The increase would raise the monthly rate for a standard 64-gallon trash tote from $29.45 to $36.50, and would go into effect Jan. 1.
According to city officials, the city’s solid waste fund has operated at a deficit the past two fiscal years, a trend that is expected to continue into the 2012-13 financial calendar. Officials believe the deficit was created by a spike in foreclosed homes in Tracy, which equates to lost revenue for the waste services. There are approximately 800 vacant or foreclosed homes in Tracy, according to city government figures.
If approved, the city estimates the increase will generate an additional $1.5 million during the remaining fiscal year, which ends June 30.
A staff report noted that the city under-collected the franchise fee due to Tracy Delta Disposal Services — the company contracted to provide waste collection — and the cost of waste management rose by about $785,000 when the issue was amended.
Those added costs meant that the utility fund for garbage services suffered a $1.4 million operating deficit in 2010-11, leaving $2.2 million in reserves for the operating budget. That cushion would be exhausted after 2011-12, if city and consultant projections are accurate. In that scenario, Department of Public Works Director Kevin Tobeck said, the in-the-red general fund might have to make up the shortfall, something that Finance Director Zane Johnston said would be highly irregular.
Waste rates were most recently increased in 2007.
The council is scheduled to vote on the measure immediately following the public hearing.
In other discussions, the council is expected have a vote that would authorize city staff to begin negotiations with San Joaquin County, and possibly the city of Stockton, in regards to assuming the control of the Tracy Branch Library located, 20 E. Eaton Ave.
The city of Stockton is contracted by San Joaquin County to operate 13 of the libraries within the county’s public library system. The city of Stockton is currently responsible for managing and staffing the Tracy library.
Tracy officials estimate $1.2 million in property taxes from people living in and around Tracy is used to run the local library — money that by law can’t be used to pay for anything else.
On top of the property taxes collected by the county, the city spends $193,000 each year to provide extra materials for the Tracy library and to extend the library’s hours.
Tracy City Manager Leon Churchill said the plan could eventually save Tracy about $290,000 annually from its $49 million general fund, which is an estimated $1.4 million in the red for fiscal year 2011-12.
Here in Tracy they have a buyback center where you can redeem plastic, glass, and metal cans. They will pay you for those items and take your other recyclables at 6th St.
The MRF on MacArthur, also has a program to take monitors/CRTs free, if you take there.
They also take batteries, hazardous waste and oil.
Might not be a bad idea if one starts it on their own street, to voluntarily take trash to dumpster on rotation basis?
Try it, when they see services being dropped resulting in less revenue, they might change their minds?
Recyle, compost, is the way to go.
Good luck.
CN
Which I understand...a big household in 100 degree heat...stinky garbage!
Still, would be nice to have options instead of being told that this is it...like it or lump it. :-/
The mayor and council decided not to do that, based on a recommendation from the city manager and the finance director, even though they all knew they were operating at a deficit. Again, an irresponsible decision.
The ironic thing is the city manager and finance director paid Management Partners a lot of money to tell them how to help raise new revenue, then recommended to the council not to do it. That is truly wasteful spending on the part of our city manager and finance director.
I see you started your assumptions, again in a new thread, here.
However, the Tracy Press reported that the deficit was this year, not 2 years ago.
You can accuse others of as much impropriety as you wish (as long as the Tracy Press smiles on your comments), but Im finding your rhetoric hard to believe, when you sprinkle it with half truths and outright propoganda.
Claim: Management Partners was hired by the city to identify new ways to balance the budget.
Fact: This was confirmed by the finance director during his presentation last Tuesday. He specifically mentioned management partners and the work they had done.
Claim: The solid waste disposal fund has been running at a deficit for at least three years.
Fact: The finance director confirmed this during his presentation Tuesday night as well.
Claim: The mayor and council chose not to raise these costs following management partner's presentation and recommendation.
Fact: The finance director confirmed this during his presentation Tuesday night. He specifically said they knew the fund had been running at a deficit, but that there were political decisions made that deferred any action on this matter.
Claim: The city paid management partners to conduct this analysis and make their recommendations.
Fact: This was confirmed by the finance director on Tuesday and I am sure we can check the city's expense records to verify this.
So the truth is, the city council has made some very irresponsible and ineffective decisions when it comes to managing the public's money, based on recommendations from the city manager and the finance director.
That or the finance director's presentation last Tuesday night was a lie. Either way something needs to change.
You know when people say "LMAO"? Well, it applies here.
Your first claim, yawn. Moot point about management partners too. And the rest of the claims as well.
Most of this was discussed in the Tracy Press in 2010 when the city reduced services (curbside cleanup). So this business of making a mountain out of a moot point is business as usual (but only for tommybahama).
To me it made sense to start that by reducing services. Especially since there are fewer people paying for the same service since the market collapsed a few years before that. This is not rocket science and everybody knew it.
It was in the paper. You can ask to check the records if you want to waste your time, but you could have just read the local paper like everybody else.
I dont see how any of your "claims" add upthe to "irresponsible."
Essentially you accused people of lying and think something needs to change. When in fact, you havent proved Jan or anybody else lied.
And the "change" you claim we "need" came in the form of a yes vote. But you can go on chanting "irresponsible", complaining about management partners recommendation to suspend curbside pickup, and claiming the suspended curbside replacement was "political".
Personally, Im a lot less interested in paying for all the audits youve called for over the years.
Youre wasting time on a moot point.
Myth busted.
Im also guessing that since you never answered my question aas to whether or not its irresponsible to vote no on the increase that your answer is no, again?
But then, we all knew your answer. Right?
By the way, janet thiessen has nothing to do with this so there's no need to bring her into this. In fact there's no need to stray from the topic. The city has known for three years the solid waste operation was running in the red and they were told by management partners that they should increase the franchise fee (royalty).
This has been an exercise in irresponsible government by everyone at city hall including the city manager and the finance director. If you're going to pay a consultant to give you recommendations you should implement them when they are delivered. Had the city manager and finance director recommended these moves two to three years ago the city might not be in the position it's in today.
Just another example of irresponsibility on their part.
A no vote encourages our government to spend more than thay charge for trash service and cover the trash bill with money that could be spent on catching criminals.
Fiscal responsibility and public safety should be the first priorities.
If you watched the finance director's presentation Tuesday night you will find that the loss isn't actually an expense, it was a decrease in depreciable assets, which is just a paper loss.
In reality the city has just increased taxes by another $3.7 million dollars annually without the public having to vote on the increase. It was good to see Councilman Rickman vote no on this item as it points out that at least he's paying attention to the city manager and finance director's manipulative tactics.
Unfortunately, the other councilmembers either didn't see it, didn't bother to pay attention or just didn't care.
The finance director is presenting unaudited information and trying to pass it off as fact, much like you accuse others of doing. The truth is, his calculations should be audited in an effort to determine the accuracy of his calculations.
Besides, why would someone that is so creditible (your inference) allow this fund to run at a deficit when he knew full well it was alledgedly losing money? Wouldn't that be irresponsible and unethical. Shouldn't he have been making recommendations to the city manager and city council to balance this deficit three years ago when he knew the fund was short?
I would guess you haven't thought about that. In short, it's obvious the finance director, city manager and city council have all been irresponsible with the public's funds or they would never have allowed things to get this bad without some type of recommendation to the council that they takes steps to balance this inequity before now.
You might recall that Councilman Rickman has also voted with the majority on items Mr. Helm has spoken against.
Your attempts to use fear mongering to resurrect some type of perceived "Un-Holy" Alliance is futile as none exists.
Obviously previous comments made by tommybahama touched on something the public is unaware of but photon and kystrom feel the need to defend. Apparently there is quite a bit of validity in tommybahama's comments or these two would not feel the need to continue responding.
Sorry. Been there, done that.
First, none of what I said are assumptions. As I already pointed out the information was already in the Tracy Press and has been discussed before. You just werent paying attention.
Point two was NOT my opinion. I QUOTED YOU. Because you keep repeating something, or that I quoted you, doesnt mean I believe it. What I am saying is that the city is getting less money and Delta charges by the tonage. When you have less money coming in but have to pay the same price for the same amount of tonage, thats still adds up to a loss.
And point three the royalty fee doesn't cover the cost of collecting your trash anymore. The return on recyclables is just not what it once was. Depreciation in what Delta is paid for sorting recycled items. All that reduced profit that gets passed on to the customer. The recycling business aint what it used to be. This has all been discussed before. You just werent paying atrention.
Additionally, I never said there has been a deficit for "years".
I actually never made that assumption or any other assumptions.
I only asked if its irresponsible to vote no on this issue. That in itself wasnt even an assumption. But it was the question which seemed to draw your most time consuming attention.
Does that answer your question?
1. The city is making financial assumptions based on information provided by the finance director. Not to say he's doing anything illegal but his numbers are simply assumptions. This doesn't prove that his information is valid, it simply proves that assumptions have been made based on financial data that hasn't been audited.
2. You agree the city is depreciating assets and that this represents an actual expense.
Understanding accounting my question is this; "How can the city legally depreciate assets they do not own?"
The trucks, buildings and other equipment which were funded by a bond that is being paid by the city, have been identified as belonging to Delta Disposal. Once they are paid off Delta will own them free and clear, so again, "Tell me how the city can depreciate assets they do not own?"
3. The city currently collects a Franchise Fee from Delta, which in essence is a "Royalty Fee" for having the sole source contract for solid waste collection in Tracy.
Please explain to me how the city can be running a deficit "or losing money" on a royalty? Especially since the royalty is straight revenue to the city.
If the city has been undercharging for the service that would show up in other areas, not on the PnL sheet. If that's the case that the city has been subsidizing the service then someone should hold the finance director responsible for allowing this to happen for so many years. He clearly hasn't been doing his job in watching out for the taxpayers best interest if he's allowed this to continue.
Keep in mind your commentary is fraught with assumptions which revolve around opinion and speculation.
2.
I did not give my opinions. This is not a debate about a difference of two opinions. I never gave my opinion as a response. I showed facts. It is a fallicy to confuse facts with opinions. I never did that, here.
Its also a fallicy to use hearsay in a discussion.
Further, nowhere did I show "adamacy". I simply responded to each fallicy, in turn. Please dont read more into it, because I notice you have a tendacy to be all over the map in your assments of others, in one commentary you even swapped the word "adamacy" for "bully".
At any rate, essentially you did say we dont have to pay. Why because the cost of trash service exceeds what youre paying. But then, if its your opinion that youre already paying your fair share, then you can go on believing you dont have to pay your bill. By the way, the city, itself, isnt raising your bill (or taxes as you called it)...
As was already explained to you, there exists a "decrease in depreciable assets", which means three things:
1. On average, the majority of Tracy homeowners are oaying less property tax. This is NOT an opinion its a fact. Depreciated city income.
2. Fewer people are paying for a service cost which was set at a time when more people were paying for the same service. Note: truck roll still exists on your street, even though your neighbors water and trash service is off. Again depreciation.
3. More depreciation due to the fact that recycling recoups even less of the cost of your trash service.
All of this means you arent paying for you trash service. This really has nothing to do with a closed vs. open government model. This information was reported and discussed in the Tracy Press, you just didnt pay attention.
But youre right to say that we have to pay for our services and thats why I voted for someone to look at these issues and decide on them.
Keep in mind I never said we don't have to pay our garbage bill. I said the city has just raised our taxes without going to the public for a vote. If we're going to have open and honest government every fee increase (tax increase) should go to the voters for approval. Especially since "We the People" are the ones who have to ante up every time the city runs short due to mismanagement.
Youre not making a good point. If you want an audit based on what you just wrote about hearsay, well its not a very well documented justification.
In fact, the PnL was the right way to show loss you just didnt understand what he was saying. For some reason you assumed if they used InE, there would be an income over expenditures.
Have you ever seen a city that could make money taking in your trash? The facts show it costs more to dispose of trash. You cant even burn it. It has to be buried and vented. In fact new stricter regulations are coming.
The fact is, PnL is not poor practice it is used when one organization handles another. Depreciation is not the loss, but the fact that profit does not exceed loss.
Profit is just another word for income and loss is just another word for expenditures. Accrued expense is a liability, regardless of what you call it.
And it is irresponsible to say we dont have to pay our garbage bills, simply because tommybahama thinks Tracyites need a lesson in accounting 101 from a guy who hasnt a clue.
But as you correctly pointed out in your comment on Dec 10, if we dont pay our garbage bills it comes out of the general fund. A subsidy. A free ride. A handout. Welfare.
Call it what you like. Pretend the rest of the nation is overcharging. Act like you know what youre talking about. Create more conspiracy theories. Accuse others of as much impropriety as you like. And increase the Tracy Press ratings every time you post something stupider than the last time.
Its your choice.
When asked, the finance guy cleverly tried to evade the question but was cornered by Mr. Helm and still refused to admit his misleading explanation.
Anyone who owns and operates their own business knows the difference between a P&L and an I&E statement. The P&L is used to communicate just that, profit and loss. Income and expense statements are used to identify shortfalls in revenue. He tried to use the P&L to justify a shortfall of income, which is clearly "not" an acceptable accounting practice.
This being said, when Mr. Helm continued to question him he got upset because he knew he had been caught. That's why he was so rude and unprofessional to Mr. Helm.
I think it would be a good thing to have the entire City of Tracy Budget, including these enterprises, audited in an effort to maintain open government and to make sure everything is being done properly.
If there's nothing to hide then there's no harm in conducting an audit. Right?
Im not going by hearsay. Dont make that mistake, just to make up for a political plug. Either that or clearly you misunderstand the bottom line.
There is a real cost associated with paying wages, upgrading equipment, and paying dumping fees, including hazardous materials.
All of which adds up. And its rather naive to have us believe thats the ol' "paper loss" explanation.
Now, there is one way they could go back to the drawing board. They could eliminate the service altogether. But you would complain about that too.
Oh but then you wouldnt need to have your taxes increased. But all that proves is this. We are talking about a very real cost and not what you call "depreciation" and an "aspect of paper loss".
Nice try, but by your same logic, youre making a comfortable living weaving the local Tracy conspiracy theories.
The problem is you used a double negative.
Im not trying to be rude but it costs real money to collect, sort, and dispose of trash. You may want the town to think its a free service, but Im putting my bet on the finance guy understanding this a whole lot better than yourself.
By the way, the cost of trash does "depreciate". Its the cost if getting rid of trash that is rising.
Hope that helps.
That's why the depreciation aspect is just a paper loss. It's another way to excise tax increases from the public.
What the council should have done was told the city manager and finance director to go back to the drawing board and find another way to compensate for their perceived loss. The finance director was very ellusive on Tuesday night and he became very upset and frustrated when Mr. Helm cornered him and called him out on the misrepresentation.
And they already explained the increase in cost over several years. Not just a one time depreciation of taxes for this years budget.
No. They also factored in increases in the cost to do business in California, which most of you never saw coming.
You can go on with the rest, asking for government handouts and subsidies, turning a blind eye to the rising cost of doing business in California. But the truth is that is very irresponsible way of doing business and it was the right thing to do to rectify it.
You dont run a deficit in your personal finances, I assume, so why would you allow politicians to take such dangerous risks? Besides why on earth would you feel the need to send them back if this was "paper loss", as you interpratated.
I know the meetings go late but maybe you should pay better attention. Maybe try sugar candy like Pez or something.
Not true at all. Nowhere did I says anyand of that. In fact, I already told you this was all discussed in the Tracy Press.
In fact, I never said there was a deficit three years ago. I told you this had all been discussed in the Tracy Press, but I never speculated anything about "three years ago". You made that all up, on your own. I never said any of that or speculated it. You are certainly not making a good case for your argument, that others are "irresponsible".
In fact, Im having a difficult time believing any of it, cant you just pay for your own "audit"?
Perhaps you were too busy bashing Jan to pay attention to what has been going on around us in the news.
Honestly, you dont do a very good job making up your own news about the past and present. And regarding the future its difficult to see the need for an audit.
The only thing youre good at producing is confusion. And. after your thirsd year the novelty is starting to wear off.
Been around th city a long time an have addressed City Council many times. Didn't always get what I wanted ta happen but most of th times I did an I wasn't thair "friend" or anyone special.
If they don't care about th citizens then why do th majority of citizens elect an re-elect em? They don't appoint themselves.
If ya thank it's bad here perhaps ya ought ta try livin somewhare else whare it's actually a whole lot worse. Nah, it's just easier ta mindlessly complain when thangs don't go exactly yer way.
Well it's not a Burger King world after all. Never was an never will be.
I hear many complaints an complaints aren't in an of thairselves bad. But continuous complaints without offerin any meaningful solutions don't really accomplish anythang cept makin everyone else's ears tired of listen ta ya.
But it seems complainin has become th American way. Borrowin frum th Navy, perhaps a complainin citizen is a happy citizen. If thangs were really as bad as ya thank ya probably wouldn't have th time ta complain about it.
I was pretty disappointed by some things said by Zane Johnston. Not only did he very openly express distaste/disgust for Dave Helm...he also very casually trivialized the impact of the $7 to anyone. Apparently his salary excludes him from understanding someone on a fixed income, or someone who lost their job, or maybe a single mom...and how they are already conserving everywhere possible. I personally felt it was inappropriate on both counts...and extremely unprofessional. Certainly not statements/actions befitting a high level public employee.
Wonder what the corporate officers at the disposal companies make...and how much their salaries have been cut or raised over the past few years. :-/
Fer instance, newtotracy, what da ya make? What da ya do fer a livin? What have ya done ta elevate yer livin conditions?
It's pretty easy ta point fingers at others but quite another ta look critically at yer own life ta see what ya have fashioned fer yerself.
I personally got no beef with Mr. Helm but don't expect everyone ta have th same feelins towards him.
Odds are ya throw away more than $84 per year on thangs ya don't need. That $84 per year is what yer garbage bill went up by.
But take heart, after we all become good little socialists we can all live at th landfill diggin through th stuff that others toss out. Ain't that what ya see in third world nations?
Oh right, ya have probably never seen anythang like that here in th US.
I'll tell you what I do. I won't tell you what I make, because I'm NOT in a position where I make money off of providing services to taxpayers who foot the bill! I do online advertising services on a freelance basis. I help small (and a few bigger) website owners to make some money with their sites by implementing an online ad server and helping them get set up with it. I'm freelance...I work for me.
Why do I ask what the execs at the disposal companies make? Because they are raising our rates due to shrinking profits. Well, they've said they cut back drivers...what about suits? Any of them go by the wayside? What does a driver make compared to an exec? As usual...the low end salaries are cut but we never hear a peep about boardroom cuts...which is where more savings are.
I don't CARE what people make...until it starts to affect me. A lot was said about gas prices and how they have to cover for that. Well guess what? A commuter has increased costs due to gas too. Do you see anyone raising THEIR salary? Nope...it's called an operating expense.
And I'm sorry, but caring about this is NOT Socialism.
Sounds to me like I hit a nerve here.
You asked what I've done to elevate my living conditions? Well let's see...I've worked since 16 (unless you count babysitting), I put myself through school for 3 degrees so that I can make a living, I bought a home on my own, I pay all my own bills, I've never been on the gov't dime (except for 2 months of unemployment, but oh yeah, I pay for that with every paycheck!!!), and I pay taxes without trying to screw the gov't out of every penny. Heck, I even formed my LLC in the state that I live in rather then screw California out of tax money by forming it in Delaware or abroad.
I'm not pointing fingers at ANYONE (except Mr. Johnston for his unprofessional behavior) at all here sir...something that seems to have evaded your notice. All I'm doing is asking what the people MAKING THE CUTS have sacrificed...and as a taxpayer...I think that's fair.
I really wish people would stop using the old "it's socialism" fear factor on things. We're not socialist...we're not going to become socialist...we're greed straight up. We're not even functioning capitalism...we're are bought and sold by the corporations. I'm ok with capitalism...it works, until you let those with the most toys run the world. Then they benefit and the rest of us perish.
Sacrifice by those at the top would lead to a lot less speculation of what they make...because it wouldn't just be us grunts losing their jobs or not getting raises...or hey...paying the 24% increase!
maybe I do throw away $84 a year...but I already throw away $360 a month on my garbage bill because I rarely use it. I easily could transport my own trash, recycling and green waste to the dump once a month...and asked to. But I'm denied...because of health and safety (totally understand this, but wow...really no choice for me is there? to mimic your example...no choice...isn't that what happens in communist countries? what's next...lining up for toilet paper?)
I'm sorry for ranting...but attacking the person who gives a rat's butt about this town is NOT a way to get anywhere. I've enjoyed your posts in the past Ornley (though they are sometimes impossible to read)...but this is just too much.
Remember, he and his staff are getting a buy out package that will allow him to retire early on the taxpayer's dime.
I too wonder what the the exec's at the solid waste company have given up, along with what the city manager and his department heads have given up as well.
Mr. Helm made some good points last night regarding the increases in solid waste rates. He called them what they really are; "A tax increase that doesn't have to be voted on by the public."
Mr. Helm also brought up a good question for johnston last night; "Is this increase going to be used to offset general fund expenses?" To which johnston answered, "Yes".
Keep in mind the increases will generate about $1.5 million every six months. So the real question is, "Why do we need Measure E?"
Everyone needs to listen to johnston and churchill closely. What they're telling us is only half the truth, unless you know what questions to ask.
If you don't like this fee hike talk people...MAKE YOURSELVES HEARD!!! We do NOT have the ability to reduce their profits by cutting the service so we MUST TELL THEM WITH OUR VOICES NOT OUR POCKETBOOKS.
what a crock...
Don't have ta do that with yer PG&E or phone bill now do ya?
As a single person...I often don't even HAVE garbage to put out every week...I certainly don't have recycling because I don't drink pop much and I recycle my own cans rather than let strangers dig through my refuse. Nothing against it...but I'd rather they just come and ask if they could have it than sneak it at 1 am...usually making mess and waking me up!
I have the smaller cans and I still rarely fill them (green waste aside!)...this may be the last straw for me...in raising their rates, Delta Disposal may have just lost my monthly "donation."
More people start taking trash to the dump and I bet they change their tune mighty fast! Nothing like making them obsolete!
On a side note...is it mandatory that garbage trucks be the noisiest things on the planet? The ones on my route literally sound like a drag racer revving in the street for a couple of minutes per can. Not so great at 5 am!
Th term in most businesses would be called shrinkage. I wonder, just how much of an effect does this have on the bottom line of garbage collection businesses as compared to other businesses?
A problem? Yes. A significant problem? In my opinion, No. An think on it this way. Ya don't want it otherwise ya wouldn't have thrown it out. If they are findin somethang in thair that is useful perhaps ya should have set it aside an donated it ta em instead of havin em pick through it in th dead of a cold night.
Frankly, if I was a dispatcher at PD I would report it but not make it th crime of th century that had ta be dealt with immediately. I do believe PD has more ta do than bust some poor person that relegates themselves ta digging through someone's garbage in order ta survive an I would much rather have em diggin through my garbage than breakin inta my house or car ta steal somethang.
If thair is anythang in yer garbage that's useful ta someone else why don't ya do th "right thing" an donate it ta someone that can use it instead of throwin it away ta fillup th landfill?
What's more criminal here, th person diggin through yer garbage ta get somethang useful out of somethang ya have thrown away or th person throwin usefull stuff out in th garbage that could be used by someone else?
When ya start preachin th morality of thangs ya had better start lookin at what yer doin instead of what someone else is doin or yer apt ta look foolish.
Now them leavin a mess is a bad thang fer shore but ya throwin out somethang that is still useful ta someone is worse. Messes can be cleaned up. Human misery is quite a different thang.
Th fact is we throw away way too much stiff, which is why they dig in th garbage.
I know the City has a contract with Delta Disposal. My question is this - why not consider putting the contract out to bid to see if we get any other bids besides Delta Disposal if its legally possible to do so- it may cause Delta's management to sharpen their pencils and find ways to cut costs if they have a little competition breathing down their necks, potentially saving us taxpayers money. Its called a competitive marketplace.
I believe if ya look inta it that is exactly what th City does every time th contract comes up fer renewal. I have always subscribed ta th competitive marketplace in a capitalistic free marketplace. It brings costs down an forces businesses ta "sharpen thair pencils."
But don't ferget that th lowest bidder don't always win th contract either. They have ta show evidence they can perform under th contract. Otherwise ya get low-bids that win contracts an can't deliver th goods unless they get more. That's a cost overrun an is, in most instances, a dis-qualifier fer those seekin ta win a contract.
I believe yer gonna find that contracts between th city an it's contractors have ta be negotiated with open bids whair other contractors are invited ta bid an hopefully win th contract away from thair competition.
Th City don't have th legal ability ta simply award contracts without goin through th open biddin process.
The only way to reduce the cost of garbage collection is to force residents to migrate to a PAY AS YOU THROW plan. And it would reduce cost ONLY because people would start composting recycling and not-buying trash.
Now, having said that. There is a problem with the PAY AS YOU THROW program. People would have to drive to the local hardware store to pick up bags which would be collected roadside AND most people would find this an inconvenience.
We used to have FREE subsidized sodas and yogurts at work.
Those FREE and subsidized days are over.
If ya look inta it ya will find out that Tracy does contract it out an it's not done by city employees or personnel.
That's probably why it's called Delta Disposal Service Co.
Thair are also known as Tracy Delta Solid Waste Management Incorporated.
Ya can easily educate yourself more on how all of this works by visitin www.tdswm.com/.
Everyone should be at the council meeting on Tuesday to voice their opinion.
Is it valley or is it Tracy?
Ya wrote, "Our garbage rates are the highest around already."
Is that a fact or just an idle speculation? Fer instance, what is Livermore's? What is Manteca's? How bout Modesto, Stockton an all th other small towns an city's that have garbage service fer thair citizens.
An less ya ferget, water an sewer fees are also in th Tracy Utility bill so let's make certain ya are compairin just th garbage fees an not everythang else as well.
Ya made th statement now present th facts ta back it up an perhaps more people will listen.
Not sayin it's good or bad but would like ya ta qualify yer statement with some verifiable facts, since ya seem ta know, at least that's what I get frum yer comment.
Start reducing your spending, you self-serving bureaucrats, and stop reaching for our wallets to feed your spending addiction.
Remember folks this is the same city council that wants to allow that slime ball to build 2000 homes in tracy when we have so many vacant homes the banks can't give them away.
Garbage bill sticker shock
by Bob Brownne Tracy Press
Aug 30, 2007 | 158 views | 0 | 4 | |
After 28 years at his home on Vallerand Avenue, Stephen Hespel is accustomed to the occasional utility bill increase.
But a $9.50 increase in the garbage bill this month is nearly 50 percent more than he paid the month before.
"My concern is I’m 65 and retired. Now I’m wondering what it’s going to look like in 10 years, because my retirement income doesn’t go up," he said.
He said his utility bill of about $35 a month back in 1979 included about $9 for garbage pickup. Now he pays $95 to $100 every month in utilities, with $29.45 as the new rate for garbage pickup.
"I’m a voter, and I sure don’t want to vote for the same person who had this great idea," he said.
The Tracy City Council voted unanimously to approve the rate increase July 17. The matter was scheduled as a public hearing and nobody spoke. Council members made no comment prior to the vote.
"We’ll hear about it when the bills go out," Councilwoman Suzanne Tucker said after the vote.
The council reviewed the proposed rate increase June 5 when Pat Wiemiller
SO........ Once again the tax-paying working 'stiff' has to BAIL someone else out. and you thought good 'Ol Measure "E" was going to be the end of it? THINK AGAIN ! ...................
I do have a few questions;
1. Why is the solid waste fund allowed to run a deficit in the first place?
2. If there are 800 vacant homes then they aren't producing any solid waste so why do they need to raise the fees?
3. Since Delta Disposal doesn't have to pick up the trash at 800 vacant homes, doesn't it make sense that the cost would, at worst, remain the same? (Fewer pickups = less cost)
The people at Delta Disposal do a good job but it sounds to me like there's a profit margin issue here. Someone's profit margin went down so it's time to raise costs. Just like the oil companies.
An remember, none of em were elected by popular vote either. Or did ya ferget that?
Seems ta me th majority of th people votin must sorta like what thair doin or they wouldn't keep re-electin em.
Yer questions would have some relevance if all 800 homes ya speak of were all concentrated in one area with no one livin in between.
As it stands they are dotted all over town. Thair is a small cost reduction when they don't have ta pick up garbage at one house but th preponderance of th costs involve drivin down th road, equipment repair/replacement an th fuel necessary ta drive down th road, not ta mention th insurance on th vehicle, th pay of th driver an his benefits. Those costs are escalatin an because of th revenue shortfall of those 800 homes it stands ta reason th operatin costs fer solid waste management have gone up.
Now if ya can just figure out how ta concentrate those 800 homes all tagether so they don't have ta have th truck drive through th neighborhood then yer question would have a little relevance ta th situation. But as it currently stands yer question is sorta meaningless.
Hey, we could just shut down th whole process an let th stuff collect in th streets.
Over 30 years ago ya had th option ta use thair service or haul th garbage ta th dump yerself. But many people shortcut th operation an a lot remained in th street an in people's back yards, causin a health an safety hazard.
So they closed th dump, opened a waste management facility an forced all homeowners in th city ta use it.
If people had taken thair personal responsibilities ta manage thair solid waste themselves, without causin problems fer th rest of society, we'd still be operatin that way which was fine by me.
But people don't do that so instead of creatin a New York City type of problem consarnin solid waste management, th City of Tracy ELECTED ta take this route ta solid waste management.
In other words, if ya don't like th current situation remember th collective you created it because th collective you couldn't do th right thang an take care of it yerselves without it becomin a problem fer th rest of us.
In a very real sense ya have been shafted because of a few who are not livin up ta their social obligations an that's th reason yer payin fer it through th nose now.
It's not Zane an it's not City Council as ya repeatedly point th finger of blame at. It's th collective you that refuse ta do th right thang an expect someone else ta do it fer ya fer free.