by Jack
With the price of oil at a record low for the last 20 years, you might be wondering why your local garbage company keeps imposing a fuel surcharge on your garbage bill? That surcharge represents an extra $1.73 that you pay each month, in addition to your regular garbage collection fee. So, I called my refuse collection company, which happens to be, “Recology Butte, Colusa Counties.” I asked them why the fuel surcharge? And their answer was and I quote, “The City wants us to keep it there until the next contract.”
Really? I couldn’t believe. Something must be wrong here. What possible interest could the City of Chico have in Recology making more money off this fuel charge?
However, I was assured the City of Chico wants you to keep paying the fuel surcharge.
When fuel prices were high they wasted no time in placing the fuel surcharge on us, right. It didn’t matter when the collection contract was due, they wanted that money now! So, why isn’t the reverse true when fuel prices are low? Shouldn’t we get a rebate or at least not be required to pay a surcharge? Why is nobody on the other side in any hurry to stop surcharging you and me for non-existent high fuel costs? Failing a quick answer from anyone, I guess I’ll have to call the City Council and see what’s up.
Seems like it’s become S.O.P., Jack.
We’ve moved beyond the days when people did the right thing. I think it’s partly because we had standards and we held each other more accountable. Now it seems the attitude is, “the public gets used to the higher charge for the service so why remove or reduce the surcharge.” At the same time people don’t value thrift. I suppose these are natural tendencies in a prosperous nation. We’d all be better off if we kept the higher standard and trained the next generation to do the same.
It does seem odd to me that the city contract would have anything to do with an added surcharge to “cover rising fuel prices.” I would think that would be a decision made by the company outside of the contract. Whatever deal they had with the city their costs surely went up as fuel prices rose dramatically. A surcharge makes sense in terms of cash flow but it should also be adjusted, up or down accordingly, as prices fluctuate.
It seems odd to you cause you’re a conspiracy nut, and like most “conservatives” cannot grasp how the world actually works. 1) The contract remains in force until the term is up. To break it will cost legal and administrative monies that would likely irradicate any savings. 2) Were the city to require, in any future contract, a variable fuel surcharge, the vendor would want to offset the calculation of such a thing with an administrative fee, but it might be worth doing.
You think constructively about the issue, and then make constructive suggestions. I hear any more of this carping, conspiracy-minded stuff, and you get written off as a Juanista.
Libby you missed the common sense part where they were quick to impose a fuel surcharge, but slow to remove it when the justification was gone.
She likely missed a lot more.
Have you found out whether the surcharge was added by the city or by the company yet?
I’m curious because the same company collects for my business. It seems to me that the charge was added after any contract they may have made with the city. I admit I’m not sure; I was merely offering a possible reason for it’s remaining on the bill.
This surcharge is like so many temporary taxes liberals impose on us like the temporary income tax. I think we paid off WWI debt awhile back, don’t you?
The question for me is, is this a city tax or simply a fee, imposed by the company?
Well, it may just be that progressives are so conceited they think they know everything about everything when in actuality they are quite stupid…especially when it comes to business.
I was suggesting the surcharge may have come after the contract!
I was suggesting the surcharge was simply added to customers bills to help pay for rising gasoline prices…not all contracts are government contracts.
I was suggesting the reason the company may have kept the surcharge in place after gas prices came down was to help with cash flow. If customers aren’t paying their bills, and in this lousy economy its quite possible, and considering gasoline and commodity prices have been volatile of late, the future is difficult to predict.
If a business person makes a contract with the city to do a job at a certain price and then the cost for doing the work is significantly impacted because of higher prices (on fuel for instance…or minimum wage laws, but that’s another argument) he has to make adjustments. One such adjustment would be adding a surcharge onto his customers bill for the added fuel costs. At times that’s a risk he has to take because not performing, as agreed in the contract with the city, could be very costly in terms of legal fees and fines for nonperformance.
So the surcharge has nothing to do with the contract with the city, you ninny! It has to do with the contract with his customers.
Now, take that little brain of yours and go sit in the corner while you contemplate the realities, and the difficulties, of doing business! (Especially with ignorant progressives in and out of government that have never made payroll or met a deadline on a government contract in their lives.)
You people are sad. Your bill comes from the vendor, not the city. The contract with the city lays out what the vendor can charge you. Everything is stipulated. You want something changed? When the contract comes up for renewal, you have your supervisors instruct your city attorney.
But all this pointless whining is really irritating.
” Everything is stipulated.”
Yes, in the vendor contract with the city! (I imagine this covers garbage collection for city offices?)
The contract between the vendor and his private customers (Jack) is less formal. The first bills I received from this vendor had no fuel fees..the fees were later added to my bill when fuel prices started to skyrocket. I don’t know if the city imposed a tax or if the vendor imposed this fee himself…NOR DO YOU, LIBBY!
Even if it is a tax, isn’t that something the people of Chico should have some knowledge of before it’s imposed? And shouldn’t it be lowered if it was done solely to cover rising fuel prices?
You’re a bit irritating yourself!
go get ’em jack!
You really need to pay more attention to the local political issues.
The City wants to make trash service mandatory, and will assign a trash service company to you area. So you will no longer have a choice which company will service your house. Currently some people may choose to share a trash can with a neighbor, since they don’t have that much garbage, that will be gone. Of course you’ll pay more for your trash service when all this happens.
My guess is the City wants to keep the cost high, so the increase won’t seem so big.
The City just tripled the fee for non-profit groups like the School Board or The League of Women voters to use the City Council room for public events such as the candidate forum.
Also there may be between 3 to 5 tax increases in the upcoming elections. School bonds, CARD bond for the new pool ($10 – $20 Million!), sales tax increase to fund City pensions (under the guise of public safety) just to name a few.
The City is also planning to remodel The Esplanade, removing the timed lights and adding traffic circles. Which in my opinion will ruin the beauty of this lovely boulevard.
We cant do too much about national issues, however we can, and should influence what happens at the local level.
Good advice Jim. The city definitely seems to make deals, create monopolies and seek to maintain absolute control.
You seem to be well informed. Any time you’d like to do it we’d welcome an article, written by you, to inform the people who read Post Scripts about what’s going on locally.
Between you and me I think that Esplanade idea would create a nightmare situation and ruin the loveliness of the “nade” as well. Are they really thinking of doing that at every single corner?
They are planning to remove the timed lights that create the smooth flow of traffic we have now, in favor of modern lights like on Mangrove, East Ave. and all the other streets that are a mess.
The plan is to put traffic circles on Memorial Way and 1st Ave. This will create a mess. Traffic circles only work with low traffic volumes which The Esplanade isn’t. Two lane traffic circles are especially difficult. The excuse is to make it easier for bicycles and pedestrians, however I predict it will make things more difficult for kids, bikes and everyone else.
You can see the plan here: http://www.chico.ca.us/capital_project_services/EsplanadeCorridorImprovementStudy.asp
We really shouldn’t let these jerks ruin one of the most beautiful streets in Norther California.
And they are charging the garbage company a “franchise fee.” These companies will be forced to pay the city new fees if they want to do business in Chico.
What do you think that will do to the garbage rates we pay?
It will raise them and you d@mn well know it. These companies will pass most, if not all, of the new fee on to us.
This is a new TAX!
Why can’t our city council be honest and call it what it is, A TAX INCREASE!
They are also limiting consumer choice and creating a monopoly for these companies.
Higher taxes and government granted monopolies.
We elect so-called conservatives and this is what we get.
Also there may be between 3 to 5 tax increases in the upcoming elections. School bonds, CARD bond for the new pool ($10 – $20 Million!), sales tax increase to fund City pensions (under the guise of public safety) just to name a few.
Taxes are already too high here and these so-called public servants make much more than the people they “serve.” People ought to raise total hell over this. They ought to shove these tax increase proposals up the politicians…
Jack, have you had a chance to talk to anybody Downtown about what Recology told you?
Of course when I said ‘go get ’em’ I meant be polite but firm, as I know you always are.