2005-03-28 Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of the La Porte City Council

Browse Search

The immediate disadvantage is the use of the General Fund contingency for a short-term fix. In addition to the $50,000+ needed immediately, future budgets would be similarly impacted. Future price increases will compound the situation in future budgets. Additional rate increases, over and beyond what has been implemented, will be necessary to reduce the impact to the General Fund. A third alternative is to reduce the number of rolls per year to two. This could be distributed one roll semi-annually, or two rolls annually. The immediate advantage is twofold - no additional funds required for this budget cycle and the reduction of future budgets by 30%. Additionally, if the bags are handed out all at once in January, disruption to the heavy trash schedule for three weeks during the summer months will further reduce overtime costs. Disadvantages are similar to the first alternative. Resident dissatisfaction to a perceived reduction of service will be greater than reducing by one roll per year. Additionally, heavy users will almost certainly run out, and with no ability to buy additional bags from the City, may turn to inferior bags or cans. A final alternative is to eliminate the distribution of bags altogether. This action will immediately reduce the current overall solid waste operating budget by $150,000 for the purchase of plastic bags. Elimination of the three week distribution twice per year will further reduce overtime costs. Finally, the reduction ofthe budget by $150,000 could reduce the final $2.50 per resident per month rate increase scheduled for October 2005. Obviously, total elimination of bags could result in massive citizen dissatisfaction. If residents switch to cans as an alternative, crew productivity could reduce to the point that an additional three-man crew would be required. Use of cans will likely result in unsightly conditions on the street until residents carry empty cans from the curb. Residents will be forced to purchase their own bags or cans. Any cost savings from bag elimination could be offset by these costs. None of the above alternatives is perfect. All offer some advantages and disadvantages. Reducing in some fashion seems to be the lease disruptive to the residents and the city. However, total elimination could create more problems than are solved. Conversely, subsidization to maintain current service levels will severely impact current and future general fund balances. Of the four alternatives, reducing to three or two rolls per year will result in the least impact to the city and the citizens. Reduction to three rolls will be budget neutral, at least for the current fiscal year. Future price increases will increase future budget requests. The city may have to look at future reduction to two rolls when prices exceed benefits. Reduction to two rolls per year has an immediate impact, both in the reduction of plastic bag purchases and the elimination of one handout cycle. The drastic reduction may be more than citizens are willing to accept. From a fiscal standpoint, while maintaining minimum service levels, the reduction of rolls to two per year, distributed annually, is the recommended alternative.