INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...

Fri Jun 6 21:10:06 EDT 2008

You may be right.  While used differently in each state, the approach
has had a positive track record in a number of states, including South
Carolina, Virginia and Minnesota.

Reyn

-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Barry Ragin
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 5:20 PM
To: RW Pickle
Cc: Reyn Bowman; inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...

"but three years ago the Yard Waste Program was funded by those who 
subscribed to the service and it was breaking even."

i would like to see those numbers. my understanding is that the yard 
waste program originally was implemented when mixing yard waste and 
trash was made illegal. at that time, there was a $35 fee to buy a 
barrel, but no annual subscription fee. that would have been sometime 
between 1998 and 2000, i think,  but i had other things on my mind then,

and wasn't paying attention.

the subscription fee went into place in the 2003 fiscal year. it has 
attracted between 16% and 25% of Durham households. I don't recall that 
it has ever been self-sufficient, but i could be mistaken.

the point, however, is that many people who choose not to participate in

the yard waste program still generate yard waste. Some of them compost 
it or otherwise take care of it in a fashion that does not burden the 
rest of us. Many of them don't. That yard waste ends up in other 
people's yard, in empty lots, in storm drains, in the Ellerbe Creek, and

dozens of other places, where it's a burden and a degradation on the 
environment.

Imagine if we charged a fee to participate in the paper/plastic/aluminum

recycling program. How many people would choose to participate, and what

would happen to the rest of the stuff? How about if we charged a fee to 
participate in the trash pickup program, rather than have that funded 
out of the general fund. I've said this before - my household takes 4 or

even 5 weeks to fill up our 90 gallon trash bin. i could probably opt 
out of the program and find ways to dispose of my trash. But that would 
probably be a burden on the rest of the taxpayers of the city.

The yard waste program is no different. Except that the city relies on 
volunteers like me to go into the creeks to pick up the stuff other 
people are dumping. I worked the numbers out the other day, and i've 
participated in about 25 trash pickup days over the past 4 or 5 years. 
I'm not willing to give those Saturday and Sunday mornings up to pick up

other people's trash and yard waste anymore.

Barry Ragin
RW Pickle wrote:
> I am all for "user funded anything" as that does as you say, frees up
> funding for other areas/problems/concerns. I guess the problem is that
if
> these organizations charged what it took to roll out their various
> productions/shows/events, then they might find that they would no
longer
> be able to do so because it did not break even (or make financial
sense).
> I think that's what all of this about anyway. Getting all of these
groups
> either to become financially independent or fold. Some will make it
while
> others will fall by the wayside as unwanted and unsupported by the
> community. I guess it depends on what "value" they bring to the
table...
>
> An example of this is our Yard Waste Program in the City. I'm not sure
how
> it works out today (not having a yard waste facility here in our
community
> and shipping it all off to VA; I have been assurred that one is coming
> again soon...), but three years ago the Yard Waste Program was funded
by
> those who subscribed to the service and it was breaking even. So that
was
> a good thing for the tax payers. Here was a City service that was paid
for
> by those who wanted the service and not an expense born by anyone
else. It
> would be nice to see that sort of thought process across the board
when it
> comes to spending.
>
> RWP
> 27 Beverly
>
>
>   
>> Fair point at the end, but an earmarked admissions tax is just a way
of
>> transferring the cost of the arts to the arts user, freeing up the
>> general fund for the core responsibilities of government.  It is only
an
>> alternative to a method where the arts are left to wither or unfairly
>> pitted against needs that must be supported by the general fund.
>> Another way to look at it, do we really think the price of our ticket
>> now is paying enough to provide the entertainment we're
>> getting...no-way.
>>
>> But it was just an idea borrowed from other models of funding.  I'm
open
>> to anything but the approach we have now.
>>
>> RB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
[mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
>> On Behalf Of RW Pickle
>> Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 11:32 PM
>> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>> Subject: INC NEWS - any cuts just has to hurt somewhere...
>>
>> There are a lot of projections used in the budgetary process. One of
our
>> questions is "can you get it done/started/completed in the coming
budget
>> cycle?" If not, it can wait. But from this, we see the wish lists
that
>> could trickle down into funding just about everything eventually. But
it
>> all costs real dollars.
>>
>> Barry is sort of right about something here. It does all boil down to
>> Council (or Commissioners) deciding where they will spend the money
and
>> how much they will spend on any particular item. I can only hope that
>> the
>> countless hours spent by citizens that have volunteered their time in
>> analyzing it, scoring it, and recommending what we all (and that must
be
>> a
>> huge ALL, not just the Capital Improvement Group I'm in, but all
>> citizens
>> who volunteer trying to make the ends meet) think we need. Because
most
>> of
>> these recommendations came from people who live all across this town
and
>> come to the table with many different backgrounds. One may support
one
>> thing very strongly while another may not value that particular
thing.
>> With many people voicing their opinion in the process, what we end up
>> with
>> is what we need (regardless if we want it or not; a synthesis by all
>> means
>> that as an average, it was more important if it rose to the top of
the
>> averaged list). We're currently spending a great deal on American
with
>> Disabilities Act compliance in our City. I remember when it was
enacted.
>> It's been a while and we still haven't gotten all this stuff done.
Now
>> we're in a rush because we'll be fined for not having it done. So
we've
>> short funded it for years until now, we have to get it done.
>>
>> Some things change (at least in the Capital Improvement budget) as
this
>> process moves forward. For example, if Greenfire takes over one of
the
>> parking decks and bears the cost of renovation, that'll free up
$6.2M+
>> and
>> would allow 18 or 19 more projects to be funded in the CIP. That's
still
>> not down a half page in a 2 page list. And this is just on the short
>> list
>> we started with. Budget and Finance is trying to find more to cut
before
>> it makes it further into the process (as Council has asked).
>>
>> If we decided we were going to do a four year tax increase that would
>> sunset at the end of the fourth year (for 4 times what we're
currently
>> looking at getting; say from $.15 to $.60-.75), we could get a great
>> deal
>> done with the influx of more funds. Even for that short of a time.
But
>> would it be enough to get it all done? Like I said, we don't even
have
>> the
>> people it would take to deal with it all. And it would cost us all
more
>> if
>> only just for a short time. Just as Council or Commissioners vote to
>> increase taxes, they also must pay these fees since they live here as
>> well.  And these increases in fuels, groceries, water, taxes, etc add
up
>> for a lot of people and make life yet more difficult. Especially
those
>> on
>> fixed incomes.
>>
>> One thing we do need to do right now is to acquire debt. The City
>> Council/Budget Office likes to keep our debt load around 12%. Money
>> today
>> has never been cheaper (in the amount we need to get things done) and
>> while it's cheap, we need to increase this load to maybe 17-20%. So
we
>> need to bite the bullet, borrow more while it's cheap, and work our
>> butts
>> off getting stuff done. Last time I looked, it looked like there
already
>> is a lot going on. But seeing it all in numbers and projects, there's
a
>> lot left to do. And it doesn't seem to be getting any cheaper. Just
look
>> at fuel costs over the last year. The City has something like 1100
>> vehicles it puts out on the road each day. The County has all those
>> school
>> busses (plus a fleet). Everyone buys fuel, so you know how much the
cost
>> has gone up. Just as an example, Solid Waste goes through more than
1200
>> gallons of fuel a day! The budget we are working under now was fixed
>> last
>> year. So it's even short before we get to the next new budget to
>> increase
>> it. But that doesn't mean we've stopped needing fuel today and it
must
>> be
>> paid for today as well. So we rob Peter to pay Paul (as the saying
>> goes).
>>
>> I wouldn't say the budget process this year is a disgrace because
it's a
>> work in progress. And as long as I can remember, there has been a
>> shortage
>> of funds to make all the ends meet. So we have the same dance year
after
>> year. That's why, at least for Capital Projects, we're going to spend
>> the
>> next year developing a long-range plan so we can roll out funding
yearly
>> if necessary to get it all done.
>>
>> The sudden outcry by the NCA community is really moot. Like Barry
said,
>> why didn't it come up during the campaigns? It's been 2 years in the
>> coming and like the panel I sit on (the CCIP), the arts funding was
>> decided by citizens as well. They looked at the requests, like we
look
>> at
>> the Capital Project requests, and decided what was important. So it's
>> the
>> community really deciding (at least up front) what it wants and
needs.
>> The
>> final decisions will always be made by our elected officials... We
can
>> only hope they listen to us.
>>
>> The real disgrace is that there isn't enough money to go around for
>> everything. But then again, there is no blank check in this process.
If
>> there were, I guess everyone would be happy... Or would they? It all
has
>> to be paid for some how and we're the ones paying for it (and that
>> includes our elected officials and most of the folks who work for our
>> municipality). Would you pay 4 times in property taxes right now just
to
>> make it all work? I doubt it. But it might just change the funding
>> metrics
>> enough so as to get it all done and we'll have some left for other
>> things.
>>
>> I hated to hear an "admissions tax" mentioned in an earlier email. It
>> just
>> becomes another one of those hidden fees we end up paying especially
>> when
>> it comes to music in our City. There's a lot of competition in
Durham;
>> too
>> much free music for many to want to pay for it, muchless pay an
>> additional
>> tax on it for admission. And that's a good thing. Free to all is what
it
>> should be. Like the Latin music in CCB Plaza this weekend. It's not a
>> fee
>> based event; the City (DPR) is throwing the party. The City still
>> believes
>> in the arts and here is an example of it. So get out and enjoy what
your
>> taxes are paying for! And at many of the other free music events held
>> around the City this summer.
>>
>> RWP
>> 27 Beverly
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>> --
>> OnPar ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify
>> authenticity
>>
http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m56Bm7xk009157&from=reyn@d
urham-cvb.com
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> ====================================================================
> This e-mail, and any attachments to it, contains PRIVILEGED AND
> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only for the use of the addressee(s)
or
> entity named on the e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient of
this
> e-mail, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading,
> dissemination or copying of this e-mail in error is strictly
prohibited.
> If you have received this electronic  transmission in error, please
notify
> me by telephone (919-489-0576) or by electronic mail
(pickle at patriot.net)
> immediately.
> =====================================================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
>   
_______________________________________________
INC-list mailing list
INC-list at rtpnet.org
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

--
OnPar ExchangeDefender Message Security: Click below to verify authenticity
http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=m571G8i7012557&from=reyn@durham-cvb.com