Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Trash service to be studied

July 22, 2009

Advertisement

Commissioners directed City Auditor Michael Eglinski to further study the city’s trash service.

Commissioners expressed concern at a new audit that shows the city’s solid waste service is consistently falling short of covering its true operating costs.

Eglinski said he would look at a variety of topics, including the rates the service charges, the types of service the city provides, and how Lawrence’s operation compares with those in other cities.

Commissioner Mike Dever said he also wanted Eglinski to review how much the city’s practice of running a special route to pick up yard waste contributes to the city’s costs.

Comments

Chris Ogle 5 years, 5 months ago

short of covering its true operating costs

I guess the un-true operating cost dipped enough that we having to look at the truth....

Lawrence is so special......

cowboy 5 years, 5 months ago

oorah , This costing of special services ought to be quite interesting. Whats the actual cost of the mulch program including equipment , labor , facilities , bet this is a major loser also.

fed_up_in_law 5 years, 5 months ago

If the crews can run their routes in 4 hours and be off work, I would think that we only need half the trucks and crews. This would lower operating costs and depreciation. If we privatize it and a company can do the work for 60-70% of what it costs the city we could leave rates alone and put the surplus back into other areas that need it. There are options other than taking more of our money.

Tony Kisner 5 years, 5 months ago

why does the City have the monopoly on trash? They even talk about running recyclers out of business. I just hope they don't set their sites on my business.

monkeyhawk 5 years, 5 months ago

Maybe the city can hire the consulting team of Vito & Luigi to show them the way (or are they already here?) Where did all that money go? Will the city let the auditor divulge any waste, fraud or abuse if he finds any?

"Commissioners expressed concern at a new audit that shows the city’s solid waste service is consistently falling short of covering its true operating costs."

Why don't we ever hear the same concerns regarding the T?

q_ball2kand1 5 years, 5 months ago

Close the T. Let people catch free rides on the garbage trucks.

gccs14r 5 years, 5 months ago

PAYT. I shouldn't have to subsidize the folks down the street who put out two overflowing 65-gallon City bins each week.

Make everyone use a City bin and use a truck that can grab and dump the bin automatically. That'll drop two hourlies from each route. Have the truck weigh the container and charge by the pound. Make the littering fine $10,000, so folks don't go out in the county to dump trash they don't want to pay for.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 5 months ago

When it comes to trash why not use the more that is thrown the more that is paid formula.

This should be a no brainer for those homes tossing large piles of goods when moving. Simply this wasteful practice is demanding more and more miles to be driven. We all know this happens frequently. Why not $100 per household? Time, wear and tear on trash vehicles plus fuel = $100 easily.

Set up a plan: Trash service is attached to the water bill Renters must wait for a trash pick -up report before closing out or transferring service * Multiple family dwellings still must pay. Why not suggest property owners include a $100 trash pick up deposit for moving out?

This Lawrence trash pick up "privilege" of large piles of household goods is truly a "privilege" that must be paid by the owners of the goods. Many many moons ago this type of activity was my responsibility not the responsibility of my tax paying brothers and sisters.

Why not seriously consider Pay As You Throw across the board? Instead of constantly increasing trash service fees across the board?

cowboy 4 years, 12 months ago

Five months ago the auditor was directed to present an audit of solid waste services. It has yet to appear on the commission agenda nor is it listed in future agenda items. Has it been buried or what ?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

Why put local people out of work?

If a private operator is chosen they will and can charge whatever they want and the service itself will likely suffer.

If the city dumped the mulch gathering service the city would be forced to buy mulch which is rather stupid.

Lawrence provides a good service under the current system.

The smart approach would be Pay As You Throw and just might teach a bit of common sense in the process. http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/index.htm http://wastezero.com/?gclid=CMyV_fnNg58CFRAeDQod7mI1NQ

Expanding the city limits may be what is not paying back?

puddleglum 4 years, 12 months ago

fed up law: If the crews can run their routes in 4 hours and be off work, I would think that we only need half the trucks and crews. This would lower operating costs and depreciation. There are options other than taking more of our money

I agree, but doubt privatization will ever happen.

i love how eager they are to look at raising the rates first, and not even mention the possibilities concerning operating efficiency. maybe we can take a wal-mart approach: chinese labor? works great for them. Or maybe just use the good ole mafia-intimidation technique: We can then go around to the big out of town corporations like wal-mart, home depot, and Target and strong-arm them with tough guy tactics: "hey, you need to gives us an extra $4000 to pick up yous trashes, or we gonna stop up your sewage for yas" or "da boss sez yous gotta pay up front for 'trash removal-insurance' cuz ya know, we might accidently drive our trash truck over your new car, or the trash truck might have an unfortunate accident in yous parking lot, which I'm sure the city inspector might see as a threat to the health of the city and close you down for a week or two. how bout that?" fuggetaboutit. everybody wins!

puddleglum 4 years, 12 months ago

ha ha! I just realized that lew perkins would be perfect for the 'boss' job, and then realized how similar my version is to the KU athletics dept crime family's activities of the last 5 years. funny n'est pas?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 12 months ago

Medical insurance is a perfect example of how privatization will not and does not save consumer/taxpayers money. Government workers = $1.2 trillion socialism tax dollars annually aka gravy train for the med insurance industry.

The city pays people a decent wage for a crummy job that needs to be done. I am okay with my local tax dollars paying a city trash service worker a decent wage for a hard job. It gets done no matter the weather.

Socialism can work to our benefit. Most large USA corporations such as Wal-Mart,Nuke and Coal power plants, Medical Insurance Industry etc etc and local developers love it however does NOT work to our benefit..

I say implement Pay As You Throw, pay city workers a good wage, license our recyclers and let's get on with it.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.