The report to which Dorn refers was sent to me by Susan Young, whom I thank.
The report, in my opinion, does not show that the city�s taxpayers will in fact be receiving the best service for their money if the city takes all waste handling operations �in house�. A bit of back ground: The report, entitled �Expansion of Service Area By Minneapolis Solid Waste (MSW) Crews: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS AND COST COMPARISONS� explains that �On September 28, 2001, the Council directed the Public Works Solid Waste and Recycling Division (SW&R) to prepare a report within 60 days with �estimates of cost savings and residential rates for solid waste services provided for the entire City by the City�s own crews, commencing January 2003.� I first find fault in the council�s assumption that there were cost savings to be had before they had any facts to look to. This direction put the team under an implied order to substantiate a foregone, but unproven conclusion. Next, the report states �A multi-department project team produced this Report in response to these Council directives. "Business representatives from the four unions affected by the potential service changes were invited to all team meetings� If you're looking for a non-partisan, factual anaylsis of vendors services it seems to me you don't invite the vendor, but if you invite one, you should invite them all. In my opinion, this decision further compromised the team's credibility. Now to the facts. The report spells out the current situation thus: Duties of City�s SW&R staff: 1. Residential collection of garbage, recycling, yard waste and problem materials for � of the City�s Dwelling Units Plus services provided by SW&R staff for the entire City. 2. Centralized telephone, print and Internet-based customer service, billing, customer education and central administration. 3. Clean City programs 4. Problem materials processing and disposal. 5. Garbage disposal, recycled products processing and yard waste composting 6. Garbage cart and recycling bin deliveries and repairs Dirty Collection Point (DCP) clean-ups and shoveling services for snowed-in carts. Proposed MRI Contract Costs: Table 1. is a summary of the proposed MRI contract fees. These negotiated costs were based primarily upon the City�s 2000 costs of providing service, including administration cost estimates for � of the City�s Dwelling Units. In 2000, the City operated 17 garbage collection routes. Under the current MRI contract, which expires on December 31, 2002, the payment to MRI is $8.25 per month per dwelling unit. This is an annual cost to the City of $5,346,000. Table 1. lists the 2002-2006 costs under the proposed MRI contract (a 9% increase from 2001 to 2002 with a 3% annual increase from 2003 to 2005, and a 1.6% increase for 2006). We then have tables that show projected costs savings from each of three scenarios: 1. Total SW&R Division Costs With the Proposed MRI 2. City Crews (32 Routes) Total SW&R Division Costs 3. City Crews (30 Routes) Total SW&R Division Costs Savings are purported to range from $181,000 to $676,000. However, there is a scenario that is missing: MRI (or another private collection service)takes over the city�s portion of the work. MRI is currently receiving $5.5 million of SW&R�s $24 million budget. As we see from the division of duties above, the city has some extra collection points as well as paying the disposal fees for all collections. But I wonder how MRI (or another collection service) might stack up against the city�s SW&R division? We don�t know. And to assume that whe city will save money by taking in MRI's portion of the work ignores the possibility that the city would be simply absorbing leanest portion of SW&R's budget into an already overly expensive governmental operation. But again, we don�t know. Since the report does not detail labor costs on either side (it is only important to know the city�s costs anyway since MRI�s costs are absorbed into a flat 5.5 million) other than to say �A 2-person route costs about $150,000 annually�, ( a figure that I was not able to reconcile with the financial tables provided if that is the city crew cost). In any case, we cannot easily do an apples to apples comparison. I said earlier �If it�s so, it�s so�. Well, I�m not convinced it�s so. I believe that this report was slanted in favor of the union and SW&R's administration, and in my opinion to call for the Mayor�s veto without having all of the facts at hand is not responsible or in the taxpayers best interest. How about a RFQ from MRI, and it�s competitors? Thomas Swift Saint Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings.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
