Comments on: Norwalk School Budgets & Your Taxes

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:03:44 +0000

Additionally OT, the Meadow Street transfer station deal had NOTHING TO DO with the City’s recycling contract with City Carting. COMPLETELY SEPARATE contracts.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:01:58 +0000

Old Timer: The contract the City of Norwalk has states that each ton of recycling earns $17 and change. The fact that City Carting won’t be able to resell it, is not the City of Norwalk’s problem to deal with, the contract revenue holds. The environment on the other hand …

Further, the FBI raids, you reference, happened in Danbury to a different trash hauler. Unless you have a link that says otherwise ….

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:51:09 +0000

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-recyclingcost,0,2929791.story

This story, from the Chicago Tribune last week, tells the story of recycling costing money now for the first time, after years of making money. The “documented” deal you saw was based on fantastic, literally unbelievable, projected income from increased recycling and tipping fees for other towns’ garbage. Fantastic enough to cover the rent on the site and generate extra income.
You, and others, believed City Carting Company wanted to give away all that income to the City of Norwalk because they are such nice people and there was no reason for the FBI raid.
Even Tom Hamilton believed there was a million dollars there for the City and accused Diane Lauricella of costing the City that amount.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:25:22 +0000

Old Timer: What analysis did you do or facts do you have? Sounds like your own projected take on the City Carting proposal. What you describe is nothing like what I saw – a documented, fully flushed out deal in writing with all of the facts available. The City would have saved AT LEAST $1M.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:04:26 +0000

The school budget should be increase where it directly impacts students. Better teachers and more supplies go a long way. As a teacher and a norwalk resident i have to work 3 jobs to live in MY town. Raise my salary please!

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:01:20 +0000

There was nothing budgeted for a 10 yr, 4.2 million dollar, lease on the Meadow St transfer station. If the original deal was approved, a special appropriation to pay the rent would have been required, in addition to the one they need now to make up the difference between projected and actual cost of taking our solid waste away. The big money you, and others, talk about the City losing when the original deal got shot down, included very optimistic projections of more recycling income and the tipping fees from other towns garbage at Meadow St. The fees for other town’s garbage may be realistic numbers. The projected recycling income, with City Carting getting all the scrap metal money, was never real numbers, just wishful thinking based on a short term record-breaking spike in recycle material prices. Nobody ever talked about why City Carting wanted the City to operate Meadow St, if it was such a money-maker, but some of us did not believe all the hype. Don’t be amazed to see them sell that property.
If you run the numbers, based on current recycle prices, you will get a much better idea of how much the City either lost, or saved.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:53:46 +0000

Old Timer: Actaully its worse than what you are assuming. The budged amount for Jan 1 2009 was the contracted amount that was presented last July. In other words a low cost. The current cost is higher, although lower than the CRRA contracted amount.

You are incorrect however, if the Council had approved the City Carting Contract as negotiated in July of 2008, there would be no need for a special appropriation now. This of course should have been front and center in the discussions then, but alas, wasn’t, except for me asking about it then.

Regardless of a council person’s take on the contract, they all managed to not as the basic and fundamental questions about the budget numbers used. Just like they failed to ask for any data regarding the recycling bins, or even now, they have failed to ask about any data concerning the budget and use of the parks.

I’ll keep repeating this, you can’t manage what you don’t know.

By: Old Timer

Old Timer — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:08:52 +0000

No, I am not overlooking that, the cost per ton was budgeted (projected) based on the optimistic, but innaccurate, asumption that it would not change at the first of the year even though the contract expired. Doesn’t take an Economics Phd to figure that was not going to happen and, no matter who got the new contract, a special appriation would be necessary. That special appropriation would have been a lot more money if the City leased the Meadow St. site.

By: turfgrrl

turfgrrl — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:07:20 +0000

Old Timer: You are overlooking the cost per ton of solid transfer that was budgeted in last year at the lower rate. The Council will have to do a special appropriation of the higher, now contracted, price per ton this year.

By: Another Anonymous

Another Anonymous — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:57:02 +0000

Not to mention that, like all the other 6-figure fat cats on the 3rd floor at City Hall, he doesn’t live in Norwalk and has no interest in our tax bills.