Posted on 05/21/2002 4:06:21 AM PDT by RippleFire
Mayor wants tiered garbage fees
Charles Meeker says Raleigh's higher-income residents generally buy more, so they produce more trash.
By JOANNA KAKISSIS, Staff Writer
RALEIGH - Mayor Charles Meeker said Monday he wants the City Council to consider adjusting a proposed increase in the garbage collection fee so that it's based on household income -- a move he says will more equitably distribute the charges.
Meeker and other council members say flat fees for such services are regressive, meaning that poor residents pay the same as richer ones. Meeker also says he's operating on the premise that higher-income residents generally buy more goods -- and therefore produce more trash -- than lower-income residents.
"It's an issue of fairness," he said at the council's first workshop on the city budget that will take effect July 1.
City Manager Russell Allen recommended a 2002-03 budget last week that doesn't call for a property tax increase but that would increase the solid waste fee from $15.60 to $60 a year per household. With that increase, the garbage fees would raise about $4.5 million a year.
For the owner of a house valued for taxes at $200,000, that's roughly equivalent to a 2.2-cent increase on the property tax rate of 38.5 cents per $100 in assessed value. But for the owner of a $100,000 home, the higher garbage fee would be equivalent to a 4.4-cent rate increase.
City Councilwoman Janet Cowell said Meeker's idea is good -- "We need to consider a serious pay-as-you-throw policy," she says -- but worries that it is unrealistic to expect the city's budget staff to restructure the fees in the next six weeks.
The council must approve a budget by June 30, the end of the current fiscal year. It plans its next workshop June 10.
Allen said implementing tiered fees would be difficult, especially when the city is facing the bleakest economic forecast in years. Allen said he doesn't know many cities that use tiered garbage fees, so Raleigh may not have a model to follow.
"I think it would be very difficult to accomplish, since we need to get a tremendous amount of data to find out who would be eligible and what income ranges there are," Allen said. "But we will look and see if we can come up with anything."
City Councilman Neal Hunt also said he's concerned about stopping the city's solid waste collection at apartment buildings -- a move that would save more than $2 million but leave property managers footing the garbage bill. The Triangle Apartment Association has already said it would fight such a move, which it says would force property managers to increase rents to recover costs.
Allen said many cities do not offer trash pickup at apartment complexes, which Allen classifies as businesses. "Every other business in the city pays for its own garbage," he said.
A proposed new stormwater fee is already somewhat tiered based on house size: Owners of small homes would pay $2 a month, while owners of large homes would pay $3 a month. The premise is that bigger homes produce more stormwater runoff.
Meanwhile, the discussion of finding the right balance between fees and government costs could get more anxious if the city loses about $20 million in payments collected by the state. Gov. Mike Easley already withheld $8.1 million this year -- leaving the city scrambling to make up the deficit -- to help plug the state's massive budget hole.
Meeker says he hopes the General Assembly will act on the state's budget before June 30 and return the city's money. The council will vote on a budget that assumes receipt of the $20 million.
If the city loses the $20 million, Allen says it will have to cut street and parks projects, dip into reserves and cut human services and arts grants in half.
"It's pretty clear that going to the $20 million contingency plan would be devastating," he said.
Only in America
I think I'll charge the city for street sweeping!
Thanks for the post. Local government can be unreasonable and socialist too (like the feds.) Of course, never would they consider cutting non-essentials. Fund those arts with tax money no matter what! Good grief.
But, of course, they would never do that because it might be considered "discriminatory" to illegal aliens.
In the abstract, it makes sense. But, this really sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Or more accurately, yet another way to "bash the rich."
What a great illustration of the ultimate folly of allowing everyone indiscriminately to vote.
Isn't there an "equal protection" clause in that useless old document...?
Why stop halfway? If a vote is all it takes, this "use tax" (as it's called everywhere else) can be redistributed in purer socialist form: double the rates for the people actually working, and cut the rate for the parasites by half.
Why not?
I happen to compost yard and kitchen waste and am religious about recyclables. In addition, if something can be used by someone else, it goes to AmVets, Purple Heart, Salvation Army, etc. If my neighbor wants to pay for a few hundred plastic bags every year to send grass clippings and leaves to the landfill, and I recycle mine into the woods, that should be their choice and their expense.
Yes, that's rather expensive, but the principle could translate to Raleigh just as well, if not those prices. I'm also rather bemused by the notion of $60 per year being too expensive for some folks - where I am it's almost three times that much, at $160 per year ;)
A proposed new stormwater fee
Was there a mayors conference recently? Houston's mayor, Lee. P. Brown, recently proposed similar items to increase revenues. These mayors conferences must not spend much time on how to better the cities, but rather scheming on ways to extract more money.
Should we tax the poor more because they use public health services more? Should the rich get a break because they don't use the public swimming pools?
Should the rich pay less because they don't use public transportation? Should the poor pay more because they do?
This is a slippery slope that we should not venture down.
Why not, indeed.
Would you also call for a one-price policy in a given jurisdiction for electricity and water regardless of consumption?
And folks should understand that it's not just about garabge fees. That trash has to go somewhere and landfills are expensive, especially if you have to transport the trash out of the area. Generating less trash is cheaper all the way around. And folks should be reminded of that.
I agree. Here in Houston we have a very successful program, heavy trash day, that eliminates a lot of illegal dumping. We can set out about any volume of just about anything and it will be picked up. As a bonus, the day before has become somewhat of a scavenger day and much of it never makes it to the dump. I recently compiled a complete computer system with monitor that I got working and gave to a neighbor.
Oh, and we are not charged by the volume we have picked up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.