$168 Per Year Refuse Pick-up

[dl meckes]

One idea to make money for the City is for residents to pay $14 per month (charged to our water bills) for refuse pick-up.

Unlike an increase in the income tax which would be paid by wage earners, this $168 per year is evidently going to come out of the pockets of all citizens, including those on fixed incomes.

I assume this means that refuse workers won't be coming into our yards at all and will probably bear the brunt of citizen unhappiness - if we continue to employ them at all.

With this extra fee, will there be a reason for "mandatory" recycling?

[Lynn Farris]

Where I grew up in Dayton we had to hire a company to pick up our trash so it is a reasonable suggestion.

Questions, What about the high rises? Would everyone get it added? What about commercial property they have to pay now for trash pick up. They shouldn't have to pay for this too. Could there be an exemption for Senior Citizens (like a homestead exemption) or people under a certain income?

What happens if one doesn't pay? Does the city stop picking up their trash? Couldn't that be a health hazard? Or would they just take a lein on the property? I would assume landlords would have to pay this not tenants even though obviously tenants would have the cost past on to them. What about vacant property? If the water is still on, but no one is living there - are they charged for this?

[Will Brown]

If Lakewood turns this into a business, instead of a municipal service, they would probably have to open it to competition, and also offer us the chance to do it ourselves.

I lived in another town where the town did not offer pick-up. Before the movers had unloaded our furniture, at least ten guys had come by trying to get us to sign with them. The prices were good, and service was good, I think because of the competition. However, I always wondered where these guys were dumping. It would be nice to think they were paying to use an approved facility, but I suspect a lot of farmers found trash dumped along their fields. We could always dump it on abandoned properties in Cleveland.

[john crino]

If Lakewood turns this into a business, instead of a municipal service, they would probably have to open it to competition, and also offer us the chance to do it ourselves.

I lived in another town where the town did not offer pick-up. Before the movers had unloaded our furniture, at least ten guys had come by trying to get us to sign with them. The prices were good, and service was good, I think because of the competition. However, I always wondered where these guys were dumping. It would be nice to think they were paying to use an approved facility, but I suspect a lot of farmers found trash dumped along their fields. We could always dump it on abandoned properties in Cleveland.

I had a house in Brady Lake village where each homeowner had to chose their own trash pick up. It resulted in almost every house on the street using a different company,in turn resulting in garbage trucks going up and down the street every day of the week sometimes a couple times a day and if someone didnt pay their bill the trash piled up. It was really out of hand.
Somethings are best left to a monopoly organization.

[Charyn Compeau]

Thats cheaper than what we are paying in PA (and FWIW our service is excellent).

That being said, we are not obligated to maintain the trash service - we do have the option of taking our recycling and our trash to the appropriate facilities ourselves.

Once you pull out all of the recycling and composting there really isnt a lot left so, if we wanted to, we could really get away with just making a trip to the dump once or twice a month - even with a family of five.

It really all depends on how much trash you generate.

Always,
Charyn

[Ivor Karabatkovic]

It's nice to get a fresh point of view every now and then, thanks Charyn.

This could work, but instead of taking the money away from every household, why not enforce violations of ordinances and use that money to pay for the service. I'm sure if the ordinance was properly enforced, Lakewood would get a lot of money back.

Of course that would only solve h(Baaaa-aaa-aah!)lf of the problem.

I guess it's time to call in the goats!

[Bryan Schwegler]

With this extra fee, will there be a reason for "mandatory" recycling?

I would rather hand mandatory recycling than an additional "fee". In my case, $14 isn't a big deal, but to some families it would be.

Also recycling is very important and not enough people do it. So if mandatory recycling saves costs and forces more people to be environmentally conscious, I'm all for it.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Thats cheaper than what we are paying in PA (and FWIW our service is excellent).

Always,
Charyn

Charyn

Nice to see you online.

I have to agree, the closest I have been able to find is about $220 a month. This would make the city deal a great bargain.

I find it odd that Bill Call has stepped in on this one.

[David Scott]

Adding $28/month cost to the owner of a duplex (landlords pay the water bill) is just going to take $28/month out of maintenance costs and further the decline of the housing stock

[Paul Schrimpf]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer garbage pick up stay on the list of "things I don't have to think about." Thanks to the spendor of deregulation I have to be a natural gas futures speculator to heat my home ... getting called on by 7 guys for garbage service is not my idea of living life to its fullest.

Please city leaders, please negotiate the best deal for me in a transparent process, and implement it.

[Brad Hutchison]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'd prefer garbage pick up stay on the list of "things I don't have to think about." Thanks to the spendor of deregulation I have to be a natural gas futures speculator to heat my home ... getting called on by 7 guys for garbage service is not my idea of living life to its fullest.

Please city leaders, please negotiate the best deal for me in a transparent process, and implement it.

I second that!

[Stan Austin]

Turning any aspect of the refuse collection over to a private company is not in the interests of individual Lakewood residents and to Lakewood as a community.

First, a private company wants to make a profit. That is a cost over and above the cost of refuse collection that has to be paid. That means it is by definition more expensive than a municipally run operation.

Secondly, the history of privatizing public operations has shown that bidders will come in promising the sun, moon, and stars and then once they start operations they pare back on those promises and provide a diminished service. So that means more expensive, less service.

Thirdly, Lakewood is a densely populated city and services have to be matched with ease of home upkeep like throwing trash away and being able to discard just about any item easily. Home upkeep suffers as it becomes more difficult to --throw things away. If you check the fine print of many private trash hauling contracts you'll see that they charge extra for items that won't fit into a garbage can, or an excess number of cans.
So, this becomes a sleeper cost over and above the extra cost to give profits to a private company.

Fourth, Lakewood as a community has a "carbon footprint" (as we do as individuals, also). Simply put, it is how much we waste. Look at the success we have had in the last 15 years in implementing recyclable pick ups and yard waste pick ups. Lots more can be done but we are moving in the right direction and the younger folks are way ahead in their concern for the environment. So, we must maintain and improve the momentum that we have achieved in recycling.

If we went to a private service I would have to think their attention to recycling would be minimal at best simply because the pick up portion would slow down the run. And, if they did separate out any monies from resale of recyclables would go to the private company, not to alleviate the refuse budget as it is now the case.

Now, imagine if there was wide open competition for refuse pick up-- not just one company awarded a franchise but many competing for the business. Conceivably there would be five to ten trucks belching up and down our streets daily picking up trash as compared to now, where right sized vehicles are matched to each operation of the refuse pick up operation.

Our carbon footprint would increase to such a level as to garner our own section of the Kyoto Treaty!

The conclusion has to be to retain the refuse operation within the purview of the City and continuously monitor operations for efficiency through city stat. And, if required levy a small fee as was suggested by the State Auditor's report to pay for this necessary public and municipal operation

Stan Austin.

[c. dawson]

My experience growing up on the east side is a bit different. For a very long time, Mentor had private garbage pickup. There wasn't a scurry for different companies, the city awarded the contract to one company. Everyone in the city was issued a standardized garbage can (which was quite large, larger than what we use now, and on wheels), as well as a special recycling bin. Yes, the private company picked up recyclables; they had their own special truck, and their bins were nicely made, and could hold paper, plastic, or glass. They separated it when loading it into the truck. If I recall, the cost was a bit more than proposed for Lakewood, but no one seemed to view it as a hardship. Mentor may not have had the amount of rental properties that Lakewood has, but the population size is the same (if not greater than Lakewood), and it's bigger geographically.

To be honest, when I moved here and found out about the garbage service, I was actually surprised, and I thought it was probably a bit wasteful in terms of city services; the money spent on the cushmans, and the driveway service (which I still don't quite understand, everyone on my street puts their garbage on the curb), was old-fashioned, but I thought it'd be better for that money to go to police or fire services, or something else, and contract out to a garbage company for the city. Though I did think that without knowing what would be the most cost-effective thing for the city, but seeing as all of the communities I've lived in on the east side had done that, I figured it must be saving money somehow, or they'd still have their own service.

[Jason Stewart]

While I read the Observation Deck often, I generally don’t post a lot. However, I just have to respond to Stan’s comments. While I respect and understand his opinion, I think he provides a lot of bogus theories to support his conclusion.

Your statement that contracted services are by definition more expensive than municipally run operations due to profit motive is just plain baloney. If the city and the contractor had the same costs, then yes it would be more expensive to contract the service. However, I think we all know that they don’t have the same costs (and I’m sure Mr. Call will gladly expound further this topic)

While I have no doubt that the private companies will promise the moon and stars, however should service ever diminish our elected officials and administration would be responsible for taking them to task on it. If this service were to be farmed out, I have no doubts that the City would issue a RFP to provide the service for an extended period so that they could be sure of the costs for the next several years. Also, should the service provided not comply with the bid specs, the contract could be terminated and offered to another contractor. I’m sure there would be plenty who would be willing to jump at the chance to provide the service.

Your concern about pickup of large items is a valid one. However, your statement that home upkeep will suffer as a result is a stretch. If someone has significant construction rubbish, they should be obtaining their own dumpster to remove it. Large item removal this is something that can be specified in the contract. For example, my folks live in LaGrange (Southern Lorain County), Allied Waste provides dumpsters once per month for residents to drop off large items. Another example, in Middleburg Heights, pretty much anything you put on the curb will be taken, furniture, appliances, etc.

Generally there is a citywide contract offered for garbage service, so I find it unlikely that there would be 5-10 trucks running up and down the streets each day. Possible perhaps, just not likely.

Private companies also provide recycling services, so I also feel that this is a non-issue. However, if it is more cost effective we could certainly keep this function in house. We would still have the equipment necessary to handle it.

I believe the conclusion has to be to research all available options so that the residents of this City receive the most cost-effective service possible. I, like most everyone, would hate to see layoffs of this magnitude should it be decided to go with a private contractor. However, it is up to our elected officials to do what is best for all residents. I don’t begin to have the answer to this issue, however all available options should be researched in a logical fashion, free from political or emotional bias.

[Will Brown]

I have no dog in this fight. I'm happy with the service provided now, and if an equal service can be provided for less cost, I would be happy with that.

I prefer having the pickup from the yard, not the street. I think people are more likely to keep the area policed if it is in the yard, and less likely to police the street area, particularly after the scavengers pass through a neighborhood and scatter everything people have set out for curbside pickup. I've lived on this street quite a few years and you can tell when someone from Cleveland moves in. They do what they were used to doing in Cleveland: setting all their cans on the curb, often with no regard for the pickup schedule. Then the wind works its wonders, and all their cans and lids are bouncing up and down the street, which apparently continues forever as it is cheaper to buy a new can than to chase down your old one.

I posted above about having multiple collectors racing to sign up customers. I don't advocate that, but I did notice that the individual service was better than where I had been under a municipal monopoly. Offering a contract for the service we want would be another alternative, and would very likely draw bids that are less than our current costs. I'm not eager to get rid of the workers we have now; if they can find a way to reduce our costs, great.

I agree that the argument that private contractors must of necessity charge more than a city monopoly is not realistic; I doubt anyone can show an example of that. To the contrary, in some places a contract has been advertised, and the government workers invited to bid in competition, and have actually offered to do their work for less than they are already receiving. I think municipal monopolies are often run by political appointees with few if any credentials in the field; such managers are unlikely to be aware of technological or scheduling advances that could reduce costs.

I know it would likely increase costs, but I think in looking at this problem, we should make a real effort to improve our environment. I would be willing to pay higher costs if we could reduce our reliance on landfills, and recycle and compost our waste. I saw, for example, a TV show about some companies in California that recycle used tires, at a profit. Why can't we do that here? We have no lack of used tires, nor of people who need jobs.