Cost-benefit: the city’s in-house debate . PAGE 2

Date: February 22, 2012
by: Andrew O'Brien | Staff Writer

(Click “Like” to become a fan of the Palm Coast Observer.)

Continued...
PAGE 2 of 2 . Click here for Page 1 of 2

“The reassurance by the Public Works management team, coupled with the $50,000 saving the first year, which would go up higher the second year, made it a good choice, in my opinion,” McGuire said.

Councilmen Frank Meeker, Jason DeLorenzo and Mayor Jon Netts, however, weren’t so sure the $50,000 savings was black and white.

Netts said he’s a “firm believer” in bringing the landscaping work in-house when the time is right.

“That’s an estimate in my mind,” Netts said of the $50,000. “My thought is that the $50,000 difference probably disappears by the time you probably implement the service. I wasn’t convinced that the number I was seeing were hard dollars.”

DeLorenzo didn’t want to increase the number of employees the city has. He also didn’t think comparing the three-year-old Fox contract with current-day numbers was “apples to apples.”

“Fox’s contract is fixed,” DeLorenzo said. “If equipment breaks down, someone gets hurt, or fuel goes to $5 per gallon, it’s not our concern because it’s not our risk.”

Meeker said hiring city workers to do the job could be appealing because they could be used on other projects, as well: “For example, storm cleanup in lieu of pulling weeds, or if they’re done pulling weeds, move them over to other tasks needed to be completed during any given day.”

Landon said Capela’s proposal to take the lawn maintenance work in-house included $1,000 for overhead, but Landon suggested that’s a small amount compared to what private companies need to cover their overhead.

In essence, the city estimates it can do the work for less because it doesn’t need to make a profit like the private sector does.

Bringing the landscaping work in-house is an issue the city consistently faces. The question will remain: Is there a cap on bringing work in-house? How much is too much?

Netts said there are two things he considers when considering bringing work in-house: the private sector’s availability and the cost effectiveness.

“There’s no cap in my mind,” Netts said. “The issue is the most bang for the buck. ... All things being equal, I’d prefer bringing things in-house.”

Sowers looks at it differently. He said the biggest issue should be efficiency.

“If your crews are building sidewalks one day and trimming bushes the next and repairing storm pipes the next, they can’t be as efficient as a company that specializes in that service,” Sowers said.

Sowers also said many of the private contractors he knows are in survival mode and are struggling to pull a profit.

“The city should be taking advantage of that,” he said.