The Observation Deck

Shelley Hurd wrote:Lakewood residents deserve a Guarantee..........................

You have done a yeomans work on this issue.

There are no guarantee's in life.

If the Mayor were able to guarantee all of your requested guarantees he would be more soothsayer than mayor.

From what I have been able to divine from the entrails of this discussion I don't have a clue as to what would be the right decison. But that's no reason not to venture an opinion.

If the system costs $2.5 million and will save $600,000 the pay back period is 4 years. That seems reasonable.

However, amortized over 10 years at just a 4% interest rate would mean annual payments of $300,000. Is the estimated $600,000 in savings before or after the $300,000 in loan amortization? Have they netted the current maintenance and replacement costs?

About 35% of the trash is now carried to the street because of recylcing. Taking an extra can to the curb hardly seems like a big imposition.

Talk about environmental benefits are just smoke and mirrors. If you say adopt this dumb idea because it's "green" otherwise sensible people fall all over themselves to support the dumb idea because they have been told it's good for the environment.

Some of the opposition seems to come from a fear that the service might be out sourced. That opposition is not an economic position but a political and moral position, however, there is no room for politics or morality in City government.

Other cities have implemented the automated system and have seen big savings. As part of an overall effort to increase efficiency, decrease workers comp claims, maintain a healthy working environment and lower the total cost of trash collections automation seems a good idea.

In other cities Automation, with much tweaking "works". But Lakewood’s street configuration and abundance of on street parking, and close proximity of houses and driveways....... Lakewood is NOT like other cites.

Cleveland has "some" automated pick up right? Why haven’t they gone ALL AUTOMATED?

This isn’t necessary, is not based on sound facts, will not have a discernable impact on our funds and takes away a valued service from residents. Enough is enough.

In Lakewood no. No this is not economically a sound investment.

And NO. No the Mayor and Council should not be Gambling with our tax dollars in uncertain economic times. I sure do not in my own life. I would not allow a child to, nor will I sit quietly by and let my elected representatives.

America has allowed politicians play loose and fast with our tax dollars for too long. And look where our country is. Silently going along with elected officials, not holding them accountable for their actions has given us an epidemic of both bankruptcies and foreclosures, bail outs, and trillions of tax dollars being handed over to the same irresponsible “leadersâ€￾ who created this economic mess. And we, Americans are not even privy to how that bail out money is being spent. And the Mayor and Council want Lakewood residents to extend to them unquestioning power? umm, NO

The Mayor and City Council want Lakewood residents to extend to them the same ability to cut and gut and spend and experiment as they please and to run us into a economic disaster without question or consequences?

NO. No. No. Enough is more then enough

I plan to be privy to how Lakewood spends our tax dollars. And I will do what I can to hold our elected officails ACCOUNTABLE. They are after all working for us and as such are accountable for the decisions they make. Just like you or I.


So ask your self. Why this? Why now? Why no pilot program? Why cut & gut yet another city service? Why ask the Auditor of State for input if you disregard their recommendations? And their assessment was not comparing apples to apples. Our service is far superior to other cities, and at LESS COST to residents.

And why should the Mayor and Council not be held accountable?

You said:
"If the Mayor were able to guarantee all of your requested guarantees he would be more soothsayer than mayor.â€￾
I say, He is already a “soothsayerâ€￾, down playing the risk and ignoring the reduction in service. Cooing to the informed and un-empowered a message taken almost verbatim from every sales pamphlet I have seen from the dealers of automated refuse trucks and the sales men who make a hefty profit for each one sold.

You said:
“From what I have been able to divine from the entrails of this discussion I don't have a clue as to what would be the right decision."
I say, That’s my point EXATCLY! Why do this in an economic crisis if the Mayor and Council are NOT 100 PERCENT positive?

We already have the most cost efficient refuse department.

We have the Best of service

And converting to Natural Gas would have a guaranteed positive almost immediate return on our investment. The cost would be comparable if not considerably less then automated gambling. NO gamble involved in Natural Gas.

Gambling away our tax dollars on an experiment during the “worst budget crisis this city has ever facedâ€￾ should come with at least and minimally the afore mentioned guarantees. If the Mayor and Council are so sure they are right and so positive this is what’s in the best interest of the residents of Lakewood, there should be no inequality. The Mayor and Council should put something of there’s on the line to lose along with the rest of use.

If they are not so sure as to gamble with anything that they have worked hard for… then they need to address real cost cutting ideas with guaranteed returns for Lakewood.

Or better yet, maybe the Mayor and Council should wait to play like tax dollars are nothing more then “Monopolyâ€￾ money. Maybe the Mayor and Council should wait until this Budget Crisis has passed to play “Are You Smarter Then a Fifth Graderâ€￾ .

The only “gameâ€￾ any elected official should be permitted to play in these uncertain economic times is “Truth or Consequencesâ€￾. Just like the rest of us

Shelley Hurd wrote:The Mayor and Council should put something of there’s on the line to lose along with the rest of use.

They do that everytime they make a decision or cast a vote.

I recycle so I bring bags of newspapers and a bag of cans and bottles to the curb every week. I don't see one more trip to the curb as that much of a burden.

If this system saves $600,000 per year then it should be implemented.

Bill,.. (and all you lurkers)

Almost without exception every city that has spewed the propaganda to their residents that Automated refuse collection would saving money, improve cleanliness of the community….. Have all explored or actually gone to privatized collection with in a year of implementing the service.

With the privatization ( and even in the cases where privatization did not occur )came residents being billed for service, increase in cost over city ran refuse collection, reduction in service, most of these residents now must pay for throwing out bulk items, have to “holdâ€￾ garbage from week to week if it does not fit in their can, are ticketed and fined if trash cans are not placed right, are over filled,.. Are ticketed and fined if cars are within 3-4 feet of a trash can…

And those are the reasons I want for we the residents of Lakewood, the afore mentioned guarantees. And I would think you would too.

Ah yes, and someone just contacted me with the over looked issue of doubles and triples in Lakewood. The folks living in doubles will undeniably have issues amount each other. Picture the civil discourse and irate tenants who notice that their fellow tenant from another unit put their extra trash in their bin. I can see where this issue alone will cause arguments and fights in some parts of Lakewood that will need to involve the police After one or two (city caused) arguments, those people will undoubtedly resort to hording garbage behind their houses or in their yards. Ummm… then in come the rats…Weeee… and the unsightly nastiness …. And varmints of every possible definition ….maggots …Oh ya, did I mention the rats.

Or is the “planâ€￾ (sic) to require owners of doubles and triples to get their own private refuse collection?

Also of note:

Some have been contacting me with issues, concerns and insight on a array of issues. Please feel free to send me a PM or even an email if you want to share a “secretâ€￾ or express a concern you think I could help bring to light. Please refrain from calling me though. I will not engage in any phone conversations. And please refrain from trying to engage me in rumor milling, mud slinging and personal retributions and vendettas. I am only interested in City issues.

Shelley - I admire your enthusiasm for the subjects recently discussed. You presented a lot of numbers over the last few days and I’m having a hard time finding where you got some of them (LDF and refuse worker salaries come to mind as well as the 3 million variance in Fire budget to actual in 2007).

There have been a lot of comments about discontinuing backyard pickup and automating refuse collection. My thoughts being these are two separate decisions to be made. Each has been about saving money and privatization is the next logical step. I’d be shocked if this hasn’t been discussed internally amongst the Mayor and administration.

Yes, some cities have started charging extra for trash collection. The Pay As You Throw (PAYT) was one suggested by the AoS in the recent performance audit. I see this as a tax increase without vote of its citizens. Most local governments need its citizens to vote a tax increase. However, a local government can impose all kinds of fees on the services it provides without the vote of citizens.

I’ve only been a resident for 15 years. I rented for 5 and have owned a house for 10. When we moved into our house, the previous resident left a large pile of crap in the back yard. Some was bagged but most of it looked like they just threw it into a pile. They said not to worry as Lakewood has backyard trash pickup. I waited for three weeks for it to be removed. I ended up hauling the crap to the curb myself. So much for backyard pickup I thought.

Now, we have a family of four. Each week I carry 3-4 blue bags as well as cardboard and paper to the curb. We manage to fill one regular size trash can every two weeks. I wouldn’t mind dragging one can to the curb every other week. Backyard pickup does not even enter the equation of why I want to live here. If the City saves mega bucks per year by going curbside, then let’s do it.

I agree with you on the automation part. I haven’t seen an automated truck that can do what we need it to do, as it relates to our environment (cars parked on the street and narrow streets and narrow drives and the occasional 2 feet of snow), and be run by a single person (the driver) without exiting the truck. It should have a 20 foot arm that’s capable of going around/over cars or other obstacles on both sides of the street. It’s been said that a 3 man crew with a conventional truck can blow through a street much faster than a 2-3 man crew with an automated truck (the one demo’d recently). The whole purpose of automation is doing the same job quicker and with less human intervention. I can’t see that happening with any of the automated trucks I’ve seen, even the DuraPack Python with a 9ft arm.

As I stated in an earlier post, there are companies who offer cities the use of an automated vehicle for pilot purposes at no cost. If it hasn’t done so already, the City should be looking into a pilot program with different style vehicles/arms as a proof of concept. Proof that it will work in 80-90% of Lakewood.

Charlie,

Shelley - I admire your enthusiasm for the subjects recently discussed. You presented a lot of numbers over the last few days and I’m having a hard time finding where you got some of them (LDF and refuse worker salaries come to mind as well as the 3 million variance in Fire budget to actual in 2007).

Look at the Structural Balance report for 2007, page 182 “2007 Adopted Budget- 7,129,761
Auditor of State Performance Audit, November 25, 2008 division of fire, page 6-3 - Table 6-1: Expenditures by Function- Lakewood 2007 - 10,367,982
Now if we subtract one from the other we get over a 3 million dollar over budget.

Are we really going to go down the overtime issue road again? I will not have further discussion on that which goes beyond what I have already posted until I have a chance to request, receive and look over actual overtime/sick time information from the city.

As for the refuse department.
Structural Balance report November 15, 2008 page 188 General Fund- Department of Public Works Division of Refuse and Recycling- 2007 final Budget 4,622,045 - 2007 Actual 4,517,623
Or a little over 100,000 below budget

And just to give you fellows your due

Kudos for trying to blow smoke on the issue at hand.

You guys are draining me, but I do not walk away quite so easily. I don’t spook easily, I don’t quite easily. So keep firing away and skating round the issue. It only makes me more driven and more sure this Cities residents are in desperate need of an advocate.

You have become quite the advocate and I’m not trying to blow smoke at the issue. But you need to be looking at the right numbers. The fire and EMS expenditures include funds 101, 260 and pension. The 7,129,761 is only fund 101. The 10 million in the AoS report includes all 3 funds. Add fund 260 and fire pension fund to the 7 million and there is no 3 million variance.

Charlie Page wrote:You have become quite the advocate and I’m not trying to blow smoke at the issue. But you need to be looking at the right numbers. The fire and EMS expenditures include funds 101, 260 and pension. The 7,129,761 is only fund 101. The 10 million in the AoS report includes all 3 funds. Add fund 260 and fire pension fund to the 7 million and there is no 3 million variance.

Thank you and I will check that out

There are other aspects to this that have not yet been discussed.

For example...

There are many diabetics and those with medical situations in the city having "sharps" containers to be disposed of. When left in the back yards, these containers are quietly picked up and disposed of in an appropriate manner by the collectors. You certainly don't want "sharps" containers sitting out front for passing school children to examine.

And it would not be realistic for the sick to deliver these personally to Berea Road, so I suppose there will be yet ANOTHER vehicle required to pick this waste up...

Gary Rice wrote:There are other aspects to this that have not yet been discussed.

For example...

There are many diabetics and those with medical situations in the city having "sharps" containers to be disposed of. When left in the back yards, these containers are quietly picked up and disposed of in an appropriate manner by the collectors. You certainly don't want "sharps" containers sitting out front for passing school children to examine.

And it would not be realistic for the sick to deliver these personally to Berea Road, so I suppose there will be yet ANOTHER vehicle required to pick this waste up...

My point again.

We will not be able to eliminate all the Cushmans and and all the current packer trucks.

Yes worker comp claims maybe reduced ( the rfuse department had I belive I read 12 in all of last yr)

But the fuel usage, maintance costs, trips to the dump... will all INCREASE. So, little if any savings would be noticed by going automated.

Again, switching our fleet to natural gas however would have a marked impact on both the budget and would really be "Green"