that wasn't with a 3rd party, it was with Sacramento County. As you know, we live in Sacramento County, so using them is simply changing to a different government agency (one with a much larger and more efficient operation, apparently). But even if we went with a private company (which I feel might be "safer"), due to competition we are assured of always getting a competitive rate. That is the beauty of competition and capitalism.
I agree, that would be easier for everyone to swallow. Unfortunately, the price increases amount to far more than 2%-3% per year. In the last 10 years, prices were increased in April 1993 and June 2000 (until the most recent raise this year). Going from April 1993's rate of 18.90 / mo to the planned rate of 32.20 this coming Janurary (a period of 10 2/3 years) is an increase of 70%. Annualized over that time period, that comes out to be more than 5% / year.
And what are we getting for these large increases? A service that provides no options, and doesn't even meet the required state mandate of at least 50% recycling.
Sorry, I really don't understand this point. You're saying that we should remember (like I could forget!) that not only is the rate for our trash collection going up, but rates for water & sewer are going up, too -- and that's a good thing?!
I'd like it, too. But as part of "great customer service", I include options. I'd like to have an option to use a smaller trash can. Why should I pay the same as someone who contributes 10x as much trash as I do? That just doesn't seem like a fair service to me.
The rate comparisons I've seen with our neighboring cities show that you are paying far more, and receiving far less, than they are. You're still happy with that, though?
A few points of my own in rebuttal:
| QUOTE |
| I have lived where cities have went with a third party you lose all control over rates at that point it might start cheaper but there is no cap on what it could end up you get what you pay for |
My experience has been considerably different from yours. I lived in a city for 13 years that is served by a 3rd-party (i.e., non-governmental) company. During that time, the fees increased at a very reasonable rate, and at the time I left they were considerably lower than what Folsom was charging (and that was before the recent Folsom raises). The service was superb, and included a wide range of choices (various can sizes, pickup frequency, recycling options).
You don't always get what you pay for, sometimes you get less. I believe that is the current situation. We are getting far less, and paying far more, than the city from which I moved. You would have me move back? I would prefer that we take this opportunity, and improve Folsom's service. A 3rd-party service needn't be without rate caps. If you look at slide 23 of that presentation featured on myfolsom.com's home page, you'll see that Citrus Heights signed a 7-year contract. And that wasn't with a 3rd party, it was with Sacramento County. As you know, we live in Sacramento County, so using them is simply changing to a different government agency (one with a much larger and more efficient operation, apparently). But even if we went with a private company (which I feel might be "safer"), due to competition we are assured of always getting a competitive rate. That is the beauty of competition and capitalism.
| QUOTE |
| The city councils of past and present should have never allowed such void in between increases 2% to 3% spread out over time is a lot easier on my wallet |
I agree, that would be easier for everyone to swallow. Unfortunately, the price increases amount to far more than 2%-3% per year. In the last 10 years, prices were increased in April 1993 and June 2000 (until the most recent raise this year). Going from April 1993's rate of 18.90 / mo to the planned rate of 32.20 this coming Janurary (a period of 10 2/3 years) is an increase of 70%. Annualized over that time period, that comes out to be more than 5% / year.
And what are we getting for these large increases? A service that provides no options, and doesn't even meet the required state mandate of at least 50% recycling.
| QUOTE |
| remember people the big increases on your bills is not just for soild waste it is everything on your utility bill |
Sorry, I really don't understand this point. You're saying that we should remember (like I could forget!) that not only is the rate for our trash collection going up, but rates for water & sewer are going up, too -- and that's a good thing?!
| QUOTE |
| I want great customer service which I receive |
I'd like it, too. But as part of "great customer service", I include options. I'd like to have an option to use a smaller trash can. Why should I pay the same as someone who contributes 10x as much trash as I do? That just doesn't seem like a fair service to me.
| QUOTE |
| I am willing to pay as long as I am receiving what I'm paying for |
#15
bettyemahan
-
- New Members
-
- 270 posts
All Star
Posted 22 May 2003 - 09:43 PM
NOW YOU ARE GETTING IT FOLKS!!! We are getting far less, and paying far more! Is it time to wake up? Get a flyer and sign the petition Saturday & Sunday, May 24 & 5& in front of Raley's!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
