The Tuesday, August 26, 2014 city council agenda contemplates awarding contracts to two separate companies that want to provide solid waste (garbage) services in the city.
Watching the video of a city council meeting I saw a representative of one of the two trash hauling operations speak to council. Her request was that council not assess a “franchise” fee on local haulers. According to her:
- the firm must only use the city owned land fills
- the firm must pay $26 per ton of trash delivered to a land fill
- records she claims to have received from the city show the city’s cost of handling the trash to be $14. The other $12 ends up in the general fund.
Businesses cannot use the city’s trash collection services. They must contract with commercial entities. It appears that businesses are paying for the collection service as well as a premium fee to the city when the city has done nothing to earn it.
Recently city council required our water utility to assess and collect a fee from “non residential” customers so that the city can have the money to help balance the budget. So now businesses are paying even more money for services the city does not render.
That seems to me to be worse than a tax.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
The city “tax collectors” are rapidly earinig the hated reputation of the unscrupulous tax collectors of biblical times.
LikeLike
Tax collectors also came to be baptized and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than you are authorized to do.”
LikeLike
And, it kind of puts paid to all those so-called tax incentives they offer to attract new business, doesn’t it? Council’s attitude is apparently, “spend, spend, spend; we’ll create NEW revenues streams out of thin air.”
LikeLike
It’s interesting how we give away the ranch and ballpark to some private businesses, while trying to profit off of others. How much are taxpayers spending so that the police department can park scarecrow cars at certain convenience stores overnight multiple times during the week? Either we’re providing added security for some private businesses free of charge or someone at the police department has started a sideline business using city equipment. We’re also paying for the gas and manpower to move these vehicles around. Maybe it’s a trade for coffee and donuts.
LikeLike
El Paso Water has now started charging the added fee to businesses, churches and schools. Why was the PSB’s counter proposal simply taken off the table and not discussed publicly?
LikeLike
My understanding is that the mayor asked that the item be removed to allow city staff more time to study the counter proposal.
Brutus
LikeLike
It is my understanding that the counter proposal was quietly canned and that is why the water utility moved ahead with implementing the new fee. If it were still being studied, one would think the utility would have held off on sending out bills for the new fee. Maybe someone can clarify.
I am also still trying to understand how Rep. Niland justifies saying that she and the council are “doing what is right” by imposing a discriminatory fee on businesses, schools and churches.
How can our city management and representatives continue to claim that El Paso is friendly to businesses. They just keep adding fee upon fee. It’s almost as if they don’t understand the value of a dollar, except when it’s going into their personal pockets. These small fees are a small price to pay for large businesses and people like hotel developers, who are being granted millions of dollars in tax breaks. The real burden is being placed on the local small businesses, which have been the lifeblood of our community for decades.
Our administrators and representatives do not understand the value of a dollar, except when it is going in their personal pockets or campaign funds.
LikeLike
Another aspect is that the PSB offer was to do $3.5 million of street paving.
Council wanted the cash. They were not interested in paving streets.
Brutus
LikeLike
Exactly, Brutus. Niland believes in creating “income streams.” If you barter for paved streets, there is no income stream that will help pay the ballpark debt or anything else they dream up. When the non-residential community gets fed up with all these hits, the city will come back to the property owners and try to tack a little more on our backs. Maybe one of these years they’ll risk making Foster pay his property taxes in toto.
LikeLike
Possibly because Council can authorize staff to “reprogram” the cash (and not actual asphalt) for purposes other than streets like they routinely do with the CO’s they supposedly designated for streets?
LikeLike