Wichita City Council members are considering making Wichita’s already sky-high trash rates even higher. Say it isn’t so. Rather than franchising trash collection — which could cut trash rates in half while adding curbside recycling and reducing wear and tear on streets and air pollution — the council reportedly is leaning toward charging companies a fee to haul trash. The haulers would likely just pass this fee on to households and businesses, which means Wichitans would throw even more money away along with their trash. With the recession, governments need to provide services more efficiently. Wichita needs to follow the lead of Park City, Bel Aire and other area towns and franchise trash collection — not make our dysfunctional system even costlier.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Daniel on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- Daniel on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- Daniel on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- cosmos_originally on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
- DorisKing on Pro-con: Have White House gripes boosted Fox?
39 Comments
Governments at all levels still don’t get it. This country is in a huge economic downturn, if not a flat out depression. Government must downsize, reduce services, reduce salaries, cut non-producing personnel, and STOP INCREASING TAXES … DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXES.
Trash In – Trash Out
If we franchise trash collection, couldn’t we also franchise convenience stores and grocery stores so government could locate them according to a government mandated plan?
Wichita seems to have a way, of doing everything the hard, and more costlier ways.
Lower costs to all and divide the city up into franchises. This current system is wasteful. Waste is not a conservative value, and we can do better.
I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU HYPOCRITES!
It’s A #1 O.K. for Obama to create more federal jobs and end the A76 outsourcing of jobs to private business, which saves taxpayer costs. In other words you support Obama creating more costly government run jobs.
But you want your local government to do the opposite – to save you tax dollars!!!
“which could cut trash rates in half while adding curbside recycling and reducing wear and tear on streets and air pollution”
And I’d like to see the supporting documentation for this wild claim.
I agree, private business in competitive bidding to haul trash would save tax payers money. However, from my own city experience – introducing curbside recycling is an expensive (although perhaps needed) endeavor. It was estimated to add between 250K-250K dollars to the annual operation in a small first class city (much smaller than Wichita).
Saving air pollution? Still going to be garbage trucks spitting out pollutants – and maybe idling longer to pick up the “sorted” trash.
Wear and Tear on Roads? I don’t see how that would happen.
Well…
If we all made an effort to recycle, and it IS an effort, every household would not need a massive dumpster that needs to be dumped weekly.
My trash dumpster is currently accommodating three households and I make a run to the recycling center about once a month.
In other words, BJ dumps his garbage in the neighbors garbage can.
“Jim Spencer, a division vice president of Waste Connections, said the fee is nothing more than a tax that will be paid by consumers. ”
And he is absolutely correct. A hidden tax.
If the city was smart, they would say the “fee” would lead to a cleaner environment. They could say it would lower greenhouse gasses, trash in neighborhoods, and save energy.
They could call it cap and trade.
I’m sorry you have trouble reading “jim”.
But I don’t have to be the victim of your disability.
I have trash service and share it with two other households.
I’ll post the address of the recycling center later. They take almost everything. It really is amazing what we throw away that we don’t need to.
BlueJay
Posted July 5, 2009 at 12:10 pm | Permalink
I have trash service and share it with two other households.
=============================
How noble of you.
Where is Cosmos when you need him?
He could post some scientific research to support charging the trash collectors. Maybe fudge some statistics, or present them in a misleading way to support the idea that our present trash collection system is bad for the earth.
Then we could pretend that charging a new “fee” (tax) would help save the earth.
Can someone explain to me, what they mean, by franchising Trash Collection??? How does this work. I’m assuming it’s different than franchising a fast food restaurant?
Funny, Local Government Cuts Spending During Recession
Local Governments have to Stay Within Budget
(Pssst…A Lesson for Obama)
http://www.kansas.com/759/story/874796.html
Council debates adding fees, more cuts
Wichita City Council members inched closer to agreements Tuesday on how to squeeze spending.
That likely means fewer police in schools full time, private companies mowing parks, fees and fines for people with monitored security alarms and about 100 jobs in City Hall axed from existence.
They’re all moves aimed at heading off a deficit of up to $13 million next year and $17.5 million in 2011.
In most cities, the city charges companies wanting to operate within their borders a franchise fee. This in the form of a renewable contract.
This provides control of services a provider offers, as well as a revenue source for the city. In some cases – the franchise fee may help off-set city related costs. For instance, utilities sometimes rip up streets, curbs, or sidewalks. Although the contract says the franchise has to repair to previous condition, many times they do not. There is a cost to a city to provide an inspector to review the repair.
Cable TV
Utilities (electric, gas, telephone)
trash collection is just another.
Never mind, I googled it. It makes sense to me.
Trash collection is a service everybody uses. It’s not like somebody is going to deny a collection service, because they don’t want to do business with that company, and take their trash themselves to the landfill every week or month, and pay the 22 dollars it costs to drop a load off at the dump.
Is one Trash Collection Company better than another? It’s pretty simple really, you leave out your trash by the curb on the said so day, and they come and take it away.
It’s not like these jobs would be run by the government. The City would just assign trash companies to certain neighbor hoods. It would probably be nicer, if we had just one trash company enter our neighborhood once a week, and get all the trash collecting done at all once. Instead of having 4 or 5 different companies entering our neighborhood all days and hours of the week. It would also make it more efficient for the trash companies, who wouldn’t have to drive to houses all over the place, they would save on gas money, by knocking out a whole neighborhood at once, without having to skip over houses because those customers do business with a different collection service. The trash collecting companies would be saving money, and so would we. Sounds like a win win situation.
How does this hurt us????
Trash fees
Joe Pajor, assistant director of public works, gave council members three options to generate more revenue from trash pickup and, in some cases, improve service.
(Always the Goal of Government – MORE REVENUE.)
One was to have companies bid on one citywide contract.
That would likely reduce costs to consumers, provide uniform service to everyone and allow the city to specify what services should be offered, such as curbside recycling.
But the move would probably bump out some existing companies.
(Just like ObamaCare would bump out private health insurance companies. But then, who cares about choosing your own health insurance company or choosing your own Doctor?)
Another option would franchise parts of the city.
(Government choosing which companies can do business in which parts of the city, and collecting a MOB territory fee. GOVERNMENT CONTROL)
But the option council members seemed most open to would simply create a licensing fee for existing haulers.
That would let the city take a cut of the money Wichitans pay to their haulers. The city is discussing a 5 percent license fee — the same it charges some other utilities.
(Sure, raise taxes on everybody.)
http://www.kansas.com/759/story/874796.html
It hurts you because you have just defined a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want. They can define what they pick up (no more large appliance items for example), how they pick it up (approved bags or carts), charges, rates, hours, etc… You have also put a number of private competing companies with employees, families, and healthcare insurance out of business.
And Barnie, maybe we should just have out grocery store chain in town too.
That would be most efficient, right?
And Barnie, maybe we should just have one grocery store chain in town too.
That would be most efficient, right?
If we only had one grocery store we wouldn’t have to worry about wasting gasedriving to different stores to buy cheaper items. Everything could be in one place. Or just one chain, then we wouldn’t have to worry about coupons or advertising in newspapers, all the different hours of operation (just one set of hours which are at Barnies convenience for shopping).
Gas stations? Who needs all those different brands?
Just one national gas company would do it.
We sure could eliminate a lot of waste if the government just controlled everything. It would be much more convenient to just let the government dictate everything.
Who needs those pesky extra employees and staffs all the competing companies hire?
Ok, Lies would rather have a Licensing Fee, because they can’t compete with Waste Connections. Waste Connections is big enough that losing some business here in Wichita wouldn’t’ hurt them. So why not use the Franchising option, but assign neighborhoods and businesses, according to each companies business growth rate. So they wouldn’t’ lose business. Give Lies and other smaller collection companies the same amount of customers they have now, while adding new customers down the road, according to their growth rate. My guess is that since Lies is a smaller company than Waste Connections, their Growth Rate is larger, considering Waste Connections growth rate has probably steadied out, since they are so large. This will even out the amount of business each collection company receives to an even playing field. Also why not leave an option open that allows customers to choose the company they want to use, and if they don’t want to use the company assigned to their neighborhood bad enough, they can pay and extra 2-4 dollars a month to have the company the want to come to their neighborhood.
If I dislike the way Waste Connections does business bad enough, say I have the choice to Choose Lies if I pay an extra 2-6 dollars a month, and the Lies and the City can split the extra Fee.
And ONE Farm.
Everyone would be required to go out to the fields every day to work on THE Farm.
Don’t need A Grocery store, just go to THE Farm everyday.
And if you missed making a payment and your credit goes bad them what happens?
Whoops!
I have fat finger a “m” instead of a “n”.
Gosh Barnie, you LOVE Government control of private companies, don’t you?
Can’t wait to meddle and stir things up, and ‘FIX’ everything just right.
As for what happens if you miss a payment to a Government Garbage man, you lose one finger per payment missed.
Whatever, the Franchising with the option of an Individual bypassing it to choose the company they want to use. Would save everybody money, while giving the people the option to choose what company they want to do business if they don’t like the franchising idea.
Plus, if the City appropriated customers to the Collection companies based on their business growth. It would most likley work out in the favor for smaller companies. Since larger companies like Waste connections business growth has probably steadied out.
And do not kid yourself.
Utilities increase their rates to make up for the franchise fees. Just like they would any other expense.
But it makes people “feel” good. Like they are “doing something” for society….
Sorry, call me a socialist, statist, conservative, whatever you want to label me as, because I looking for a cost effective solution that works out for everybody.
Utilities don’t have to drive around big huge trucks everyday as part of their business, and stop at 100 houses a day. The trash companies would save a butt load of money in gas, by not having to jump and skip around houses, the city would save money by not having to re-pave roads as often.
Barnie
Posted July 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Utilities don’t have to drive around big huge trucks everyday as part of their business, and stop at 100 houses a day. The trash companies would save a butt load of money in gas, by not having to jump and skip around houses, the city would save money by not having to re-pave roads as often.
————————-
Yet Joe Pager didn’t list any of those things as a reason for making a Change.
Increasing Revenue is the stated goal.
And indeed, increasing the licensing fee for existing haulers is the option the Council Members reportedly preferred.
More Government Revenue – is a goal all by itself.
Time and again I’ve hired small independent haulers because I like the service I get from them, and time and again they’ve been bought out by the big dogs, and I’ve had to go looking for another independent. Now the big dogs want an exclusive. I hope the city doesn’t give it to them.
The Wichita Visioneering organization should identify the list of private businesses and activities in Wichita that City Council could assist by using its collective intelligence to increase efficiency by “franchising.”
That is, eliminate duplication of services in the interest of increasing government efficiency. A major goal would be to reduce driving on the streets of Wichita. In fact, tickets could be given to citizens caught driving without an adequate reason.
Some ideas were mentioned above.
1) Grocery stores. Permit only one large grocery store in each quadrant of the city.
2) Convenience stores. ditto. Close the rest. Turn down Quik Trip’s current application to build a new store on Ridge and K-96 near the existing Kwik Shop. This would be inefficient.
3) I notice several “key shops” here and there. Is this the most efficient use of manpower?
4) High Schools. Instead of some 10 or so Wichita high schools, combine them into one mega sky-scraper high school located in the center of downtown Wichita perhaps in the new downtown white elephant arena for which no viable use has yet to be identified.
5) City Halls. Instead of a bunch of inefficient suburban city halls such as Park City, Goddard, Haysville and Derby, combine them under the umbrella of the superior Wichita city council and administrative staff.
6) Combine Sedgwick county government and Wichita city government with nearby Kingman county government and Kingman city government to achieve economy of scale.
7) Combine all farms in Sedgwick County under one “Farm Czar” who would provide Monday morning work orders by e-mail to all sub-farmers. And follow up with inspections to insure the work is being done according to guidelines.
8) All decisions would be reviewed by a “Government Unilateral Master of Work” (acronym: GUM UP WORKS)whose decisions could not be debated EXCEPT with a “letter of transit … which even you can’t get Rick.” (From Casablanca).
9) All money transactions to be handled from a more efficient “prolatariat work center” on an an “IOU” basis to eliminate need for paper money certificates.
10) No argument or protesting allowed by common ordinary citizens challenging their superiors in government.
This would start a more efficient “citizen collectivization” in Wichita!
Perfect JWink!
#6 is very nice, but would be the only item on your list that Government does NOT implement.
Jim Johnson: How’s this: “6) Improve efficiency by outlawing competition.”
Jwink, High schools are already government entities. Your too late on that one. Excluding Private schools of course
Your neighborhood homeowners association can already collectively bargain for a particular neighborhood. Those in support of a government endorsed monopoly can get a head start on their so-called savings today!
Just like phone service before the break-up you will not get what you paid for. You will get what they decide you need at whatever price they want to charge.