Once a week trash pickup

[TURobY]

Unless you are reducing your waste by half, I'm having a difficult time understanding why your cost would be halved. I could understand a rate reduction due to possible less staffing, but a reduction by half doesn't make sense to me as twice as much refuse will be picked up half as often.

[Pebbles]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Unless you are reducing your waste by half, I'm having a difficult time understanding why your cost would be halved. I could understand a rate reduction due to possible less staffing, but a reduction by half doesn't make sense to me as twice as much refuse will be picked up half as often.

I know!  That is what I am trying to tell everybody!  It isn't about service.  Service is getting your drink refilled before you take the last sip.  

Disclaimer: I live in the NW quadrant and have been getting once a week service ever since I moved here 8 years ago.  If I had twice a week service I would probably forget to take the trash out at least once a week.  I know I did when I lived elsewhere.  This isn't a luxury we are talking here folks.  But yet twice a week service is a luxury... not a necessity.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

50% reduction in trash pick up?  I'm all for it, if........

....... there is a 50% reduction in my trash bill.  Anything less is just another fee increase.

How so? Will you be generating 50% less waste?

Trash rates are not generated based on the amount of trash I put at the curb (yet, anyway.  I know of cities who do that.).  No matter what service you have (once or twice weekly) there is a limit how much the collector will pick up.

There I times I find twice weekly crazy because I have less then one trash bag sitting in my trash can.

I totally agree having trash pick up and recycling pick up at the same time would increase recycling efforts.  It is a pain in the butt not having them at the same and I too often forget about recycling pick up, which causes my garage to fill up with recycled stuff because I have to wait another two weeks.

I've done both; once weekly and twice weekly.  I can live with either.

And didn't the City end up with more money when they changed to the landfill from the Trash-to-Energy plant?  Weren't costs much lower to go to the landfill?  My bill didn't go down when they made the switch.

[patric]

We'll know if it's such a good idea when it turns 100 degrees.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by dbacks fan

Here are the guidelinesfor the Phoenix recycle program.

If we recycled as much as Phoenix, I could go down to once a month trash pick up.  It would be wonderful if we recycled juice/milk cartons, empty cereal boxes, etc....  Why is Tulsa not able to recycle more materials?

[Miss Solemnis]

quote:Originally posted by patric

We'll know if it's such a good idea when it turns 100 degrees.

I assume you're referring to heat-related smell with once-a-week pickups.  I'm seeing all sorts of rants on the TW site about potential smell, maggots and other pests, etc.  We recently moved back to Tulsa from Fort Lauderdale, where we had once a week cart service - and also a fantastic recycling program - and never had a problem with smell or pests of any sort, even in that subtropical climate.  No big deal to just periodically hose out the cart if you're worried about it.  We're in Reservoir Hill now, have once-a-week pickup and our cart is rarely full.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

50% reduction in trash pick up?  I'm all for it, if........

....... there is a 50% reduction in my trash bill.  Anything less is just another fee increase.

How so? Will you be generating 50% less waste?

actually yes I will, because I will be recycling too, so someone is going to take those recyclables, recycle them, and sell them for $$$.  I want those profits passed back to me in the form of reduced rates.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by inteller
actually yes I will, because I will be recycling too, so someone is going to take those recyclables, recycle them, and sell them for $$$.  I want those profits passed back to me in the form of reduced rates.

Of course, that is included in the plans. The study referred to in the plan calls for the city to pay $20 a ton for disposal and get paid $30 a ton for mixed recyclables.

The average household in Tulsa produces about 2800 pounds a year of garbage. If you recycled 50%, that would be about 14 dollars less per year for disposal and about 21 dollars more per household in recycling revenue. That 35 dollars per year difference is three dollars per month. Unfortunately, recycling prices have plummeted in the last couple of months so the difference is now probably about $1.50 per month.

There is also some fuel savings expected. Once-a-week trash and every other week recycling works out to 78 services per year versus the current 104 services per year. That should hopefully save about 20% in fuel costs. The majority of Tulsans are serviced by a contractor so the fuel savings will help them, but not we the rate-payers for now.

These savings should be used to pay for new large polycarts, one for trash and one for recyclables. They cost about $50 a piece and require about a ten per cent replacement rate per year.

All that being said...Tulsa can give every household new carts where they now have to provide their own, can offer a great recycling program which will create new jobs and save landfill space, and do it for about the same amount of money as they are spending currently.

All it takes now is a city council not afraid of going to once-a-week trash. If every other city in the country can do it, why not Tulsans?  

[dbacks fan]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by dbacks fan

Here are the guidelinesfor the Phoenix recycle program.

If we recycled as much as Phoenix, I could go down to once a month trash pick up.  It would be wonderful if we recycled juice/milk cartons, empty cereal boxes, etc....  Why is Tulsa not able to recycle more materials?

Something else we have is bulk trash pickup every quarter during the year. It is a good way to get rid of various items that you can't fit in your normal pickup, or when you want to do some extra cleaning. The one thing that happens though is you have people that know the schedule for areas around town and they troll for scrap metal, and I mean any scrap metal. I set out an old water heater and two old grills that were not useable at 9:00 in the evening and they were gone within three hours.

[RecycleMichael]

Tulsa has free bulky waste pickup upon appointment. It is currently unlimited, but the study calls for a reasonable limit for the future.

If you have a sofa, a refrigerator, or a similar sized item in Tulsa, you can call 596-9777 and schedule a bulky watse pickup.

[Wrinkle]

How much would a Study cost to determine the need/efficacy of TARE? This dinasour operation needs to vote to dismantle itself if they were interested in the best thing for the City/residents.

Half our trash rates were for an incinerator now not used (until recently re-fired up as private operation by the bankrupted prior 'owner').

They reduced rates by $1.

This 'study' is only about reducing costs/increasing revenues and not about how often trash is picked up, or if recycling is implemented.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

How much would a Study cost to determine the need/efficacy of TARE? This dinasour operation needs to vote to dismantle itself if they were interested in the best thing for the City/residents.

Half our trash rates were for an incinerator now not used (until recently re-fired up as private operation by the bankrupted prior 'owner').

They reduced rates by $1.

This 'study' is only about reducing costs/increasing revenues and not about how often trash is picked up, or if recycling is implemented.

Once again wrinkle, you are wrong with your facts. Half the trash rate wasn't for the incinerator.

The trash to energy plant was a more expensive way to dispose of trash than simply burying it. The whole contract was one-sided away from the city (Thanks for nothing, Inhofe).

The debt payment on the plant averaged 9 million dollars a year for 20 years. The overall TARE budget when the plant was running was about 35 million and now is 25 million. Disposal costs are about 3 million dollars of the current budget. The contractor, TRI gets about 9 million a year for picking up 3 fourths of the city and the remainder goes to city crews for the northwest portion, the greenwaste wood chipping, recycling, litter cleanups, and funding the haz waste collections at the fairgrounds.

The TARE board conducts all their meetings in public, their budget is discussed in length at every monthly meeting, and their members accessable for media and city councilors. They appeared at city committee meetings shown on TV dozens of times last year.

I don't know why you would call them a "dinosaur operation", unless you just feel like attacking things you know nothing about. The TARE board lowered the rates for customers last year...name one other utility or fee that has done that lately. Water, sewer, gas, electricity rates all keep going up and trash rates went down in 2008. I argued against it, wanting instead to fund more recycling programs and education. The TARE board appointees felt differently, wanting to only charge the citizens the true cost of service. They voted unaminously to lower trash rates whenever they can.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

How much would a Study cost to determine the need/efficacy of TARE? This dinasour operation needs to vote to dismantle itself if they were interested in the best thing for the City/residents.

Half our trash rates were for an incinerator now not used (until recently re-fired up as private operation by the bankrupted prior 'owner').

They reduced rates by $1.

This 'study' is only about reducing costs/increasing revenues and not about how often trash is picked up, or if recycling is implemented.

Once again wrinkle, you are wrong with your facts. Half the trash rate wasn't for the incinerator.

The trash to energy plant was a more expensive way to dispose of trash than simply burying it. The whole contract was one-sided away from the city (Thanks for nothing, Inhofe).

The debt payment on the plant averaged 9 million dollars a year for 20 years. The overall TARE budget when the plant was running was about 35 million and now is 25 million. Disposal costs are about 3 million dollars of the current budget. The contractor, TRI gets about 9 million a year for picking up 3 fourths of the city and the remainder goes to city crews for the northwest portion, the greenwaste wood chipping, recycling, litter cleanups, and funding the haz waste collections at the fairgrounds.

The TARE board conducts all their meetings in public, their budget is discussed in length at every monthly meeting, and their members accessable for media and city councilors. They appeared at city committee meetings shown on TV dozens of times last year.

I don't know why you would call them a "dinosaur operation", unless you just feel like attacking things you know nothing about. The TARE board lowered the rates for customers last year...name one other utility or fee that has done that lately. Water, sewer, gas, electricity rates all keep going up and trash rates went down in 2008. I argued against it, wanting instead to fund more recycling programs and education. The TARE board appointees felt differently, wanting to only charge the citizens the true cost of service. They voted unaminously to lower trash rates whenever they can.

By your own numbers, I'll assume we can have City workers cover the remaining 1/4 of the City for the same $3M/qtr that contractors do the other 3/4.

That makes $15M for trash services. Are you saying the other $10M is funding for MET? And, why can't that be done by the City directly instead of TARE?

Last I heard, there were about 150,000 residential parcels in the City. $10M/year for the incinerator would amount to about $5.55/parcel, though this doesn't count commercial accounts which do pay their own services regardless.

quote: The trash to energy plant was a more expensive way to dispose of trash than simply burying it. The whole contract was one-sided away from the city (Thanks for nothing, Inhofe).

...and TARE had nothing to do with this, right?

[Aa5drvr]

If Tulsa Refuse is as aggressive in persuing this matter as they were one year ago when one of their contracted haulers (Controlled Waste) hit my car with no liability insurance then this is going nowhere.

Talk about a roadblock.

[RecycleMichael]

There are around 122,000 residential customers. They produce about 160,000 tons per year. There are about 8,000 commercial customers (including apartments complexes) that produce about 250,000 tons a trash per year. The trash to energy plant was financed by raising rates on both groups.

The trash-to-energy plant and the TARE board were created by Jim Inhofe when he was Mayor. None of the original board members are still involved.

No, the M.e.t. does not get $9 million a year from Tulsa. I wish it were so. We have three separate contracts with Tulsa to provide services including running recycling centers and collecting hazardous waste. We also have similar type contracts with the county, nine suburbs, the state and the EPA. The City of Tulsa pays $40,000 dollars a year to the M.e.t. for administration expenses to pay the overhead.

The amount of money paid to the M.e.t. for 2009 is actually less than the city paid the M.e.t. fifteen years ago when I was hired. I am very proud that we have continued to expand what we do with less government subsidy. We have never been over budget and raise enough money each year from private sources to pay my salary.