Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 4 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Are fees really necessary?
Published Sunday, September 27, 2009
Less than a month after implicitly admitting that City Council probably had made a mistake when it set up the new fees for bulk waste disposal earlier this year, members of that body are now engaged again in discussions about a questionable trash-fee proposal that is sure to be the object of citizens’ ire if it comes into being.
Things are changing in the world of Hampton Roads’ waste management, and Suffolk City Council says it wants to stay ahead of the curve. For 30 years, the city has paid no tipping fees for depositing its waste at the Southeastern Public Service Authority’s regional landfill in Suffolk. The city’s solid waste disposal expenses have been confined to the cost of picking up trash and delivering it to the landfill, saving city residents the nightmare of watching their trash-disposal bills rise as SPSA has increased its tipping fees to the highest level in the nation in an effort to repay more than $200 million in debt it has incurred.
The only thing that has ever been very clear about SPSA’s future — and, by extension, the future of solid-waste disposal for Suffolk citizens — has been that the agreement that bound the participating Hampton Roads localities expires in 2018, and there isn’t a lot of interest among them in signing a new one. Therefore Suffolk’s leaders need to be thinking now about how and where they will dispose of the city’s trash, and how they will pay for the service.
A proposal by New-York-based ReEnergy Holdings LLC to buy all of the authority’s assets only adds to the confusion, as the company’s cash bid would pay off the existing debt, but the offer would require SPSA municipalities to agree to dispose of their trash at the ReEnergy landfill for the next 20 years. All communities, including Suffolk, would pay a per-ton fee for the privilege, and Suffolk would be paid an undetermined host fee for the landfill being located within the city. The proposal leaves many questions unanswered and is anything but a clear hit with SPSA’s board of directors, which also is considering a smaller deal with a separate company interested in buying only the waste-to-energy plant that SPSA owns in Portsmouth.
With all of this confusion, it seems a bit premature for Suffolk officials to be suggesting that residents should get ready to pay for their garbage collection through a new $14 fee. During a discussion at the City Council retreat this week, members pointed at the questionable deal with ReEnergy as a motivating force behind the proposal, and they said that something would have to happen by 2018, anyway.
Taxpayers already pay for trash pickup through real estate taxes, and the proposed fee apparently doesn’t cover the costs of actually disposing of trash at the landfill. Suffolk residents are right to wonder, then, what was the basis of the $14-per-month proposed fee and whether the proposed ReEnergy tipping fees would add a further cost.
An even greater mystery is why the council would suggest collecting a trash fee even if SPSA continues unchanged. With nine more years of cost-free landfill disposal, collecting a trash fee from citizens without a concurrent real estate rate cut would be a back-door tax increase. If council is just looking for more money to pad the city’s coffers, it should be a little more upfront about things and not hide behind the already-battered SPSA.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by bfhirsch34 (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fees should be charged for things that are not a necessity, i.e. joining your local recreation center, not for services required to run your household. I though thats what we paid taxes for. Lets not be known as the city with all the fees. Put these services in the budget and adjust the tax base accordingly.
Posted by OD (anonymous) on September 28, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fees, the political correct term now for TAXES
Posted by donarob (anonymous) on September 29, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bfhirsch34,
Based upon your comments above I did a little research on Recreation Center fees for it would not surprise me that our City Council over looked this. This is what I discovered. Fees to join the Recreation Center are as follows: Youth Rates $10/yr, Adults $20/yr, Seniors $5/yr. Therefore, regrettably I must inform you that you are wrong.
Based upon our Cities newly designed website. The Recreation Center is a 22,500 square feet facility that has a full-size gym, commercial kitchen, multi-purpose room and a fitness facility that boasts state-of-the-art cardio and strength equipment by Lifefitness. There is a game room filled with air hockey, foosball and pool tables as well as interactive video games. Recreation classes for pre-schoolers and activities for seniors such as bridge and aerobics are also available.
Mind you that the above fees DO NOT cover the Fitness Facility. If access to the Fitness Facility is desired, additional fees are required; Youth $7/Month, Adult $10/Month, Seniors $5/Month. Thereby bringing the package deal to Youth $94/yr, Adults $140/yr, and Seniors $65/yr. When compared to the YMCA’s fees of $708/person/year or $1008/family/year these are a GREAT DEAL.
However, it does make me question if the current fee structure covers the salary & benefit package of the city employees that work there let alone the maintaining of the newly renovated building and all of the equipment. In my opinion as a tax payer, I think that the fees should be raised somewhat. Not to the level of the YMCA, or other Fitness Centers, but make them a little more realistic for as you said this is not a necessity of life. Maybe then the city can continue to pick-up the trash which is a necessity.
Posted by TJP (anonymous) on September 30, 2009 at 2:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bfhirsch34,
The purpose of having low rates for the recreation programs is to encourage people to utilize the facilities and to make it affordable for everyone. You suggested raising the rates at the Recreation Center. Are you aware that the city also operates recreation centers in 6 other locations? Would you like to raise those rates too?
I agree, the city needs to rethink the fees for trash pickup. Perhaps next budget year, instead of purchasing SUV's as city vehicles, maybe they can look at more economically sound and ecologically friendly vehicles.
Also, instead of repaving roads that don't need paving and spending unnecessary money on studies (to see what the citizens were looking for in a Police Chief), maybe our "fiscally astute" City Manager will start talking to the citizens (the people who actually pay her salary) and get some real insight about where we want our money spent. Obviously, our elected officials are not speaking on our behalf!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)