1/13/2011

Trash Update

Posted by MJ

The Buffalo News and LUSJ reported on a trash system meeting last night.

The city’s new privatized garbage disposal system won’t start until at least July 1, the Common Council learned Wednesday.

Dawn M. Timm, the laid-off former Niagara County solid-waste coordinator who has been working on Lockport’s plan, told the aldermen that the three prospective haulers thought the city’s plan to start in April was unrealistic.

The process, which began with the haulers being asked to submit comments on the plan’s structure before bidding, now calls for the final draft of the request for proposals to be posted by Feb. 28. The waste haulers will have until March 30 to submit bids.

“We’ll take about three weeks to chew over that and enter the negotiation phase,” said Timm, who is continuing to work on the city’s project as a volunteer.

She said the contract should be awarded in mid-May, and the first of the city’s five garbage routes will be privatized about six weeks later....
 Notable is where the "large item disposal" is heading:

One “bulk” item pickup per month, per property, to be included in the fee each property is charged for regular pickup. Bulk items are things such as a chair or other large item set out in addition to the trash can; the definition and maximum size/weight of a “bulk” item is also still being worked out.

•A “special circumstances” pickup, to be paid for by property owners in addition to their quarterly refuse fees as needed, for dumping of trash including construction-and-demolition debris. Basically, the property owner would contact the hauler and make arrangements for disposing of special debris alongside weekly trash; but the special debris wouldn’t be picked up unless the owner paid for the service.

The haulers discouraged an idea in the preliminary RFP, for a spring cleaning/”amnesty” month during which property owners could put as much trash out to the curb as they like. The city couldn’t estimate how many parcels would participate or how much would get thrown out, so the haulers said they’d have to guess themselves how many laborers and what kinds of vehicles, garbage trucks or bulldozers, would be needed, put a price on that extra service and write it into the contract
There should be a cost effective way to handle large items. Instead of one any time per any month and a big free-for-all month why not just the beginning of every month? It would seem to be more cost effective than special trips year round. Construction debris should still be the separate responsibility of the home owner or contractor. What else could there be to worry about on a large scale?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well King Tuck has figured out how to save the budget. Word is next meeting he will be proposing eliminating the streets and parks superintendent and giving the duties to the city engineer. Great move, the engineer must not be busy enough so he needs more duties. How many other towns/cities don't have a highway/parks boss?
I have heard the mayor doesn't like the superintendent since he sometimes expresses his own opinion, and everyone knows if it isn't king tuck's idea it's not any good!
The city has already eliminated two supervisors from the dept, I would really like to see how he can eliminate the boss.
Of course if the city engineer has to take over the duties that means he can't do all his current duties. That would probably mean more work for outside engineering firms. Gee, do you think those outside firms might also be campaign donors for the King?
This will not be a cost saving move!

MJ said...

Talking about this?
http://elockport.com/city-civil-service-ny.php

Makes me wish I had my urban planning degree ;)

Not sure what the duties are, but I hope we hire someone progressive who searches out the best ideas from around the country. No more demo, parking based site plans, etc. Maybe we could have a senible zoning revamp somewhere down the road?

Anonymous said...

No, that sounds to me like Everett's job though, and I thought by giving him that special retirement last year that his job had to be eliminated. It seems like it would be illegal to rehire someone for Everett's job.

Rocketboy said...

First.. again with the "King Tuck"? You do realize that he did run for office just like any other mayor, right? Or are you the same one foaming at the mouth on WLVL when the mayor was on complaining that you didn't get to vote on the trash plan, under the false assumption everything that happened in the city required your vote?

Second.. Good! The gross majority of the times, a private company can do something cheaper, and more effective than a gov't can. Why? Because a company can be fired. Do you think city union workers ever fear for their jobs?

Also, for the most part, political donations are public records. Do you have any proof of your accusation are are you wildly speculating?

I'm really sick of this rumor mongering and name calling that people feel that they must do to make their point. It's like the people who insist that Obama is a secret Muslim who isn't a citizen. I find more than enough things about Obama that I don't like that I don't have to run around looking up for fake things not to like about him. Or the people blaming Palin for the AZ shootings. We all know that you don't like Palin, but there's no need to blame things on her that she had nothing to do with.

Anonymous said...

what are you king tucks newest lapdog?

my point is he won't be saving any money eliminating the $55,000 parks and highway supt and then giving his job to the $70,000 city engineer who will then have to farm out his engineering work.

Rocketboy said...

Ah and yes, the inevitable "You must be his good buddy" comment. Because that's the only reason that I would agree with someone other than you.

Again, enough with the bs arguments. If your core argument is that the position will cost us more in the long run, that sounds to me like a valid concern. But surround it by pointless name calling, and unfounded accusations, and not only does any valid point that you may make get lost in the noise, but when your valid point does come out, it still sounds like it comes from a position based on anger against a single person. Not from logically thinking something through.

cityinsider said...

Problem is from what I heard it is based on anger, but it is from Tucker to Hoffman. Plus I heard through some city workers that Hoffman's employees have been complaining to the mayor because he has been cracking down on them. Don't forget the mayors son works in that department, I am sure he isn't happy with Hoffman making them work a full day.
Hopefully the council will be strong enough and smart enough to ask questions as to how much extra will they pay the engineering head to run the dept, how much work will he then have to sub out and will they need to hire another foreman (two of three foreman retired). Sounds to me like it's more based on 'anger' than cost savings.
Also, I thought the retirement program the city opted in to last fall was a program that gave additional state benefits to the retiree's but as a condition their jobs had to be eliminated. Isn't this $75,000 city planner Tucker is hiring actually going to do Bill Evert's job????

Rocketboy said...

Again, do you have anything to back up your rumors, or not?

Anonymous said...

What do you mean?
Our city workers have been cutting there 8 hour shifts,and still getting paid for the allotted time?
Mike hoffman has asked them to do thier 8 hours and now he is terminated because Tuckers son dislikes working a 40 hour work week.
Union or non union i believe you must work the time to get paid for your time.
Do our city employees have to punch a time clock?
If not i would think that any buisness in financial difficulty would demand the placement of such devices,so we could see the effort put in by our employees.
just think of this little thought, your the son of the mayor.
Mayors son(Hey dad they want me to work my 40 hour work week. BLAH BLAH cry.)
Mike Tucker(What do you mean son Mike Hoffman wants you to work for 8 hours a day.
Ive never heard of such a thing.Even i never worked the hours at GM I always worked my way around it.Well i will take care of that i will terminate the man making you work the allotted hours son.So you my son can screw off for the rest of the day.Thanks dad.God forbid i have to put in actuall work hours for this city seeing i work for you dad.)No problem son, I run this city and god forbid a city employee has to work 40 hours a week like the lower people of this city you know son we are above the laws in this city because im the mayor and if you or a friend of yours has a problem just let me know and i will change the laws so you and your friends can sit back and enjoy the benifets of no time sheets and just your word of saying you were willing and able to work that day. Mike Tucker knocking on kids door(Hey they need you to fix a water line. )Dad dont worry you said i was covered i was there i brought them coffee did my job for the day.
WHAT A JOKE this city is.

Rocketboy said...

Ok, well, if you have proof that they are working less than 40 hours, but are getting paid for 40 hours, one would think that an anon comment on a blog wouldn't be the place to try to get some action done.

MJ said...

Seriously?

Most of it comes down to the contracts. If it allows for leaving after routes/obligations are done then it should be fixed.

I'm quite sure Tucker would jeopardize his job so that his son could have a couple free hours.

As for a "real" planner, the city desperately needs one.

Anonymous said...

I don't think 'insider' has a clue, Tuckers son has been on disability (ironic, huh fireman-policeman) since I think last summer, and anon, kinda an extreme post, wasn't it?

Post a Comment

Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.