Backyard trash pick-up. Should this continue?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:32 pm

http://www.wayneusa.com/images/Curbtender_Brochure1.pdf

Easily achieving
800 to 1,000
cycles per day!

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:33 pm

Stephen Eisel wrote:http://www.wayneusa.com/images/Curbtender_Brochure1.pdf

Easily achieving
800 to 1,000
cycles per day!

Its not Lakewood though is it?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:36 pm

Shelley Hurd wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:http://www.wayneusa.com/images/Curbtender_Brochure1.pdf

Easily achieving
800 to 1,000
cycles per day!
Its not Lakewood though is it?

The Truck!

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:37 pm

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:38 pm

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:47 pm

Shelley, you made a great point yesterday about the number of cycles for the one armed bandits. The point of my post was to show that some of these one armed bandits are very fuel efficient.

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:47 pm

Ironically, and as so often is the case,

Those most impacted health-wise by this type of thing could probably not even GET DOWN to City Hall tonight to speak to this issue.

I do understand that the Mayor plans reasonable accomodations. I get that.

That's fine for now. But what about FUTURE administrations?

These "accomodations" however, will not stop many people from moving those things, who should not be moving them at all.

This is a terrible thing to do to our city. If indeed, this deed is done.

I'm no authority, but I think you could ask any medical doctor whether ANYONE over 50 should do heavy moving in this weather.

I hope someone speaks up this evening. It won't be me. I've a Dad to look after right now...

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:03 pm

Gary Rice wrote:Ironically, and as so often is the case,

Those most impacted health-wise by this type of thing could probably not even GET DOWN to City Hall tonight to speak to this issue.

I do understand that the Mayor plans reasonable accomodations. I get that.

That's fine for now. But what about FUTURE administrations?

These "accomodations" however, will not stop many people from moving those things, who should not be moving them at all.

This is a terrible thing to do to our city. If indeed, this deed is done.

I'm no authority, but I think you could ask any medical doctor whether ANYONE over 50 should do heavy moving in this weather.

I hope someone speaks up this evening. It won't be me. I've a Dad to look after right now...

Hugs to your father Gary and wish him a Merry Christmas for me.

And do not dispair this battle is hardly over even if it is passed tonight. Of that I can assure you.

Remeber to take some time for you this holiday season and, to quote a fellow blogger have.. "FAITH"

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:39 pm

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:55 pm

Steve can you assure me and the rest of Lakewoodâ€™s residents that this isnâ€™t just Phase 2 in the outsourcing of the refuse collection?

This could be an issue either way...

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:05 pm

Stephen Eisel wrote:
Steve can you assure me and the rest of Lakewoodâ€™s residents that this isnâ€™t just Phase 2 in the outsourcing of the refuse collection?
This could be an issue either way...

Thank you for your candor Steve. Sad, really really sad whats happened and is going to continue to happen to this city...Heartbreaking

Do you know if the refuse department property is being considered for the site of the new jail the Mayor plans on building?

Can you say definitively it is not a site that is being considered or will be used?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:30 pm

Shelley Hurd wrote:
Stephen Eisel wrote:
Steve can you assure me and the rest of Lakewoodâ€™s residents that this isnâ€™t just Phase 2 in the outsourcing of the refuse collection?
This could be an issue either way...

Thank you for your candor Steve. Sad, really really sad whats happened and is going to continue to happen to this city...Heartbreaking

Do you know if the refuse department property is being considered for the site of the new jail the Mayor plans on building?

Can you say definitively it is not a site that is being considered or will be used?

I did not know that..

Charlie Page · Post by **Charlie Page** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:10 pm

Shelley Hurd wrote:I'll ask you yet again or any of the others who have the inside scoop from city hall

Steve can you assure me and the rest of Lakewoodâ€™s residents that this isnâ€™t just Phase 2 in the outsourcing of the refuse collection?

I was at the council meeting tonight. The Mayor specifically stated the discontinuance of backyard pickup is not going to lead to privatization. This is not a road he wants to go down. He also stated that if they wanted to go private, they would not be making an investment in automated trucks. He said they looked at it last year itâ€™s not where the city is going. Councilwoman Antonio remembered the conversation and agreed that privatization is not in the best interest for the City. She felt that service would deteriorate if went private.

Shelley Hurd wrote:Phase 1 was implemented on 12-01-08 when the apartments had to hire their own private refuse collection. Thus upping the over all cost per households for refuse collections.

i.e., cost was 14.01 per household in 2007-2008 with service to @ 26,000 households/units
Now after removing the apartments from the service list the there are about 21,000? And the cost per household/unit of service will greatly increase. Thus giving the Mayor a reason to move to privatization based on increased cost

Discontinuing apartment service does not increase the cost per household. Yes, the denominator is decreasing but so is the numerator. There will be fewer employees needed. There will be less trash hauled. There will be less trash dumped. The cost associated for each of these activities will be decreased.

Shelley Hurd wrote:Phase 3..selling off our current fleet of (most ) Cushmanâ€™s and packer trucks?

Did you see in the Green Refuse Initiative pdf on page 4 that Lakewood has 28 packer trucks, 32 cushmans and 3 misc trucks. Thatâ€™s 63 vehicles. Also on page 4, it says we have 43 employees in R&R. On that ratio, every employee has about 1.5 vehicles to drive. I can understand there should be a few extra vehicles due to repairs, but this is a little high. Donâ€™t you think? How many families of four have six cars?

Shelley Hurd · Post by **Shelley Hurd** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:22 pm

Charlie, not sure what the mayors pamphlet says.. I use facts for information.

Grow Lakewood Structural Balance Committee Meeting Wednesday, April 25, 2007 2007 page 5 of 8:
â€œThe division has 22 packer trucks, 1990 through 2006 models. Of those packers a minimum of 9 are used daily for garbage (the total used now daily is 7), 3 for recycle (the total now is 1 for paper, 1 for plastic), and 4 for yard waste, (the total now is 1 in winter, 2-3 in warmer weather) which leave six to cover heavy volume, breakdowns, and preventative maintenance.â€

Charlie Page · Post by **Charlie Page** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:38 pm