Garbage fee increase discussed during budget session

By MARCIA NELESEN ( Contact )   Wednesday, Oct. 26, 2011
ADVERTISEMENT
 

Podcast Episode


Janesville residents could see an increase in trash collection fees next year. The proposed city budget doesn't include an increase, but some on the city council suggest a small increase now might be better than a large increase later. Kyle Geissler reports.

RSS   

Reader pollAudio

How likely are you to move because of taxes and government service fees?

  

See the results and comments

— Council members will consider phasing in an increase of up to $40 in the garbage collection fee, an increase not originally suggested by Manager Eric Levitt in the 2012 budget.

Last year, the council levied a $40 yearly fee for garbage collection. The actual cost of collection, however, is just under $80 a year.

The council last year also directed staff to decrease the amount of trash accepted at the landfill beginning in 2012 so the landfill will last until 2045, when land will be available from a mining company.

Councilman Tom McDonald said during Tuesday's 2012 budget session that he is concerned the sanitation reserve fund will decrease $708,319 in 2012, leaving a balance of $296,575. The reserve held $2.7 million in 2008.

That's because the reserve subsidizes the residential garbage collection.

"We can either increase the revenue by bringing in more trash, like the city has over the years—and some people call it making Janesville the dumping ground around here—or we, as residents, are going to have to pay more for our garbage," he said.

The council could consider a combination of the two.

"I think we should start talking about this this year," McDonald said. Putting it off for another year will only put the city in a more difficult position, he added.

"Even though I'm not going to be there, I'd like to see this on the right track, even if it means making a difficult decision this year," he said. McDonald will not seek re-election in April.

Levitt agreed that not raising the fee and lowering the trash volume puts a "severe financial hit on the sanitation fund."

An increase in the garbage fee would come on top of a 21 percent water rate increase and a proposed $10 wheel tax.

The landfill has many fixed costs, regardless of the trash volume, John Whitcomb, operations director, said.

Increasing the tipping fee could also give the council more revenue. The city is already imposing an increase of $1 a ton.

"I'd rather see us do something immediately, as opposed to the water fee," McDonald said, noting that the city delayed increasing water rates last year but residents now face a 21 percent increase.

Whitcomb also provided additional information about automated trash pickup.

The city would buy trucks that could lift wheeled carts and dump the contents into the trucks. Residents would put their trash in one cart and their recyclables in another, eliminating the need to sort the recyclables.

The city has tentatively decided to buy two carts for each residence but does not know yet how it will handle requests for additional carts.

People should be able to recycle their old garbage cans, he said.

Whitcomb said automated pickup presents some challenges, such as Christmas tree pickup or pickup of garbage that doesn't fit in the carts. The city could hold amnesty days, for example, when people could clean out their garages and pile up more garbage, he said. The workers would get out of the trucks and manually load the garbage on those days.

The city also proposes in the 2012 budget to stop accepting roofing shingles at the landfill. Residents would have to pay to dispose them at recycling outlets.

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(34)
Robot_Lord_of_Tokyo
Oct 27, 2011 at 6:51 p.m.
Suggest removal

You want Doyle back, Waker? What did he ever do for you?

wakerfan
Oct 27, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal

billnewbie--If walker is "finding a way to hold down all these crazy increases," as you claim, then how is it that the increases are occurring? You, like all CONservatives (thanks SarahB) are in love with the idea of giving walker all kinds of credit for all kinds of things that he has NOT done.

tmcdonald
Oct 27, 2011 at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal

reality, in response to your first question, for many years the city landfill made a profit by allowing wastehaulers from outside Janesville to dump garbage here. Contracts with those wastehaulers provided millions of dollars in profits for the city landfill. However, there were two major problems with that policy. First, allowing Janesville to be the dumping ground for so much garbage from outside our community generated enviornmental concerns. Second, allowing in all those extra tons of garbage every year was quickly filling our landfill. Once the landfill is full we as residents of this city are probably looking at spending tens of millions of dollars to close the site and open a new landfill. In addition to the expense of the new landfill would be the huge problem of where to put it. As you can imagine, no one would want a new landfill anywhere close to their property. Bascally the past city policy was an easy way to make money and balance the annual budget, but it was going to leave the city with some major financial burdens and enviormental concerns in the long run. During the past couple years the city council has begun to reverse this past practice realizing its negative long-term effects. Because we no longer accept nearly as much garbage from outside the community, we as residents now have to pay for our trash pickup. As more and more contracts with the outside wastehaulers expire, our annual cost as residents will likely increase in order to cover the costs of our trash collection. If you have any other question about this or any other city issue feel free to send me an email at mcdonaldt@ci.janesville.wi.us.

vatoloco
Oct 27, 2011 at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal

(This comment was incinerated by the site staff)

frogger
Oct 27, 2011 at 1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal

What a load of crap.
We had a $40 and now another 40 and you call it an INCREASE" I call it bend over.

realitybytes
Oct 27, 2011 at 11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal

grandys618:
yes, that is a good price for monthly pickup. However, Janesville has a landfill that has for decades provided a source of income to cover these expenses. What has changed that the landfill income cannot cover the expenses now? Not every city has a landfill at its disposal. Businesses that haul garbage MUST have a place to put that garbage. Has anybody done a study to find out where other cities and businesses go to dump their garbage? I suspect we could raise our rates (especially to NON-Janesville entities) and the current landfill users would still find it economical to dump in Janesville. After all, given two landfill sites that charge the same high tipping fees, most businesses will chose the one that is closer and more convenient.
Or we could just raise taxes. That seems to be easier for the city council.

Shopierehuh
Oct 27, 2011 at 10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal

The vehicle costs are quite equal in proportion to what they were in say, 1961. The unions did not drive anything anywhere. If you can't afford a new vehicle, you should strive to make more money. Get a higher paying job, improve your finances. If your non-union job doesn't pay enough, get a union job. Don't blame others who make a living wage for your own lack of money.

wtp
Oct 27, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal

shopier: Yes GM is gone and why. The unions killed it by high wages, high benefits and all that cost was passed onto you and I who ended up needing to buy a car or suv. Before unions got strong in the 60's and 70's, middle and lower class could afford to buy cars. Over the yrs unions went bezerk and what class of people can affod to buy a new car. upper middle class and the rich. I would love to own a new car but not at 20 thousand or more.

Shopierehuh
Oct 27, 2011 at 9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal

Very true, towhaul. The public employees now will pay less taxes, others can make it up. They also will have less money to spend, this will be less sales tax collected. The businesses will have less income from the reduction of spending, etc, etc. This taking away from others because someone thinks that they are overpaid hurts everyone.

They finally got rid of those overpaid GM workers that so many whined about for years. How is that working out for Janesville and the State? Is that 300 million dollar per year payroll missed by anyone? Is the millions of dollars in taxes that were paid by these employees and that company missed by anyone?

username
Oct 27, 2011 at 8:45 a.m.
Suggest removal

Well here we go again. We always hear or read "our rate for______ (fill in the blank) is lower compared to similiar cities of our size. This should tell you get ready we are in line for a rate or tax increase. We have been told to conserve _______ (fill in blank) and when we do guess what... Utilities need to increase rates because consumption is down? After I read the headlines from the Gazette I scratch my head. Why? One page says we need to raise taxes, fee's etc. The other side of the page tells me how our area rates in the unemployment numbers (top 5 in state). Do some of you remember the show "Twilight Zone"?

vatoloco
Oct 27, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.
Suggest removal

Anyone know how many people are staffed to do this job?

Maybe they can outsource this service and save money that way.

wtp
Oct 27, 2011 at 8:22 a.m.
Suggest removal

Has anyone taken the time to see the cost of all these services Janesville is offering you vs most cities across this nation with comparable size. I know for fact that you will find Janesville 100's of dollars cheaper then all the cities in Wisconsin alone. Yes times are tough but you folks have had the riches for yrs compared to other cities when it comes to services.

Lemke10
Oct 26, 2011 at 10:17 p.m.
Suggest removal

This is just another example of the morons in Janesville costing smart people like myself and others more money. Here is the text taken directly off the city's website:

Recycling is Mandatory in Wisconsin

Wisconsin law requires all citizens in Wisconsin to recycle at home and at work. Households and businesses may no longer dispose of the following items with their regular trash:
•Newspaper (& similar paper)
•Magazines (& similar paper)
•Office Paper (does not apply to households)
•Corrugated Paper & Container Board (such as cereal & gift boxes)
•Steel & Tin Cans
•Aluminum Containers & Cans
•Unbroken Glass Bottles & Jars
•1 and 2 Plastic Containers
•Appliances
•Electronic Devices (Computers, printers, televisions, cell phones, etc.)
•Vehicle Batteries
•Waste Oil
•Tires
•Yard Waste

Well if it's mandatory, how come I never see anyone getting a fine for throwing away these items in the trash? The next time you go to a retail store, take time to look at the trash cans as you enter the building. I'm willing to bet you'll most likely see a soda can or soda bottle in there, both things that are supposed to be recycled. I don't expect everyone to be like me but if I really tried to fill a trash bag to the top, it takes me about 4 weeks to do so because I recycle so much of my stuff. Some weeks I don't even put out any garbage for pick up because it's not even worth it for what I have. It makes me laugh when I drive past some of the multi-family unit housing on my way to work and they have 10times more garbage than recycling. The worst part, I'm not even a tree hugger type person, just someone that realizes that recycling creates jobs where as throwing stuff into the ground will soon cost you $80 it sounds like.

carlitosway
Oct 26, 2011 at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal

Well said Towhaul369....Everything goes up wages go down If you even have a job left after all these fees are imposed the companies will have to down size to cut costs to cover the fees. If they don't shut down and leave altogether!!!!! Welcome to little Walkerville!

baegucb
Oct 26, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal

I guess I'll put my two 45 gallon garbage cans (cost: I forget now), into the 96 gallon ones. And add the current recycling box. And then I have to figure out where to put the 96 gallon containers. Quite honestly, the curb seems the best place for them. My garage is already full.

luckyduck
Oct 26, 2011 at 6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal

How about the folks on unemployment? how on earth are we/they supposed to fork over MORE taxes on things like garbage pick-up? oh wow...greedy much? never mind the man down...kick him somemore.

billnewbie
Oct 26, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal

Imagine that, they instituted a new garbage fee last year and now they want to double it. They want to impose a wheel tax this year. Will that double next year too? Will they bump up the garbage fee yet another $40 next year? Will they raise water rates again next year like they want to do this year using the tried and true excuse that people are using less water since the pricing structure was changed to encourage using less water? I can't wait to see what they'll do to cover the cost of the new firehouse, all the roundabouts they want to build, changing one way streets to two way, building bike tunnels and a brand new ice palace they'll hang a plaque on with all the council members' names like they have at the peace park.

What a wonderful future our city council has in mind for us all. And for all those who think they can't afford all these fees, rates and tax increases that will pay for our little utopia, go ahead, try to move. See if you can sell your nearly worthless houses with the huge annual tax bills and user fees that keep going up and up. You can't get away. You won't have any choice. After all, our residents overwhelmingly support incumbents, especially the tax and spend kind. Remember, these are the same voters who nearly re-elected Mike Sheridan within a few hundred votes in spite of the fact that he was compromised by a lobbyist. And they're the same voters who'll overwhelmingly support the Governor's recall for the sin of finding a way to hold down all these crazy increases that we can't use since we're locked into union contracts our council agreed to. Yep, the future sure is bright for Janesville.

someoneme
Oct 26, 2011 at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal

I work in town here. I bought a house here to save on the drive from where I was living and the houses were cheaper. More bang for my buck. Boy was I wrong!

zythia13
Oct 26, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal

yep! I suppose it makes sense to pay for the services we receive.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT