Let me shun that Fee

Uncategorized

 The State of Vermont has tons of old office equipment and associated stuff to get rid of ahead of the massive Waterbury office complex building project. So to make way for demolition there will be a giant tag sale held July 12th though July 14th.

The plan is the office equipment and furniture that must be gotten rid of will first be offered at no cost to municipalities, then (also at no cost) non-profits get a chance, and lastly the public for a nominal fee is allowed to make some picks from what is left. Basically this seems a sensible strategy that probably will get whatever is useful into the hands of those that can make some use of it- so no complaint with that part.

But, here is the cranky taxpayer part: What’s with the nominal fee charged to the public?  

I have to imagine whatever remains after July 14th will have to be carted at away and disposed of at some cost to the state. So why impose a fee, even a nominal fee,to the public for saving this stuff a trip to the dump? Could there be some regulation that allows gifts to municipalities and non profits but prohibits the giving of state property and equipment away to the public? You know I hate to embrace this petty cranky taxpayer bit too firmly (oh madness lies that way) but when you get down to it we paid for this stuff once already.  

8 thoughts on “Let me shun that Fee”

  1. Actually, when I read the story, there was to be a second round of availability two weeks later. So anything left at that point would have been very well picked over.

    But yeah, you’re right, although maybe the fee pays for the employees to run the rummage “sale.”

    NanuqFC

    There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. ~ Robert Heinlein (1966) / Milton Friedman (1975).

  3. Had a helpful conversation with Ed vonTurkovich Director Government Business Services and also received an email from him. Perhaps the simplest way to sum it all up is to say: it’s hard to give state property away.

    Here is part of his email reply:

    This special event was intended to move surplus furnishings stranded by the flood back in to the hands of our communities.  We felt it proper to give rather than charge for the furnishings to assist them and  more globally their community or client base to avoid needing to purchase new or used to meet their needs and to provide  maximum benefit  to taxpayers as a whole.  

    We decided to impose a fee to private buyers to ensure some revenues could be obtained to help defray the administrative cost of preparing for this event  including the moving and staffing needed to make the sale possible.  We believe we have statutory authority in this case to subsidize our priority customers while still charging the general public a fee for the same goods. The equity issue is the portion of your question I am having trouble articulating but will devote time to your question again soon when I have had more time to think about it.

    At the present, I believe it is within our statutory authority to have made this decision but respect the clarity of the question you have raised. I have included our statute language as part of this correspondence.

    As I say in the diary this is a worthwhile effort but there is a built-in problem between balancing the desire to reuse, rather than simply dispose of surplus and meet the requirement to cover associated costs. VonTurkovich does agree that the equity question was tricky and difficult to address.

Comments are closed.