Increase in Trash Fees is Unacceptable

Rate Gap (0.00 / 0)

I think it's important to echo a point Rick is making here.  Originally when our Commission was asked to consider an increase in the rate gap, we actually suggested a DECREASE in the rate for the 30 gallon carts to incentivize people using less trash in lieu of our forthcoming single stream recycling.  These proposed rate changes in the budget do not reflect our suggestions as a Commission to Solid Waste Services.

On a side note, good luck on the bar, Rick!

Thanks,

Casey Walker
Co-chair, City of Austin Solid Waste Advisory Commission

---

by: Casey Walker @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 13:45:37 PM UTC

This Fee is a Tax (0.00 / 0)

Unless the cost of disposing garbage has gone up 40%, this new rate is a tax, not a users fee to recover costs of service. The other blatant taxes on our utlity bills are the Comprehensive Drainage Fee and Transportation User Fee.

The City needs to bill electic, water, sewer, and gargage based on cost of service plus a reasonable management fee. It should be simple, the more you use the more you pay.

Use property taxes to pay for increased labor costs for the non-utility labor force, not misleading and bloated users fees. Give us a break for using a 30 gallon carts and recycling. Thanks to Rick and Casey for representing the public interest on the City Solid Waste Advisory Commission

---

by: ssuits @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 15:36:21 PM UTC

Not a tax. (3.00 / 1)

I'm not on the committee, but my guess is that the cost of disposing of garbage probably has gone up 40%. The price of diesel gasoline is higher than the price of standard unleaded and that's gone up over 30% in just a few months.

---

by: tthomas48 @ Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 20:53:32 PM UTC

You've got it (0.00 / 0)

I have a small cart and would like more of a break, but the fact is that the increase in costs is almost all due to transportation/pickup; and it takes them just as much time to pick up my small cart as it does the neighbors' big carts.

This is clearly merited by the rise in the price of diesel fuel.

---

by: m1ek @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 14:11:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

<b></b>You miss the point though (0.00 / 0)

You can raise fees on the medium and large bins, decrease the fee on the small ones, and still come out with the gross rate increase needed to offset the increase in fuel costs.  

Those of us using the small bins, producing less waste, should be rewarded, not punished...  Not to mention the fact that we will be able decrease our waste even more once the new recycling bins hit the streets.

---

by: LegeBoy @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 15:57:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really? (0.00 / 0)

So large families should pay more, but small families and single people who can squeeze everything into a small bin should pay less? The size of the can probably correlates more with the size of the household than anything else - a single person that fills up the small can is generating a lot more trash per capita than a family of four that fills up the large can.  

---

by: el_longhorn @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 18:28:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, Really (0.00 / 0)

Large families absolutely should pay more.  They consume more than a small family or a single person, so why shouldn't they?  

The head(s) of the household control(s) how big that household is.  If they choose to make it large, they should expect to have an increased cost of living, proportionate to every consumer they bring into the house.  

To put that into perspective, does a family of five expect to get groceries for everyone in the house for the same price as a family of two?  Absolutely not.

As for your example of a single person filling up an entire small bin vis-a-vis a large family that fills their large bin: To get all his/her trash in the small bin, that single person is producing 30 or fewer gallons of trash and paying $11.75 a month, whereas the large family is allowed to produce up to 90 gallons of trash for the bargain rate of $17.25.  If anyone is getting a deal, it's the larger household who produce more trash.  If they produce three times the garbage of the 30 gallon bin user, they should pay three times as much, $35.25 a month.

---

by: LegeBoy @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 01:52:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're already being rewarded (0.00 / 0)

by a lower rate - and we'll continue to have a lower rate. The point is that the component of cost that's increasing right now is the SAME regardless of the size of the trash can being picked up. (Landfill rates haven't recently skyrocketed; diesel fuel HAS).

---

by: m1ek @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 12:36:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How are we being rewarded??? (0.00 / 0)

My argument is that people using the bigger bins produce more trash.  And, regardless of whether the cost of dropping trash off at the dump has increased along with the increase in fuel, those of us producing less trash, making a smaller impact on the environment, should be rewarded for that.  

I'm sorry, but raising my already high trash fee, but keeping it lower than the middle and big bin prices is NOT a reward.    

---

by: LegeBoy @ Thu Jul 31, 2008 at 16:14:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, you're ignoring the cost argument (0.00 / 0)

The cost of landfill space hasn't increased (an assumption, I know).

The cost of diesel has skyrocketed.

Diesel creates pollution, too, of course.

Small carts use up less landfill space but the same exact amount of diesel as do large carts. (This is not precisely true, since you need to account for space on the truck, but close enough).

A flat increase in fees sounds eminently reasonable to me given all the above.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Aug 01, 2008 at 14:34:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Austin's fee is already way too much (3.00 / 1)

If you compare Austin's trash fee to what Round Rock and other cities charge, Austin literally charges twice the amount for exactly half the amount of service. That doesn't take into consideration this outrageous 40 percent grab the city is now attempting.

There is no way the current or proposed fee for Austin corresponds to the actual costs of the very limited service the city provides. Instead of spending your time working on social engineering experiments from your perch of the garbage commission I suggest you spend your time figuring out why the city of Austin's already exorbitant trash fee is unable to cover costs.  

---

by: mangler @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 21:18:11 PM UTC

Fee hikes go to police, not trash service (3.00 / 1)

Bottom line, the fee hikes are occurring to pay for rising police pay costs, not for improved trash service. See:

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogs...
and
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogs...

City of Austin utilities give their "profit" to the general fund, so when taxes fall short the city raises rates for water, trash and electricity to cover their bills - in this case mostly for the police department.

---

by: Gritsforbreakfast @ Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 23:40:48 PM UTC