$15,299,711.00

Looking at the last statistics (2000) I can find, it looks like there are 139,880 houses in Toledo (128,915 occupied: 77,028 owner occupied, 51,887 renter occupied).

If we forget the renters, your $15,299,711 divided by 77,000 home owners and 12 months of the year; you get unlimited pick up of garbage and recyclables for less then $17 per month. My parents live in Sylvania Township and pay considerable more for trash pickup and they have to haul their own recyclables.

If you were to add in the renters and divide your $15,299,711 by 140,000 households and 12 months a year, you get unlimited pick up of garbage and recyclables for less then $10 per month.

Wow Chad! Thanks for pointing out what a sweet deal we get in Toledo for our tax money. If someone has a more accurate number of homes in Toledo, I'd love to see the math.

I found another statistic that says there are about 70,000 homes/houses in Toledo. With that number we're paying less then $18.25 per month for unlimited pick up of garbage and recyclables.

Either way the numbers are good.

The "Deal" is at the expense of other priority services. When the choice is between City refuse removal and Police, Fire, infrastructure and other less luxury issues....the choice should be clear. This is just one of several ways to reduce government and increase citizen choice. What good is trash collection at the expense of saftey and healthy primary services? If your house gets burned to the ground or you need a cop..what are ya gonna do? Call the Garbage Men? Last I knew, they're not on the 911 list.

So we should take the $15 million and give it to the police and fire? Then I'd have to go and pay $25-$30 per month on top of my taxes to have someone pick up my trash?

you need a cop..what are ya gonna do? Call the Garbage Men? Last I knew, they're not on the 911 list.

I dont know, the garbage man might actually respond, half the time the cops sure as hell dont.

Repealing the trash portion of your utility bills by at least 50%, repealing the 3/4% temp tax and repealing the latest trash tax will make it more affordable. It's common practice all over the country. Toledo is way behind in many areas, including this one.

While we'd still have to maintain a small refuse/solid waste department, at least 10 mil of it could be sent to vaious departments including Police and Fire. The City's first obligation is the saftey and well being of it's citizens. Trash pick up is a luxury service we currently cannot afford as a city. While the transition would be a challenge, the overall benifit would be substantial.

So how does repealing the 3/4% tax and doing away with public trash collection increase police on the street? How much money does the 3/4% tax bring in? I'm guessing more then the $15 million it takes to pick up trash. The rest goes to fire and police.

I know you want to turn Toledo into the a no tax, everything is privatized wet dream and you can talk about it all you want, but you haven't show any numbers that prove you point?

You complain about the money going to trash pickup, you complain about taxes, you complain about no police, but you don't show how cutting taxes and cutting trash pickup will increase police?

Show me the numbers? Convince me you're right...

Also - does anyone know whether retired people pay the 3/4% tax?

Garbage pickup is part of the health and safety of the city. Look at what cities looked like prior to the city taking over the trash duty. An interesting book is "The good old days - they were terrible" by Otto Bettman. Additionally, the 3/4% tax was originally introduced to help pay for garbage pickup (which had gone to every other week, how safe is that during the summer?) as well as the fire and police. So eliminate the tax and we are back to where we were in the 70's.

We still get weekly pickup. It's only recyclables that are every other week.

I'm with you - keep the trash pickup...

the 3/4% is a payroll tax paid by individuals whose place of employment is in Toledo or who live in Toledo and work in a city with a reciprocal agreement. But it's a payroll tax.

And I agree, SensorG has some realistic numbers. So... for ease of calculations, let's round to about $200 per year per household for trash (including the additional trash tax).

The question I have is this...can a private company provide the service for a lesser amount? Unless we go out to bid, we'll never know. Looking at what the suburbs pay isn't really a good comparison, as an area the size of the City of Toledo would have economies of scale (along with other such things and proximity of homes, etc.)...

But the point would be to REDUCE the cost of government...not to just to redirect the revenues to other areas. Taxes are being paid to provide this service. Toledoans will not be happy if you say we're going to continue to collect the same amount of taxes but we're also going to let you arrange for your own trash pick up too.

So...could a private company cost us less than $15.3 million per year? I don't know, but my guess would be that even if the answer is 'yes,' the savings would be in the couple of millions...

The argument could then be: we can privatize this service, save (for example only) $2 million and eliminate the trash tax....

or: By saving $2 million on garbage, we can provide x new police officers.

or: By saving $2 million on garbage, our deficit next year is only $xx million...

One point that I wonder about though, is the PERS contribution for all these employees... the additional pick up (the employee's portion that the city pays)... included in the $15.3 million cost?

I dont have any issue on the amt we pay for garbage collection - Ive lived elsewhere and paid more.

I do tho have an issue with the new fee they just levied with no vote, seeing as how Ive never seen any proof that it actually goes toward garbage in any way, shape, or form.

If we're going to be billed, then we should be able to have an honest, detailed report as to what our funds are going to.

No trash pick up by the city means no taxes for trash pick up. The latest trash tax/fee is not going to the budget for the refuse collection or disposal entirely. If any, it's a small amount. The new tax/fee goes directly into the general fund to subsidize the shortfall in the last budget. They falsly named it a trash fee/tax. If that were true, the money would go to solid waste. It does not.

My comments on this matter are to start a conversation that leads to answers and opens up a fourm to express personal views. I relish the assistance by all comers to share what they think, and any ideas that would be better than mine. So far..I've heard not a single idea to replace mine.

Maggie is right in saying this needs much more exploration before any action. We'd need to contact the trash companies and find out their stance. I don't argue that we would pay more for trash to some degree. But it's cheaper to pay for your own trash removal that it is to pave your street or install new sewers. We are not in a "Have it all" situation. It's either or. So long as we spend 15mil+ on just trash..we are sucking the cash from all of the services that are and have been in decline.

I'm not an financial engineer..I'm a common sense guy. I know when I can and cannot afford something. I have no team of staff to run the costs down for me. I'm shooting from the hip in hopes that others who do know about such things will add their input. We have to start somewhere and this will be the least painfull place to start. It's that or wack several other departments in half..creating even worse trouble and far fewer services.

How much could we save if we fired whoever is in charge of the trash and put Chief Navarre in charge of that too?

Or better yet fire Chief Navarre and have Carty do it all as a supreme overlord Dictator? Or better yet just fire them all and have Larry Sykes do it? He does whatever he wants on the school board let's just add the city to his responsibilities as well. At least we wouldn't have to deal with passing the buck.

MikeyA

My confusion comes in here - so say you privatized garbage collection, and thus reduced my yearly taxes (yeah!), but I had to pay more money to have my trash collected (boo!). That doesn't help me one bit! For an essential service, and this is an essential service to me, I just want a regular, safe, and industry-sound job (and competitively priced). Don't care where the check goes.

Even if it were a break-even kinda deal, the issue of privatizing that also opens a whole new can of worms. Who oversees the collection process? Who manages the contract? There can be problems with companies underbidding and then underperforming - huge problems. Or a virtual company bidding and then subcontracting. If there are serious problems with service what are the repurcussions ~ call in the lawyers for court battles if there is a challenge with a business contracted to do the work. How does this process work?

The difference is that we will have choice of providers and I firmly believe that at the mere mention to the public that they had a year to get a contract with a provider; providers would pop up all over the place. This would create heavy competition between vendors resulting in a very good deal for you and I.

Equally as important is that by taking this service off the City's hands, that frees up a substantial sum for other, deeply needed services. Improving the many other areas of City Departments will go a long way towards getting more accomplished in shorter time frames. If, after the 5-7 year rebuilding process, we find ourselves in a better financial position, we could revisit this as an option or a modified version. It's a time will tell thing.

But it sure won't take 15 years to figure out where this is heading. At least not if the Citizens remain and grow in involvement.

We don't know if the $15.3 million is a good deal or not. The city should investigate using a private company to haul trash. What's wrong with finding an answer to a question? Nothing.

BTW, if you want to find a place to cut city spending dramatically look no further than the fire department. In my opinion, the fire department is overstaffed and overbudgeted.

Waste Management premium service for any joe blow that calls in for it is this:

They provide a 96 gallon container and allow for 5 extra bags for $16.80 per month.

That's $201.60 per yer.

If we as individuals or as a city strike a conversation with them we could bring that down and esentially outsource the removal for less than it costs now. This, combined with the repeal of the 3/4% and the 5.50 recent tax/fee will more than cover the difference.

Competitive bidding should be used to achieve the best price possible.

"That's $201.60 per yer"

If a person makes $8 an hour. the 3/4 tax and 5.50 a month, the total would come up to $190.80.

So anyone making $9 an hour or more would result in savings ($9 an hour would come up t0 $206.40).

Now consider that there a MANY people in this town that make less than $9 an hour, how would you sell this idea to them?

I wonder how many people simply wouldn't pay and end up dumping their trash all over town or in private dumpsters so they could save $17 per month?

Does the $16.80 include tax and fuel/enviromental surcharge?

http://www.wm.com/WM/procurement/Fuelinfo/fuel_surcharge.asp

This is from their FAQ:

Q: Why do you charge a fuel surcharge component?
A: The fluctuation in the cost of diesel fuel today makes it difficult for our Company to recover fuel expenses in standard operating margins. Our residential and commercial vehicles get 3 to 4 miles per gallon and our roll off vehicles around 8. In addition, the third party vendors that transport our waste are charging us a fuel surcharge or additional price for increased fuel costs. The fuel surcharge calculation is tied to the National Average Fuel Index, which puts our Company closer to covering our fuel costs.

Q: If the price of fuel goes down, will my fuel surcharge component go down too?
A: Yes, if the EIA/DOE's National Average price falls, your fuel surcharge component will come down as well. This information is updated weekly. If the cost of diesel fuel decreases, this will affect your fuel surcharge component.

Q: Why did you increase the environmental fee component in March 2007?
A: This increase was necessary for us cover increased costs and expenses to operate our collection, transfer, recycling, and landfill operations, on a company-wide basis, in a safe and environmentally responsible manner and to achieve an acceptable operating margin.

Q: Will the environmental charge component change each month?
A: No. The environmental charge will not fluctuate each month. It is currently set at 3% of all invoice charges, excluding tax. The percentage may be changed periodically if there is a business determination that warrants an increase or decrease in the fee charged.

Based on the cost of fuel, it looks like my bill could go up month after month.

Just because something isn't spelled out on a bill from Toledo..doesn't mean it's not there. The "costs" of everything flux some. And when it comes to Toledo..they are quite clever at flitering the cost accross large feilds.

That's the cost for a single pickup too. If WM suddenly had a contract with the entire city that $16.80 would probably drop considerably. Efficiency goes up as more and more people are served. Also, if multiple companies are competing for individual business then you would see the cost go down.

Right now there are roughly 129,000 homes in Toledo according to figures cited earlier. We're spending $15.3 million on trash pickup by the city. Dividing that out ($15.3 million/129,000 homes) you'll find it costs roughly $110 per home or roughly $9.88/month. A private contractor would have to be at or below that number for it to make sense from a macro point of view. Of course on an individual level it might make sense to go private for most people at another dollar point. As it stands now higher income people are paying more for trash pickup than lower income people since some of the trash collection fee is coming from the income tax. Assuming any cost savings realized by privatizing pickup were returned to the tax payers through a lower income tax (I know, wishful thinking) then there is a point somewhere between the $9.88 figure and the cost of paying for pickup by a private company (let's say $12) that it would be beneficial for the majority of Toledoans. I know we currently redistribute wealth in regards to education, healthcare, food, and housing among others, but I don't think we should be in the business of redistributing wealth for trash collection.

Also, I'm sure there are other costs that the city picks up by dealing in trash collection that are now accounted for in the $15.3 million figure. For example, city umbrella liability premiums, office space, workers compensation, human resources, etc might be budgeted for all departments together and not seen in the refuse collection budget directly.

Waste Mangement is now servicing the city of Lima. They offer multiple programs for municipalities that include, no fuel surcharge, or administrative fees, they have vaious sized containers so you can have 1 or more 96 gal, or as low as I think 35gal. IE: Singles and seniors would save more as a result of needing less service. They also offer unlimited service at a somewhat higher cost. There are lots of "plans" to choose from and work on. It's just a matter of knowing all the choices in detail and then choosing by popular vote on the right plan.

Another option is to include the rest of the population by having the bid include apartment complexes and other "Dumpster" sites. Perhaps as the full population, we will have even better bargining position. In this way, we all pay our share.

Waste Management is the largest organization of it's kind in North America. They service many communities in Ohio and all over America. They know what they're doing. They have recycle and all sorts of programs etc.

Besides the efficiencies of picking up waste in an urban environment, WM and BFI could flex their landfill resources to make their hauling contracts competitive.

Interesting is that both hauling companies are union. BFI's landfill is in MI and charges by cubic yard i.e. volume. WM's landfill is in Northwood and charges by ton, i.e. weight. Both operate recycling centers.

If you play the game you take the heavy stuff to BFI and the bulky light stuff to WM.

As a Bonus, Toledo could then sell its Landfill and capacity to the open market as well as their equipment, trucks, and buildings. They would also lower their healthcare / legacy costs.

Toledo could also charge the hauler's waste fees per ton or cubic yard collected and recieve monies on a quarterly basis to fund more bike paths, flowers, bathrooms, city ambulances, and smoking cops.

In the end, I don't believe the true costs of refuse collection / truck maintenance and landfill disposal / monitoring / compliance / cell construction are currently defined in the the budget. I believe some items are lined out while others come from the General Fund or are posted through other departments.

For what it's worth, I don't see Toledo willing to make better use of its current taxpayer's money, but rather tax for more money instead to keep the status quo.

It's their genetic code to tax and spend. Save is a four letter word.

Chad,
I have a question about getting rid of the 3/4% income tax increase from a few years ago. You say we could get rid of it by privatizing the trash collection, but you would have to cut a lot more than trash collection to make up the difference.

Last year Toledo collected $153.4 million from income tax at a rate of 2.25%. If we took that 3/4% increase back to the original 1.5% then we'd be left with $102.3 million, a loss of $51.1 million. Cutting the $15.3 for tash collection will still leave $35.8 million to be cut elsewhere. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut that or that we shouldn't go to private trash collection, but it's going to be a lot more difficult to get rid of the 3/4% income tax than by just cutting city trash.

But you'll have to wait till later or in the morning. I'm trying to finish cleanning out the laundry room..lol But as I ferret thru my own nightmare I have had plenty of time to think about the financial situation.

I would make half up in rearrangements with in white collar Gov, follwed by suspending freebies like Cityfest and other non essential expenditures. During this 5-7 year rebuild there will be limited grants for fluff projects and non infrastructure activities. This is where the community comes in. Taking "ownership" of areas about you. Pitching in labor to save cash etc. If neighbors take turns mowing empty lots then the city won't have too. There would be some credit for this activity. It would also insure your neighborhood was in good shape. This helps draw people in.

Selling off expenses like entertianment venuse and sticking to just development will cut our long term expenses way down.

As the "Bigger" projects come up, it may be required that we agree to a 1/4% tax for a spacific single reason, like Sewer rebuilds for a large area at once or like that. With a defined time line..IE: 1-2 years only.

"Portland

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=107739

In Portland to run their Office of Sustainable Development (which runs the recyling and trash collection programs) there are about 24 people needed with a budgeted salary of over $1,400,000 a year. There are additional limited term people for another $700,000 a year. Toledo (since it is about half the size) might use half that number. And all they do is administer the recycling and trash collection done by the private sector. Here is the site for the budget for the city for 2006-07, and the Office of Sustainable Deveopment is at the end.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=155023

I finally took a look at the Toledo's budget. One thing I like about the Portland, Oregon budget is that each "bureau" follows a standard report form. It gives a mission, overviews, and other details. When you get into the numbers they actually take the time to break the departments down to the positions to be held, and the salary range. That gives you at least some idea what is going on. Toledo just seems to feel that all its citizens need is a final number for how many paperclips they bought (never mind how many employees are being used). With around 200 pages Portland lays out a good report while Toledo's budget gives you the raw informtion you need to drown in.

I found the numbers of personnel on about page 294. It would be nice to have some salary ranges though to see what they might get in future.

If you look at the refuse collection the total number of refuse collectors is 90.25, drivers are 45.00, foreman is 4.00, with a couple of secretaries, a dispatcherand a boss. There are also a couple of other managers, and a clerk. It comes to a total of 146.35 fulltime positions for a combined regular salary of $5,792,276.23.

I haven't finished going through the budget yet, but how was the above figure arrived at (so I can save some time). It must be more than the salaries of the employees in both Refuse and Waste. Was it the cost of running the trucks, compensation, etc?

Is this information accurate?

http://www.toledotalk.com/cgi-bin/comments.pl/16/911

If Ford inherited a $16 budget deficit in 2002 when he was elected (from Carty Finkbeiner), and Carty now has a $17 budget deficit (

a full and completely fabricated line of BS. Political "Finances" are nothing like you and I deal in with our checkbooks. To be honest..even here in our mid range city..they have no idea how much money we have or don't have. Rough idea..maybe, but hard numbers..not a chance. Mrs. Shultz is forever asking for an accounting of the ballences in the un-used funds from prior years. Money that is no longer needed, but still in accounts for projects. These prior year accounts go back in some cases..decades. Yup..you heard me, money that just sits there and nobody counts.

When they get in trouble, or have a pet project..they go back in prior budgets to "Find" this money. With the aniquated systems they have for accounting, a lack of a CPA for the job of counting and there desire to keep hidden the true costs, the true accounts recieved and disbursed..it's a nightmare. It may be one reason the FBI is looking into the finances. Shady from the word go.

In politics, it takes about 90 days for the new administration to begin blaming the prior for all the evil in our accounts. "They left it this way, it's not my fault"..bla bla bla. Well, as I recall...That's why the new leader(s) get elected..to fix that. Not sit around whining that it was inherited. I inheareted heart problems and so on from my predecessors... so what. It's my job to do what I can to fix it.

You will be shocked and appauled if and when I ever get in there and run a total audit. The crap will be falling from the trees. This in one reason we need to overthrow this entire system and kick the OBC and their creative financing out on the curb..next to their cadilac trash service!

we're looking at an est. 18 mil in deficit next year. I'm betting it's closer to 20+ and it's July already and nobody is really comming together to figure it out yet. In fact, they are just running around wagging their finger(s) in people's faces and carrying on like 6 year olds.

And we just borrowed 5 or 10 million from the state..uhg!

I beleive they audit only the current year. They do not back audit prior years.

Can this administration do the same things? Or did Ford do lay-offs that the city

Yes. The scope of our financial problems is so vast, we will have to alter a great deal to get out and stay out. I personally believe we can make the cuts and ajustments to minimize the effect on essential city services. "Essential", being defined as infrastructure, police, fire, rescue, steets, bridges and sewers/water. We can re-align the departments and streamliine their activities so that they are not redundant, we can lay off non essential staff, we can privatize the rubbish, the pools, the entertainment venues and the "Decor" of the public areas. We can unload the hundreds of empty lots, commercial space and other non-productive real estate.

We can reduce Council to 6-8 full time members, paying a lil more and get a full weeks work out of em. We can re-nego. union contracts with city workers to make the most productive use of their time and our resources. We can consolidate our city servies into fewer buildings and sell off the un-used structures to the top bidder.

I also beleive we can end the 3/4 % income tax as promised years ago. We would have to replace it with a 1/4 % tax and then live within our means. We can put sin tax on cigs, booze and other un-healthy fun.

Reductions are the way to go..and as needed, the city can come to us for more money after the change has begun to show effect.

I always used to vote for taxes. I don