howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2
Yes Howard, the information is poorly laid out. Perhaps the break-even point was around £200,000 and because of the lack of up-take there is a shortfall of about £50,000 on that?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#3
One of many letters sent to DDC.............
Hi Paul,
I just felt that I must comment on the garden waste collection. I would like to know the following ' What public consultation took place before adding a charge for green waste collection?
How many people took the decision?
I am lucky to have a very large garden and up until the introduction of this service kept a compost heap going. Thinking that I was helping DDC to meet it's targets all my green waste (between 1 & 5 green bags were put out for collection) Now they are going to charge me I will not be taking part and will be withdrawing from the food collection because I don't want to rely on it and then get charged!!!
Before this happened I would congratulate DDC for encouraging a culture of recycling but they seem to be looking once again at the short term rather than the long term.
Wendy Hansell
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#4
Take up numbers were discussed here when it first came in -
http://www.doverforum.com/letters/viewtopic.php?id=10056Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#5
isn't a case of i told you so report,
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
i still don't get it the take up rate is just under 50% and the council are only short of £.48000 out of an expected £.320000.
must be something do do with the new maths curriculum.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
#7
No Howard they took the number that was Folkestone's take up and fell 40,000 houses short.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
sorry john that doesn't explain anything.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#9
Regardless of how the figures are worked out many are no longer having their garden waste collected, some take it to the tip, some compost more than before, some will fly tip and some like myself put it in a black sack into the refuse wheelie bin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#10
It's quite simple Howard, however not very transparent.
The savings accrue [£320K] from not paying the contractor for a Part District green waste service.
Any collections that are made come out of cost of the licence, therefore it is self financing.
There are no losses just a reduction in income if they take up is smaller than anticipated. More customers are coming onto the service weekly & we expect larger numbers in the next year.
Watty
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#11
Oh to be a politician...........it`s self financing...........but it`s not..
There are no losses........just a reduction in income.....so it`s a success ????
....more customers next year ?????......more fly tipping and garden fires......
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
As I recall. The 'part district green waste service' was exactly the deal struck between local government and the contractor. Some places were just too difficult to reach and not everybody has a garden. True, this big-sell was focussed on the fact that if you pay you get the service, no matter if you have not enjoyed the service hitherto. Simply put, this means that those with garden waste, but with better things to do with £40 (over and above council tax) than pay twice for a service, are counting themselves out of the deal.
Come come now Watty: "...collections that are made come out of cost of the licence, therefore it is self financing."
Let us not be silly now. Even if the operatives were on a 'Zero-Hours' contract there is much else that counts as cost to the contractor so there must be a break-even point, and as this responsibility would not be taken on by the contractor it falls to the council to make-up the short fall. That is was 'confidently' predicted that the up-take would be around 8,000 but is less that half of that, as of now - the 22nd of September.
Given the "not very transparent" nature of the figures in the article cited above. The £48k 'cost' must represent something. I pluck from the ether that, this represents a shortfall of about 1,000 customers short of the break-even point. That point where the income (accounted in multiples of £40) falls short of the agreed payment to the contractors and that is hence made-up by the rate-payer.
I could be wrong.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#13
Your not wrong.....
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#14
There is no loss. The contractor only gets paid for what he collects which is covered by the licence fee.
Can't see what is difficult to understand.
The estimates that went into the budget overstated the take up, hence the difference.
The contractor only gets a fee for what he collects
DDC gets a percentage of licence fee and that is the shortfall. The more custom the more the shortfall reduces.
Budgeting is not a precise art & you make adjustments in year to bring budgets back into balance or use your contingency.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#15
What about the ex costs of going around picking up what has been dump.?
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#16
Civil Servant ..`Yes Minister`response..... contractual innuendos.
# 11 remains on record......time will tell...
