7/07/2011

Garbage Website

Posted by MJ

The city has a new website up and running for garbage and refuse collection:

City of Lockport Curbside Recycling & Refuse

 Also both the Buffalo News and LUSJ reported on Modern Disposal being selected as the contractor for the next three years.
More than 20 years after most other communities in Niagara County, the City of Lockport will have curbside recycling service, starting in September.

The Common Council voted Wednesday in favor of a five-year contract with Modern Disposal of Lewiston to pick up the city’s garbage and empty its new recycling bins, ending generations of city-provided garbage service.

The system will be funded by user fees, which won’t be determined until residents respond to a mailing asking which of the three available sizes of garbage cans they want...

UPDATE 7/12/11:

I missed this article reported by the Buffalo News comparing the systems and costs of the town and city privatized refuse collection.

And the Buffalo News also reported on the "concerns" of Mayoral Candidate  Pilot and Mayor Candidate and current Alderman Jack Smith. I respect Smith's pointed concern (although I find it hard to nail down initial costs when we all have options plus a $20 swing per year should not be too much to handle) but Pilot's approach came off as fear mongering and staging for the election run in fall.

For those who want answers directly answered, the is a Q&A session tonight with 5th Ward Alderman Genewick Instead of assuming the sky is falling, drop in for some answers.

UPDATE 7/18/11:

The Buffalo News reported on the billing (one this year for the additional 2 months of unplanned city collection and one for the start of the new privatized system) and the fines for not following the system.

I don't like the automatic pick up of "mistakes" and subsequent fine. If anything, leave the trash that was wrong with a standard note with items checked off so the property owner can learn and let the driver note the house. If it is a persistent problem then go ahead an fine the owner.

The law will be up for public comment at an upcoming session. If you want your voice heard on the topic show up and speak out.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Other than finally getting the non-profits and the businesses to pay their fair share, what are the savings if no employees are being laid off? And, if the city survived for years with the number of employees they have, what are the guys (at least 10 guys?) that are doing garbage going to do now?
I think it is a good idea to privatize, but unfortunately employees should have been laid off as we obviously don't need 10 additional city workers sitting around instead of throwing garbage.

Anonymous said...

Never gonna work. Glenwood is gonna be more of a dump then it already is. Switch it up throw it all in city hall parking lot.

MJ said...

The city will use these employees for other need infrastructure, park, streets, etc related functions. We need it as people are always complaining about the lack of upkeep in those areas.

The garbage collection was bargained away. It could not have been privatized without bargaining. The bargain was that the employees remain. They will move on or retire some day and when they do the city will not need to replace them. It's not perfect or clean cut but it won't be in a bargaining atmosphere.

Almost every other municipality has moved on. I find it hard to believe that we will not be able to. So many people call for change in the city and then every change results in "this won't work". If Glenwood is already a dump, what is there to lose? The old system obviously did not prevent it.

GeorgeW said...

Well at least it allowed the mayors son to not get laid off, he is in the bottom 10 of seniority!

The Phantom said...

“There’s a certain segment of our population that doesn’t abide by the rules when in comes to putting out refuse,” Mullaney said.

I love this quote. What this means is that all must be punished for the sins of a few. Let's not enforce the rules, or tighten up the existing rules on these scofflaws, lets chage the system for EVERYONE.

I took a drive down Genesee on garbage day eve, and let me tell you, it wasn't pretty, and there is no way these cans will hold the mounds of garbage put out. They will just dump it somewhere else.

What will you do when you wake up and there are three bags of garbage laying next to your big full can you bought???

Recylcing?? Niagara County's rate is around 10%. That means 1 of every ten people recycles in already established programs. Hope those 100 of every 1000 people appreciates the efforts!!

MJ said...

No it doesn't. We were punished before because we all had to pay to pick up for these places with multiple residences and minimal assessments.

Does the town have problems with people dumping extra trash bags on their neighbors' properties? The land lords will just have to pay up for enough totes.

Also, cleaned up off topic comments.

Anonymous said...

Not sure if Tuckers son was in bottom ten. Probably wouldnt have mattered anyways he was out on compensation for 2 years then daddy created a position for him at city hall cleaning the courts.. what a joke!

Anonymous said...

There already was a cleaner at city haul. Did he add his son as a new one or replace the other one?

Anonymous said...

I've owned a business in the town for the last 5 years in 2 different locations and have always been responsible for my own trash removal. I have my own dumpster and have to pay monthly for the removal service. It's just part of the cost of doing business and I think that it is absolutely reasonable/necessary for city businesses to pay for their own trash service.

Anonymous said...

Mr.Tucker..you're a bad manager. Your style is out dated and is like an Oligarchy only more narrowing focused on one point of contact. I'm trying to be generous here.. can't run this City
that way Mike...it won't work anymore.

Moe said...

Out with old...in with the old

Anonymous said...

anyone know what the recycling can is like?

Size? can you mix recyclables? cans, plastic, paper, card board?

Anonymous said...

He added a new cleaners position because his son couldnt handle working at the highway and parks so he went out on compensation for 2 years so he made a light duty cleaners position in the courts for him

Anonymous said...

In the Town of Lockport residents can put out up to 6 large bags of garbage per week. The bags must be under 50 lbs each and they will also take one large item per week. Once a month they pick up tree limbs. I'm fairly certain that those 6 bags wouldn't fit into the largest tote. The Town also has recycling every week, the city will have it every other week. The Town provides adequate service so nobody has to drop their garbage at someone elses house. The city, thanks to the panic, knee jerk reaction by Tucker and Pasceri, will have their work cut out for themselves trying to convince the residents that this is better.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the council have to approve new jobs? Did they agree to make a position for his son?
I am surprised he didn't give him Hoffmans job! LOL - that's a joke

Moe said...

I don't think it was panic or knee-jerk from Mr. Tucker and Ms. Pasceri. The new program is the result of two individuals in charge of the city who don't have the first clue how to manage or problem solve. Why do you think they hire consultants all the time.

MJ said...

The program is not the result of two individuals. It is the result of a volunteer committee who researched it and put it together. A lot of leg work was done by the individual from the county with experience in the matter. The major goal was to get the city out of the trash business. Recycling was a byproduct. A byproduct which should reduce what you are paying to throw away if you use it.

The city is not going to burn to ground. The women and children will be safe. People already dump garbage. Does that justify an unfair free for all price structure based on assessed values? If we want to put a dent in any possible uptick of illegal dumping, park a car to watch for it and prosecute just like any other law.

Go to the website or the one article for the FAQ. There is no separation of recyclables.

MJ said...

As for the town comparison: The town of Lockport charges $178 per year which is around what the largest tote will be in the city. The city will offer two cheaper options that the town does not. The more you put into the 65 gallon recycle tote the less you will have to put in the trash tote. You have the option to save money. Both the city and town will sell tags for extra bags.

I still don't get all the fear mongering. If it was the other way around we'd be complaining that the town gives out totes and cheaper options so why doesn't the city.

Patti said...

Please stop bickering - and blaming people for this and that.
LoneWolf was a;so a tremendous help, in fact, he did a large portion 0f the work! The work, behind the scenes but with ANY resident able to attend ANY meeting, has been going on for at least three years that I know of - it might be more.

Chicken Little said...

help...help...my house is being buried by illicit trash bag dumping by invading hoards from a neighboring street!

The World is going to end as we know it!

Anonymous said...

People will find a reason to complain about anything!! Anyone that doesnt see the new way of collecting trash is soo much better is a complete moron and really hasnt looked at the facts!!! So stop complaining and do some research before you make dumb statements!!!!

Anonymous said...

Moe,
I guess you want to keep paying for business's to get trash picked up everyday and other non tax paying properties getting thier trash picked up for free!!! I think you need to do some research before you speak!! I cant believe you are that misformed on the issues!! While you are at it do some research on governmet, I think you will be surprised by the results!!!

Moe said...

Anonymous..I'm entitled to my opinion. I can say what I want without your permission. Another typical name calling loser hiding behind a anon monicker.

I should give credit to someone for finally changing a program that was pathetically unfair but was continued under 8 years of his "management"?

My opinion stands and doesn't require your pre-approval...why don't you tell us how many personnel and their "life-time" free health care was eliminated because of this change?

Tucker and Pesceri aren't qualified to make important decisions about anything that effects my life including garbage pick-up.

hitler said...

you are right moe, it would be impossible for tucker and pesceri to do anything that could ever be good for lockport, but more importantly, good for you

Noe said...

sorry that I have such high standards...

MJ said...

I don't think I'm fully grasping your complaints Moe: care to list them again? (no sarcasm intended)

hitler said...

it's not that you have high standards, it is that you cannot see past your blind hatred

by your own very statement, i can see that you were totally happy with south block being a parking lot for unwanted i beams

Anonymous said...

Read the Buff news article in todays paper about billing and fines.
I didn't know they would be sending out bills for the garbage the city picked up so far this year. If they can bill us know, why haven't they separately billing it all along so the non-profits could pay their share? Isn't that the main reason for going to this system?

Did you see the $100 fines if you put a non-recyclable article in recycling? I guess I just won't recycle, why take a chance.

So, they could have billed us and not used outside help, they are not laying off any employees so no savings, they will have a cost of sending and processing two bills for garbage this year, they imposed heavy fines if you screw up, and now we have an extra 10 city employees that saince we don't have a strong manager in the highways won't have anything to do all day.

Great idea!

Anonymous said...

ya...and who was the only Alderman to vote NO on the new Garbage deal..?

Jack Smith

Just another scam. This will be Pasceri's Legacy

Something isn't always better than nothing.

Anonymous said...

I think it was a good idea, until they kept all the employees! Whats the savings???

How about getting a bill though for our garbage they already collected the last 7 months?

Ed Norton said...

oh..your bill is in the mail...

The businesses, non profits, they have no billing coming. But us home owners..we have to pay?

MJ said...

***updated post***

MJ said...

1) The bill is to fill in the tax gap for the additional 2 months of city refuse collection (they planned on 6 months). Read the article, you are not paying for the whole year. Since it is a general tax gap bill the non-profits can not be forced to pay since they are not "taxed".

2)Garbage collection was a bargained for job and had to be bargained out of the city union contract. There was no way around that. The employees remain to do other jobs (look around other tasks need to be done) and will not be replaced long term. We will also save money on replacing garbage trucks and other equipment.

3) The only reason Jack said he voted against garbage was that the cost rates weren't final Does a $20 swing makes that much difference?

4) 100's of other municipalities do this. Is there something that precludes the residents of the City of Lockport from doing it?

Anonymous said...

1) Why wasn't it ever publicized that the extra money was going to be collected? Are the bills coming out going to be based on assesed valuation or will ev eryone pay the same, and if so is that legal since they are 'taxes'? What does sending this bill cost? No matter how much it hurts, this should come out of the general fund and then be re-paid through next years taxes.
2) So who did this bargaining? Bargaining doesn't mean giving away the store to keep employees happy, unless of course it's your sons job which would be eliminated! yes there is a lot of work to do, but without proper management it won't get done. Check out how long the workers breaks are each morning (check out Thrifty's parking lot). See how many workers are sitting at the garage for the afternoon. After letting 2 foreman go and getting rid of Hoffman it's worse there than ever, now with 10 extra guys sitting around....
But, they can't hire a boss there without adding fuel to the Hoffman fire.
3) Smith is a political animal, I agree.
4) We should definitely do this, but we should have done it in a way that saves money, this won't.

What about those fines for 'illegal' recycling?

Anonymous said...

According to the Lockport paper the bill will be for Jan-Sep for city garbage collection, not just 2 months.

hitler said...

the bills stink, and are just an indication that the process was screwed up, they should have never taken out the money without a plan in place, but this is a small town, and i would expect things to work as they do in a small town

but to classify this as costing more because we just freed up workers to do other jobs, workers who will not be replaced, is short-sighted at best

Anonymous said...

I would agree if we needed 10 more workers, but we don't. We went years without these extra workers. Plus we will not use them effectively without proper management.

MJ said...

Actually it's not short sighted.

It's a long term goal to get the city out of the collection business and long term remove employees and equipment costs while making sure everyone pays equally for their refuse collection.

As for the "fee" it is pretty confusing. We may be paying for the city's portion back to Jan as it is now explained. Either way no different than paying for collection anyways during that time.

MJ said...

We may not need those workers but the only way to remove them long term was to get rid of garbage. The only way to get rid of garbage was to bargain for it's removal from the union contract.

The union could have protected these jobs long term and said no, the city cannot get out of this, buy new trucks and keep hiring garbage workers and taking on pensions for the future to come. Would this have been preferable long term?

MJ said...

From last years budget process:

- - - - - - - - - -

"Mullaney said that 24 jobs have been dropped from the budget and that privatizing the garbage service accounts for only 11 of those. The other jobs were vacated by retirements in the last month, he said, and only one or two are being filled.

The garbage workers aren’t being laid off. Once privatization is complete, they will be transferred to other duties, mostly in the Water Department.

In exchange for permission to privatize garbage collection, the city pledged to their union that there would be no layoffs"

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

The city still reduced jobs overall last year in the process although the garbage workers were able to transfer to other departments. Complaints on that are?

Who here would have voted to remove your job and source of employment?

Articles referenced above:
http://lockportjournal.com/local/x1930915574/Budget-hearing-brings-scant-commentary

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/communities/lockport/article249083.ece

The LUSJ one also references that the city's portion of the garbage this year would be fee based and not taxed based. We all just forgot about it:

- - - - - - - - - -

"Removal of trash collection costs from the tax-paid general fund into a “special revenue”/special district fund. It signals the Common Council’s plan to raise money for trash collection from a user fee rather than property tax...."

- - - - - - - - - -

Anonymous said...

You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be
really something which I think I would never understand.

It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of
it!
Here is my web site ... christmas Labels

Mary Pablate said...

Hello,

please visit my website GarbageDisposerReviews.com for all your garbage disposal related stuffs.

God bless you!

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.