On Tuesday night the Oshkosh Common Council voted to keep the unpopular garbage fee in place for the last quarter of 2006, but amended the ordinance so that the fee will not be in place for 2007 unless the Council approves it again.
During the deliberations, Bryan Bain asked City Manager Dick Wollangk what would happen if the Council voted to get rid of the fee for the last quarter of 2006. Wollangk said that the city would have essentially two options: cover the $600,000 with money drawn from the city's general fund equity, which could harm our bond rating, or lay off 10-20 workers. Those councilors who favored keeping the fee in place for the last quarter of 2006 kept coming back to the possibility of layoffs if the fee were lifted. The idea of covering the shortfall with money from the fund equity was completely cast aside.
I do not like the idea of going to the general fund equity for anything but serious emergencies. But here's the problem: last year the Council established that the fund equity could be used to pay for the Leach Amphitheatre bathrooms, a classic "want" in the battle of wants vs. needs.
Garbage pick-up, on the other hand, is a classic need. You mean to tell me that the Council could go to the fund equity for golden commodes, a want which more than half the city will never use, but not for covering garbage collection--a service that everyone needs?
The Council could have easily gone to the fund equity to cover the $600,000 shortfall, thus eliminating the fee for the last quarter of 2006, and then make the same pledge that they ended up making anyway: to look for ways to avoid the garbage fee in 2007.
The message coming from City Hall is clear: We will harm our bond rating for golden commodes, but not to pick up your garbage.
Oshkosh resident Carl Sosnoski said he is going to try and get a binding referendum placed on the November ballot to "end this nonsense." He said people should look him up in the directory and give him a call. If interested, you can call Sosnoski at 235-1727.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
I think the difference between the bathrooms and the garbage fee is that the bathrooms were a one time expense. I know the councilors discussed the 2006 garbage fee as if it was "one time" as well, but in reality, garbage is an ongoing expense and the bathrooms/garbage analogy is inaccurate.
I think the City Manager should list the positions that will be cut and see if people want the same level of city service they have now or no garbage fee.
Actually that is a plan sometimes. As dumb as it sounds, it works.
For example, our school district (and it seems others do this as well) did NOT keep up on general maintenance of buildings. This was regular "policy" for many years.
Any homeowner knows that smaller amounts spent on regular up-keep of a property often prevents the need for large repair costs years down the road if things are allowed to deteriorate.
But our district let stuff go - we think on purpose.
You've GOT to fix leaky roofs etc. etc. Maintenance problems reach a point of being hazards for kids and staff and voila! you need a referendum for the serious repair jobs and NO ONE CAN REFUSE THIS NEED.
"These aren't frills we're talking about here, people. Think of the kids..."
Like you said - it's a need, not a want.
But we had to ask ourselves why administrators went on weekends to resorts and all the other frills that could have been done without (stuff that has no bearing on classroom budgets but are perks for admins.) to spend those much fewer dollars on regular maintenance before things became so terrible.
But, that way they get it all. The Wants and The Needs. It's just a way of manipulating the public. And it really works.
(I consider it fortunate that Chippewa Falls baords are crazy and can be learned from in this manner. I also consider it fortunate I am moving out of here. Win-Win for me!)
Oh - and Win-Win for C.F. too. Ha ha Anonymous, beat ya to it.
"actually that is a plan" in my comment refers to Tony's remarks - not Anon above.
Tony, your position on taking money from the general fund is RIGHT on! Had this same Council worked at budget time, not left until a solution was to be had, we wouldn't have a fee starting in October. They will still be faced with the same situation in 2007 budget,maybe worse with the real potenial of TABOR amendment!
I am disappointed that after all the discussion, town hall meetings, and community outcry we still have a fee! This is the second time Bryan Bain has stated that he was going to help right a wrong and did not! Troop withdrawl, and garbage fee. While the condo folks will now have pick-up on site...430 small business will have no pick up at all. Oh by the way today is National Small Business Day...pretty fitting huh?
This council is a joke!
I agree it is sad that the council couldn't come up with a workable solution at budget time. Unfortunately, despite different efforts, a majority could not agree.
The city was $650,000.00 short this year. I am sure it will be considerably more next year. Do you really think the city will come up with $800,000.00 or say $1,000,000.00 in cuts in the upcoming budget? Remember how much gas has went up, salary increases and rising health care costs. Yet the levy is only going up 2%. We will have a fee in 2007. The difference is it will be spread out over 12 months so it will be a considerably lower dollar amount.
No offense but here's a wild idea why does the council appear to take everything that Wollank says as the word of the lord. The point of being on a council such as this is to make tough decisions. If so many of the council claimed to have tried to make amendments to the budget but failed why didnt they call a recess and network a little bit with each other? Build yourself a coalition of 4 people to support something come on council wake up!
I sat on the Segregated Fees committee at UWO and we had to make these kinds of tough decisions every year. The city needs to realize that like the people living here, they have a budget and need to live within that. Sometimes it means cutting the fat or even some meat that is sometimes what happens but it needs to be done.
Brian Bain is good for the council but he messed up on this one. I dont know how anyone can hold forums like he did and hear the overwhelming opposition to this but still vote in favor of it. He claimed to be consistent in this but the only thing consistent about it is that he covered his ass with his comments. In all fairness though its not just his fault. I can see 2 counselors that I dont plan on voting for anymore.
I hope people paid attention to the meeting and show the ability to hold the 5 people accountable that voted against this. Either that or continue to "vote with their feet" and move to city's such as Neenah, Menasha and Appleton, at least they pick up garbage and dont charge you a fee. Not to mention they actually have good commercial development! (Kudos to Esslinger for trying to move on that subject).
"why didnt they call a recess and network a little bit with each other" That's illegal. A majority of the board cannot discuss city business except in a public meeting - or a noticed private one.
The council needs to ask the manager to prepare a budget with no garbage fee and no layoffs. They should have done that in November. If the manager can't produce, you fire him and bring someone on board who can do it. That's the way council/manager government is suppposed to work.
If you check I think you'll find Appleton has an automated system. You fill up your bin and that's it.
We already know what our office manager, I mean city manager will do. He will propose massive cuts in fire and police to balance the budget, leaving the council in a no win situation. At that point we get a new city manager. One with an education and background in running a city of this size.
To the poster who wants no fee and no service cuts. The Northwestern listed some opportunitities for cuts. You can something (savings) for nothing.
Garbage fee liability
2006:$30 per dwelling unit (covers last quarter of the year).
2007: $120 per dwelling unit (covers entire year, unless changed).
The garbage challenge of ‘07?
Some city councilors have suggested they’ll try to find a way to restore garbage and recycling collection in the 2007 city of Oshkosh property tax bill. It won’t be easy, given some numbers in play:
Under the state-imposed property tax levy freeze:
$486,457: Allowable spending increase if Oshkosh’s "new construction" grows by 2 percent or less this year.
How could that total be easily eroded, wiped out in ‘07?:
$30,000: Total to support new Pollock Community Water Park (based on 2006 budgeted total).
$79,466: Increase in "street lighting" budget assuming 7.6 percent cost increase seen from ’05 to ’06.
$542,329: Increase assuming modest 2 percent boost in "direct labor" pay for city workers next year.
Or…
$2.4 million: The cost of city garbage and recycling collection from 2006.
Source: City of Oshkosh 2006 operational budget.
It is sad that a solution wasn't to be had? Not sad Anon, pitiful,ignorant, worrisome, maddening. The facts from the last poster which references the 2006 budget and the 2007 budget crisis we taxpayers are to face, doesn't take into consideration the non-growth in Oshkosh. This important information was reported in the Oshkosh Northwestern back on April 16, 2006. The article shows that at year 2005 we hit an 11 year low for growth not seen since 1994!
This is why the important public debate about economic growth in this community is vital to all of US. Without it a garbage tax is just the beganing of our problems!
So when we have persons congratulating 5 council members for their continued support of this, and then making such a silly statement that it is SAD that a solution was not to be found.
If the brillant councilors couldn't come to consensus on the line items to be cut, then make the hired Administration make the cuts. How is that for a simple cost effective solution?
Cheryl you have been doing a great deal of double speak lately, I have watched your show, and one of your constant comments is that the councilors should not only hear what we are saying but act on what we say, because we are their bosses, what happened with all that? your now publically thanking these people? I don't understand you or your turn about, and I must say I don't appreciate your position.
Steph Quin
"Steph Quin,"
I think you misunderstand what I gave the 5 council members credit for. I did not give them praise for imposing a fee for three months this year. I gave them credit for NOT imposing a fee in 2007, which is how the original proposed ordinance read.
I have addressed the rest of your comments in what I first wrote two nights ago on my own web site.
By the way, it's fine that you don't appreciate my position. Likewise I don't appreciate yours. But what I appreciate even less are politicians who pander and grandstand in the name of listening to their bosses. I find that behavior repugnant and distasteful, though at the same time it's very transparent.
"Cheryl Hentz" I think you simply enjoy being contrary. Do you think this boosts ratings, or are you so riddled with your own personal dislike for your so-called politican that you can't even keep
track of what you preach to others on your show. It certainly seems rather transparent on your part that your personal feelings toward a city councilor has clouded your judgment on the garbage fee issue.
You did congratulate 5 councilors for keeping the fee, as you stated it was the right thing to do.
While you further state that you congratulated them for "trying" for 2007 budget elimination of the tax, you haven't mentioned any of the "little people" that were overlooked like those who live in apartments or condos of 4 or more or the 430 small business people, by the Cities calculations this equates to about 4000 people.
I hope in the future you will spare us from your personal attacks on Councilors that do as we ask them to, you may view it as your catch phrase grandstanding, I however view it as UNDERSTANDING our needs and wishes.
Steph Quin
The golden commodes would have been bonded for instead of taken from funds if they had been included in the original bid.
But they weren't. They were paid for out of reserve money.
What is Anon 10:33 talking about? Included in the original bid? What does that mean? There wasn't even a bid process so bids were submitted.
“Steph Quin”
I can have personal dislike for someone yet applaud their decisions, just as I can like someone but criticize their decisions. You seem to think it’s an all or nothing thing which is a grossly inaccurate assessment.
Case in point: Despite personal differences with Paul Esslinger, I gave him credit for not going into a closed session that many believe was illegally held. Moreover, I helped draft and file a complaint against those who did, despite liking some of them.
I realize you have a different opinion on Paul Esslinger and the garbage fee than I do. That’s fine. Having the freedom to express our mutual differences as well as our displeasure with our elected individuals is one of the principles this country is founded on. When you choose to debate someone though, you might want to at least have the good sense to have your facts straight. You’d give your arguments a little more credibility.
Your comment, for example, claimed that I said the fee was the right thing to do. I have been opposed to this fee from the first time I heard about it. In fact, I debated the issue with Mr. Esslinger one evening on the phone and told him it was NOT a smart thing and people would never go for it. I have maintained that position all along. So contrary to your comment earlier, I have NOT said the fee was the right thing to do. You should either re-read the comments to make sure you fully understood or have your vision checked.
As to the “little people” you’ve talked about, if I’m not mistaken the people in condos will be serviced under amended language to the ordinance. Moreover, as has already been stated by different people in various places, many cities have been moving away from commercial trash collection for awhile. That is one of the reasons companies like Waste Management and Onyx have continued growing as they have.
If you choose to view my criticisms of Paul Esslinger, or any other elected official or candidate for office, as personal attacks you are entitled to do so. But you appear foolish when you make such ridiculous comparisons in a public forum like this. The reality is these people work for me as they do everyone else and I am entitled, like the next guy or gal, to critique their work performance. That does not qualify as a personal attack, so please try to adjust your bifocals so you can see the difference.
Understanding needs and wishes and DOING something about them are frequently two different things. Paul Esslinger understood people were not happy about the fee, yet he remained steadfastly in support of it and certainly made comments suggesting he intended to vote for it through the various candidate forums leading right up to last month's election. And he did so, mind you, even after months of negative discussion and public comment about the fee and criticism of his position at the time. Yes, through it all, Esslinger maintained it was more fair than what we currently have and he even asked his challengers in the campaign to explain where they’d make up the dollar difference if they removed the fee from the budget. Now suddenly he’s understanding and listening to the people? Does that mean he was not understanding and listening to people for the better part of four to six months? And simply because he didn’t vote in favor of the budget last fall means nothing; he likewise did not vote or speak favorably toward anything that would have eliminated the need for a fee either. So much for listening to his bosses.
Ms. Hentz; I'm going to say this slowly so you hopefully will understand.
I believe Mr. Esslinger said he still thinks that the fee is the fairest way to get around the issue. His stance hasn't changed!
After listening to his constituents for several months he said essentially it has become clear to him that they (his constituents) don't want the fee, therefore he voted against it. Do you understand now??!!
Instead of your constant bashing of people (in this case Esslinger) listen to what they say, and put your personal dislike for people aside.
You really look foolish bashing people about their comments, when it's obvious you just want to be contrary. It diminishes your credibility; something that I believe you have little of these days.
I was happy to see Ms. Hentz bring up the illegal meeting again! What ever happened to your complaint? Or is this another waste of tax payers money, having high ranking officials chasing after your so-called non-issues.
You should really try to expel your demons elswhere, as your nasty retorts here are making you look even more arrogant then you have in the past. You are not all knowing. A big piece of low-cal humble pie may be just what you need to chew on.
Anonymous at 1:19 p.m., first I don’t know how you “speak” slowly when you’re typing and when you have no idea of the speed of my reading ability? That must be a neat trick and I bet you’re in great demand in the job market. You lack basic comprehension skills, however.
You can refer to my previous comments and those of others both here and on my own web site. Maybe if you read them as slowly as you claim to be speaking, you'll finally understand what some of us are trying to say about this - unless of course, you don't want to see the logic in our position.
Anonymous at 3:15 p.m., your prejudice is all-telling. Others have filed complaints about the illegal meeting, but you only chose to single me out. Isn't that a curious thing? Filing that complaint was the right thing to do. Mr. Esslinger knew the meeting should not be held; that's why he chose not to attend it. Too bad he couldn't find it within himself to file a complaint himself. Perhaps there was a cribbage tourney that tore him from finding a bigger moral compass in this matter.
Moreover, if you knew anything about what you try commenting on you would know that such complaints usually take a long time to be fully investigated. What you call a waste of taxpayers' money is what I call the AG's office doing exactly what it is in place to do - one of the things it does anyway. If it wasn't part of that office's charge they would have turned the complaint away. If you don't like what they are charged with doing, write them or contact your state assembly person to try changing the law. But don't bitch to me or about me for wanting to see an illegally-held meeting investigated.
Now, I am not going to dignify the rest of the comments by either of you with a response. You're not worth any more of my time. I am also finished trying to explain pretty simplistic concepts to people like both of you. It's impossible when dealing with people whose grey matter and comprehension skills seem so greatly diminished.
The one comment about a lack of credibility speaks for itself, too, as you both enjoy lurking in the shadows of anonymity. At least I have the courage of my convictions and don’t have “cowardice” as one of my personality traits.
Have a pleasant rest of the afternoon and a delightful evening, if you have the capacity to do so.
I have followed this discussion pretty closely and I still can't see where Cheryl Hentz said the approving the fee was the right thing to do. I also can't find where she says Paul Esslinger no longer thinks the fee is a fair thing. She has chastised his sudden change on the fee when people have sounded off about it for some time. Is he so thick headed that a huge boulder had to fall on his head before he could see the light? Other people understood months ago citizens didn't want the fee. Isn't that one of the reasons Mr. McHugh entered the race and did so well in both elections? I agree with others who have said this is politics for Mr. Esslinger and nothing more.
Hentz says: "The one comment about a lack of credibility speaks for itself, too, as you both enjoy lurking in the shadows of anonymity. At least I have the courage of my convictions and don’t have “cowardice” as one of my personality traits."
Hmm looks like someone who accuses others of trying to guess who the anonymouses are, is doing some of the same. Is Ms. Hentz insinuating she never posts anonymously? When one speaks of credibility one should be damn sure they hold a higher level. I think some would be surprised at what others can prove about them.
On a side note, those claiming credibility and then proceed with personal attacks, no matter how veiled, only display their lack of. I would recommend those reading this skip over the next post of Ms. Hentz since I am sure it will be an attack on my anonymous credibility with threats and inuendos that I don't really know who is posting what on these blogs and couldn't prove it and I would be surprised to know who it really is but never mind because I am anonymous so I don't matter in the grand scheme of things. She may even attempt to discredit me by pointing out grammar, spelling, or syntax errors as a way to discredit my ideas and opinions. Who knows, maybe we'll get lucky and she'll keep her enormous trap shut. I'm betting for a lengthy series of "anonymous" posts by two people I couldn't possibly know the identity of, right?
Maybe I should type slowly ;)
Ms. Hentz, if you are reading this I hope you will see some of these people for what they are and brush off the comments they make as sheer childishness and jealousy. remember, the natural proclivity of some to be nasty can't be helped.
People, people, people. Does it really matter if someone posts anonymously or signs their name?
What should be disturbing is the lack of ability by some to debate issues rather than people. What we see far too often is whenever legitimate challenges are made to a comment, someone on the other end expresses their need to call names or make other kinds of accusations and attacks. Next we often see people guessing about who’s posting what and making comments meant to intimidate others into not posting.
Instead of acting out against people, why can’t the challenges to the points be met and dialogue maintained by people acting like adults instead of children? Is that really asking too much? It would be more enjoyable for most and certainly more productive.
Aw shucks, looks like Cheryl's done picked up her marbles and went home!
Dang nabit!
It's Dag-nabit. Don't use words you can't spell or don't understand.
We all know Melanie Bloechl. Paul Esslinger and the Montes make anonymous postings too. Is that what they call the pot calling the kettle black???
Post a Comment