AutoRecycling--yes,Parking ban--no,residents to fight it out

[Betsy Voinovich]

I'm not sure how the discussion was updated or moved along last night as Peter Grossetti has not yet let us know what the new developments were ...

They way I saw it, there was nothing "new."

The two main topics of discussion were, from what I recall (I think I missed one of the four Public Works Committee meetings where the new automated recycling process was discussed) were rehashes of existing concerns. Specifically:

1.) Councilman Nowlin questioned some of the nuances regarding language describing where and when and how cars could/should park and how bins could/should be placed in street, on apron, on treelawn ... and unneighborly retaliatory actions that are bound to arise. For the first time in my life, I saw Law Director Kevin Butler literally speechless ... essentially not able to render an opinion/suggestion (which is the role the Law Director generally plays at these committee meeting). In my opinion, Kevin (appropriately) balked because I feel he realized that there are unclosed loopholes in the way the parking and bin placement is described and implemented in the proposed new plan.

2.) Councilman Anderson once again (he's been all over this since Day One) sought to probe deeper into the overall cost savings, the return-on-investment timetable, precisely how homes with three and four units were going to be able to fit up to eight bins on a tree lawn, apron, or in the street; as well as ....

.... ah, damn .... oops, times up. Time to adjourn so we can get the Finance Committee in!

It's the process that is broken, folks! We have some pretty intelligent and insightful people on Council. Too bad they just a have two or three 30-minute meetings to hash these things out.

Peter--

Thank you for this update. It's great that you were there though I agree, "dismaying" is the word about the process. But given that this is the process we have right now we have to deal with it.

The discussions you've mentioned are troubling. "Retaliatory actions" between neighbors-- fights over no space for trash cans because the City-- one--shirked its responsibility to enforce a parking ban if they actually need one enforced by law to make it happen, and two-- because they shirked their responsibility before that-- which was coming up with a good plan that didn't actively make residents' lives worse. "Oh man, Tuesday night again, have to stay home tonight so my car can hold our family's place for our trash can." I have lived in cities like that. This is not one of them! There is no reason for this! Why put us through this in this little city of neighbors and neighborhoods where we can take care of ourselves and each other much better than that. We would be better off doing nothing. Doing what we do now. What is the medical oath? "First do no harm." Our community, our city, is one body we share, why do we keep attacking its health?

And Peter as you mentioned, David Anderson, as usual, seems like he is all over both the most practical issues: "What about multi-family houses?" And the most significant root issue. "Why are we doing this? How much is it going to save REALLY?"

I read something in Chris Bindel's Council report a while ago that disturbed me-- something about the issue of cost-- something like--"People will love this so much that they will recycle more, and THAT'S how we're going to make more money." From the money we will get from increased participation in recycling from the happy residents.

I will look that up and be back. But when our council people themselves are talking about residents fighting in the street, and the fact that it is extraordinarily impractical in many situations-- on most of the streets of our city, and saying, "How much money do we get to endure this?" How much is enough? And what about the idea that those on big streets, with single family homes will not share in all the hell, and that seems to be fine. Has to be pointed out-- more preying upon the middle of the city. On the middle class residents that are the backbone of Lakewood. Every day.

Betsy Voinovich

[Scott Meeson]

Working it backwards:

[Betsy Voinovich]

Scott--

I like Steve Jobs' working it backwards idea. Apple does not impose technology on people, they figure out what people want and work it backwards.

The problem here is I'm not sure there is any arm of Council that figures out what people want, or need. They certainly don't make it easy to know what's about to happen to them.

Anyway I said I remembered an LO article talking about cost, here is the part I was talking about. This is from Chris Bindel's column, covering a February 13th Council meeting! This means this has been in discussion since then! All this talk about not having enough time.

Has there been ANY EFFORT WHATSOEVER in that time to poll residents to find out how they feel? In an effort to REPRESENT them?

Okay this is about the money:

The first order of business was a report delivered from the Public Works Committee. Councilman Shawn Juris (Ward III), chair of the Committee, read the report which discussed the proposed automated recycling program, continuing the conversation the Committee previously held on the topic. Councilman Juris had asked the Public Works Department to provide data estimating how long it would take the city to recoup the cost of instituting the automated recycling, and how much savings it would earn them in the long run.

The Director of Public Works, Joe Beno, said that the up front cost of the program would be about $953,000 for the recycling bins and $250,000 for specialized trucks to lift the bins. Considering the ease to recycle because of the bins, and also Lakewood’s mandatory recycling policy, they expect an increase in recycling which would save the city $100,000 to $200,000 in fees to a landfill. In addition to this, they estimate that the efficiency would allow them to reduce personnel cost by 25%, saving the city somewhere between $160,000 to $180,000. With those numbers they estimated that it would take about seven years to pay off the program, based on savings. When looking at the long term viability of the program, they do not expect there to be much additional upkeep cost for 20 years, allowing for 12 years of substantial savings.



http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2013/0 ... arking-ban


The bold portion is what I was talking about: "Considering the ease to recycle, they expect an increase in recycling which would save the city $100,000 to $200,000.."

I might have this wrong, but isn't this saying that it will be so easy for us to recycle, that we will recycle a lot more, we residents? The money is coming from increased participation from us? Because of the ease of this process?

Look at the Deck, the people saying, "I'll drive to the landfill myself." Or, "This is a terrible idea." Where are the people saying, "I can't wait! I'd so much rather wheel another big bin that I paid a lot of money for on to my lawn than carry out my blue bags."

If this is where the money's coming from, I'd like to see the research from other communities that proves there will be an increase.

Otherwise, where are they pulling these figures from?

Betsy Voinovich

[Jim O'Bryan]

Otherwise, where are they pulling these figures from?

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy

I think the term is, "Their ass!"

They have yet to produce the figures that the last garbage collection change netted any
savings what alone a boost to the general fund. As we have never demanded it, Social
Engineering Boy figures he too can say and do anything.

Lakewoodites have developed a battered wife syndrome. "Well yes it is terrible
management, but what comes next could even be worse."

.

[Betsy Voinovich]

For everyone who has expressed concern abut this issue, the Public Works committee will be giving a report about it tonight.

It's at 7:30 pm so hopefully more people can attend.

If you look at Peter Grossetti's post about tonight's meeting you can see the whole schedule of events. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11987

Here's this one:

Public Works Committee Report regarding Automated Recycling Collection. Mr. Juris; Chair (To Be Provided)

Most of the other agenda items contained a summary of what was to happen. Not this one. It seems you'd be better off going to see in person.

Betsy Voinovich

[Peter Grossetti]

I'll bet anyone breakfast at The Coffee Pot (12415 Madison Ave, Lakewood, OH) that I'm the only one there.

I owe Steve Davis and Anthony Davis breakfast. You know how to find me, gentlemen.

[Charlie Page]

They have yet to produce the figures that the last garbage collection change netted any
savings what alone a boost to the general fund. As we have never demanded it, Social
Engineering Boy figures he too can say and do anything.

Jim - I posted this before but... viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11825&p=86279#p86279

In 2008, the department of Refuse and Recycling's actual spend was $4,486,000 with 43 employees. By contrast, in 2012 that department spent $2,897,000 and had 30 employees. So over the course of 4 years, the City reduced the cost by $1,589,000 and 13 people, with much of that coming in 2009 and 2010.

All the numbers above come from the City's financials. It's not BS. It's not replacing high cost people at the end of their career with low cost early career people. It's all from automating trash collection. Fewer people required to do the job and fewer injuries from not manually lifting an average of 63 tons of trash per day.

Even the average 63 tons of trash per day came from their financials (via calculation).

BTW, the City's financials are posted on the Finance page of the City's web site http://www.onelakewood.com/Finance/Default.aspx

[stephen davis]

In 2008, the department of Refuse and Recycling's actual spend was $4,486,000 with 43 employees. By contrast, in 2012 that department spent $2,897,000 and had 30 employees. So over the course of 4 years, the City reduced the cost by $1,589,000 and 13 people, with much of that coming in 2009 and 2010.

Charlie,

I'm asking this because I don't know. It is not a rhetorical question, I just don't remember. Was 2008 the year that the new trash containers and trucks were purchased, and the new program implemented? If so, wouldn't 2008 show significantly higher costs than the present? Could that have all been expensed out in a year or 2?

Steve

.

[Charlie Page]

Charlie,

I'm asking this because I don't know. It is not a rhetorical question, I just don't remember. Was 2008 the year that the new trash containers and trucks were purchased, and the new program implemented? If so, wouldn't 2008 show significantly higher costs than the present? Could that have all been expensed out in a year or 2?

Steve

.

Steve - I didn't remember either. When I wrote the response to Jim back in April, I had to look it up

It was 2009 that curbside trash pickup was implemented. Bins and trucks were purchased in that year as well.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Charlie,

I'm asking this because I don't know. It is not a rhetorical question, I just don't remember. Was 2008 the year that the new trash containers and trucks were purchased, and the new program implemented? If so, wouldn't 2008 show significantly higher costs than the present? Could that have all been expensed out in a year or 2?

Steve

.

Steve - I didn't remember either. When I wrote the response to Jim back in April, I had to look it up

It was 2009 that curbside trash pickup was implemented. Bins and trucks were purchased in that year as well.

Charlie

My first photo of a "new trash truck" was in December 2008.

Council members Nickie Antonio, and Brian Powers check out one of the mandatory cans.

While it had no "Lakewood" logos it was told to me in a call from Mayor Ed FitzGerald,
"Jim if you want to see the trash collection trucks we are going to use, come down to city
hall early tomorrow morning."



The new trash bins were delivered in May 2009.
http://media.lakewoodobserver.com/image ... _18138.jpg

However, I am sure with the imprinting they were paid for long before they were bought
and screened, and the same with the trucks.

By mid-May


Charlie, are you sure it came out of 2009 Budget? The reason I ask, is that the projected
savings a year was near the same $40,000 that every thing costs or is saved by in this
city. It is like "Peanuts" comic where everything is a nickle. If a city were to buy trash cans
for a little over $767,000 and trucks in 2008, it could explain the massive savings, in the
year the trucks and cans showed up, with no one retiring yet.

I mean it is hard to believe that the simple switch, with no changes in personal, and the
expenditure of over $1.5 million that we also saved another million.

Right?

.

[Charlie Page]

Charlie, are you sure it came out of 2009 Budget? The reason I ask, is that the projected
savings a year was near the same $40,000 that every thing costs or is saved by in this
city. It is like "Peanuts" comic where everything is a nickle. If a city were to buy trash cans
for a little over $767,000 and trucks in 2008, it could explain the massive savings, in the
year the trucks and cans showed up, with no one retiring yet.

I mean it is hard to believe that the simple switch, with no changes in personal, and the
expenditure of over $1.5 million that we also saved another million.

Right?

.

In April 2009 the City issued bonds to pay for a number of capital items, among those were new bins and trash trucks. Capital items are things with a useful life of more than a few years and over a certain dollar amount (police cars, fire trucks, trash trucks, bulk trash bins, computers, printers, etc).

Not sure where you come up with no changes in personnel? They trimmed 13 people from the end of 2008 to the end of 2012. Some of the savings was through decreases in injuries as a result of manually lifting an average of 63 tons of trash per day into cushmans and regular trash trucks. The rest of the savings is through staff reductions.


FWIW and slightly off topic, while perusing through various City budgets I found the City of Lakewood Organizational Chart. I think it's necessary, every once in a while, to remind people who is at the top of the org chart...that would be the Citizens of Lakewood.

CityOfLakewoodOrgChart.jpg (46.09 KiB) Viewed 3530 times

[Betsy Voinovich]

I guess it's been decided. A notice came home in my daughter's backpack from The City of Lakewood Department of Refuse and Recycling entitled "Seize the Day-- Seize the Space."

They actually do intend for the residents to fight it out among themselves. Or as they put it, "Seize the Space." According to the notice, this is one of the "Challenges of Further Automation."

It goes on to say that the following 3 options "provide each and every Lakewood household a viable mechanism in which to place both refuse and/or recycling carts out for efficient and reliable collection."

Option 1: Place carts in the street (car parking side only) with wheels up against the curb no further than six inches away from the driveway apron, multiple carts at least one foot apart, and at least 3 feet away from any parked car.

***Upon emptying carts (with the automatic arm), refuse workers (drivers) will attempt to place the empty containers up out of the street and on to the tree lawn with the mechanical arm, provided that no obstructions exist and/or no other collection materials (such as yard waste or bulk items) are located behind where the original cart placement was set out.

Option 2: Place carts in the drive apron for collection, at least one foot apart.

Option 3: Place carts on tree lawn near the drive apron, at least one foot apart and at least 3 feet away from any parked car.

Option 4: Any combination of Options 1, 2 and 3.

It would be a good assignment for a high school statistics class to figure this out.

No bins in the street if you live on a "no parking" side. So those must be on the lawn, or in the driveway. That one seems the most straightforward.

God help you if you live on the other side of the street. Look at Option 3. On tree lawn at one foot apart, three feet from any parked car--- what if the cars move between when you put out the cans and when the trucks come? What then? Who controls that? That would have been where a parking ban would have come in handy.

Look at Option 1.-- Both bins can't be six inches from driveway--in the street, they have to be a foot way from each other, and three feet away from any car.

That one goes on to say: "In essence, households can "seize" the space to allow for multiple carts to be placed in the street for efficient collection.

?

Only if one household owns the car or cars that will be placed there, and they don't intend to go out the night before? The morning before?

Maybe I'm not really getting this. You can park your car at night in such a way that you leave space between your driveway and your car that the bins will fit in. And they you'd better leave your car there. I think that's the "Seizing the space" part.

And if there is yard waste or other bulk items--- the refuse workers leave the bins in the street? Do they unblock the aprons if the bins are put there? It sounds like they just put them back down, leaving that driveway blocked for the whole day.

What if everything isn't arranged perfectly? Will the refuse workers just leave the full bins where they are?

Maybe this is just hard for me to make sense of and it makes sense to everyone else.

And I live in a one family on the non parking side of the street, so I'M FINE.

Betsy Voinovich

[marklingm]

I guess it's been decided. A notice came home in my daughter's backpack from The City of Lakewood Department of Refuse and Recycling entitled "Seize the Day-- Seize the Space."

They actually do intend for the residents to fight it out among themselves. Or as they put it, "Seize the Space." According to the notice, this is one of the "Challenges of Further Automation."

Betsy,

In response to your post, I’m sure that the good folks at City Hall would simply paraphrase President Obama, and say, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, we won!”

There are elections coming up this November.

Those elections have consequences, too.

Does anyone care?

Matt

[Matthew Lee]

I will continue to beat a dead horse with this : why can't garbage and recycling be on different days, alleviating ANY need for parking confusion and having to measure feet from the bins? I am beyond flabbergasted that this hasn't been discussed.

[Betsy Voinovich]

I guess it's been decided. A notice came home in my daughter's backpack from The City of Lakewood Department of Refuse and Recycling entitled "Seize the Day-- Seize the Space."

They actually do intend for the residents to fight it out among themselves. Or as they put it, "Seize the Space." According to the notice, this is one of the "Challenges of Further Automation."

Betsy,

In response to your post, I’m sure that the good folks at City Hall would simply paraphrase President Obama, and say, "Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, we won!”

There are elections coming up this November.

Those elections have consequences, too.

Does anyone care?

Matt

Hi Matt--

A couple things. One-- the people most hurt by this (and I'm sure that this is what the City is counting on) and most likely to "care" are the people least likely to be empowered: to speak up, to vote.

The ones that will be in hell over this are the residents of two family houses, apartments, etc. who can't control where people park at all.

This is where that relatively new, central voting block of empowered middle class people who have found happiness on Lakewood's "middle streets" like Arthur or Woodward or Grace come in. These are the people who have voted strongly to pass school levies. They are informed, they know of their power. A bunch of them (every single family) that live on the "parking side" of the street will experience the difficulty of this. The blow to their quality of life. The blow to their standard of living once week. I hope the first time that there is shouting in the street that people record it with their phones and send it to City Hall, and right here to the Deck. Of course maybe people will just bury their recycling in with their regular trash and have done with it.

The second thing, our Council members didn't actually have a vote on how this procedure would be carried out. Presumably they had a voice in whether we should get automated recycling bins in the first place-- one would hope so. I spoke to David Anderson in the middle of the summer and he said, "We don't get to vote on this at all. We are not the ones deciding how it will be done."

So it's not as straightforward as figuring out who voted for this plan and who didn't. It would be more of wondering why they didn't step in and try to protect their constituents more from this situation.

And maybe they are waiting to see how it plays out, what works and what doesn't, before they voice an opinion.

I'm not sure when the first wave will be implemented but I wouldn't be surprised if it was after November. And if it's before that, I hope people let their Council candidates know how they feel about this, and ask those candidates what they intend to do about it.

Betsy Voinovich