--- "Mead, S Dore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The City Council rejected my motion directing staff > to gear up to bring the > whole system "in house" effective January 1, 2003. > The analysis developed during the last two months indicates that the City could provide the > services Citywide at less cost to our ratepayers. [TS] Frankly, I was surprised (incredulous truthfully)to see this statement when it appeared earlier on this list and personally I would really like to see the numbers myself. If it's so, it's so but I have my lingering doubts. > At the same time, the services would be provided by people earning good union wages and benefits. [TS] Hence my reticence at taking the previous statement seriously. Further, this statement is completely irrelevant to the issue as far as the city is concerned (or should be). The city's charter does not include swelling a union's ranks. > In effect, the Council has given MRI an unnecessary "gift" -- an increase of 74 cents for each of the 54,000 dwelling units per month served by MRI -- an increase the current contract did not provide -- an increase that will hand MRI nearly an extra $500,000 next year alone.> [TS]The increase may or may not have been unnecessary. If, as you say, the city could have provided this service at a savings to the taxpayer we have giftgiving, but the analysis numbers should clear the question up at least in my mind. Where can we find the analysis? TJSWIFT Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
