Tulsa World: Mayoral candidates talk trash...collection, that is

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Saturday, November 21, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Mayoral candidates talk trash...collection, that is
The next mayor may have to promote a new trash collection system.

By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
Published: 9/21/2009 2:23 AM
Last Modified: 9/21/2009 3:35 AM

Visit the Tulsa World’s city election Web site for continuing coverage.

Trash talking often accompanies politics, but in this municipal election season there's talk about trash.

With Mayor Kathy Taylor's announcement last week that she has assembled a citizens task force to study the city's trash and recycling services and make recommendations to Tulsa's next mayor, the candidates for the job are weighing in.

Among questions the task force will explore are whether the city should have once-a-week or twice-a-week trash collection; whether the rates should be volume-based so people pay for what they throw away; and whether recycling should be included for everyone rather than continue as an option.

At present, different areas of the city have different levels of trash service. Most is handled by private companies while some is conducted by city employees, and the city subsidizes residential trash collection at a cost of $2.6 million a year.

The issue is coming to the forefront because the city's 30-year contract with Tulsa Refuse Inc. for trash collection will end in 2012, and officials are working to determine the best way forward, financially and environmentally.

The three main candidates for mayor — Tom Adelson, a Democrat; Dewey Bartlett Jr., a Republican, and Mark Perkins, an independent — agreed that the future

mayor will have some major trash-related policy decisions to make.

Adelson said he was glad that the review is beginning.

"I look forward to the results with great interest," he said.

An initial impression, Adelson said, is that because Oklahoma is so hot, he would be worried about reducing the frequency of trash collection because of public health concerns.

"I do think if there's a way to reward people who are being more thrifty, that should be looked at," he said, adding that on the campaign trail, he has heard from residents who want better recycling options.

Green waste such as lawn clippings and leaves need to be looked at as an asset rather than something to be discarded, Adelson said.

"It's a big part of our waste stream going into the landfill that could be removed," he said.

Bartlett said it's good to look at expanding the recycling program, but wouldn't want to make recycling mandatory.

"I don't want to cram anything down anyone's throats," he said.

Bartlett said the matter of once- versus twice-a-week collection needs thorough evaluation, and that he is an advocate for privatizing the small area of Tulsa that is serviced by city employees.

"We need to make it all uniform citywide," he said. "The way it is now doesn't make any sense."

Bartlett also said the trash service needs to be able to pay for itself and not subsidized with the city's limited financial resources.

While trash isn't at the top of everyone's list of hot-button topics, he said, it is an issue that affects absolutely everyone.

"It's a very big deal," Bartlett said. "A city government is supposed to provide basic services. A family wants to make sure their water runs, their trash is picked up and when they walk outside, they feel safe."

Perkins lives in a neighborhood that was converted for several months from twice-a-week to once-a-week, cart-based trash collection in a pilot program.

"To me, it's a no-brainer," he said, adding that the service easily took care of all his household garbage for a week. "An implementation of such a system would have to save the city money."

Perkins said it also improved the appearance of his neighborhood, reducing litter and trash can clutter.

While it might be a hard sell to the public to switch, he said, "I think Tulsans are smart, and if they are informed properly about the benefits, I think they would come around."

Trash collection also should be usage based, with people paying for the amount that they throw away, he said. This would help encourage recycling.

"I think we all have to be sensitive to the fact that there is a generation coming after us," Perkins said.

Brian Barber 581-8322
brian.barber@tulsaworld.com

By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

24 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

	Report Comment Centrist, the burbs (9/21/2009 2:38:15 AM) Tulsans are spoiled to twice weekly trash service. It is not a big burden to have once a week trash service in the surrounding sister cities. It actually is nice to not to have trash cans out at the street but only once a week. Also, they need to go back to burning the trash at Covanta Trash to Energy Plant and stop burying it in landfills. It is much better for our planet.
	Report Comment AdamM, Tulsa (9/21/2009 7:46:07 AM) If we drop to a once a week schedule our price will drop? Right. Maybe not in half, but still would cut city cost. I really dont care the number of pick-ups. Centrist is right. We need that trash plant back open. Energy cost would seem to make a resonable money maker out of the trash plant as well as its benifit to saving us from a landfill take over.
	Report Comment Loophole, (9/21/2009 8:04:17 AM) How many times are they going to pay to re-examine this question? Seems Tulsa has already spoken three times now.
	Report Comment Denver918, (9/21/2009 8:27:21 AM) Go to once a week service throughout the entire city with two city-provided polycarts: one for trash and one for recycling. Charge people for the volume of trash/recyclables they throw away. In the end those that recycle more and throw less trash away will pay less which is better for everyone.
	Report Comment RDUN, (9/21/2009 10:28:31 AM) I can see that a once-a-week pickup might work for the suburbs where the yards are large, but I didn't like the way it worked in midtown Tulsa. The large carts were hard to manage in small yards and they were really ugly when they were out crowding the sidewalks. And I can tell you week-old garbage really stinks in the summer heat.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/21/2009 10:42:58 AM) The volume rate plan will have the unintended consequences of encouraging illegal dumping in commercial dumpsters that forces small businesses and the police to undertake the extra expense to provide security and enforcement measures they can ill afford financially against illegal dumping, increasing illegal dumping on private/ public property like parks, vacant lots and in or along waterways, and city residents taking trash outside city limits where burning trash is allowed, adding more pollution and complicating our ozone/air quality issues to avoid paying the volume based rate.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/21/2009 10:46:58 AM) One more thing, I think the city should end it's appropriations to the M.E.T. and put those resources back into the T.A.R.E. reserve fund so citizens can continue to receive the level of service they have come to expect without increasing rates, changing how the rates are determined, or changing the level of service. If I were the one to decide how to handle this issue, that's what I would do. The city offers recycling, so I see the M.E.T. as a unnecessary duplication and a useless privatization of government services. I also think that it is a huge conflict of interest for Michael Patton(M.E.T. Executive Director) to be serving on a task force where recommendations for future allocations, rates, and recycling programs that M.E.T. could directly or indirectly benefit from are being decided. In my estimation, this is a classic, cliche, case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
	Report Comment rememberme?, (9/21/2009 11:18:36 AM) the fact that this city charges for recycling is insulting. You get to PAY to sort your trash and then someone gets to make money off of it.
	Report Comment senor notas, Tulsa (9/21/2009 12:42:33 PM) You can take recyclables to several locations, why pay to have them picked up? The city can do all the studies and talk all they want. Until the Trash to Energy plant is brought back on line for our trash , Tulsa will remain un-green. T to E plant efficient, landfills NOT!!
	Report Comment rememberme?, (9/21/2009 2:04:31 PM) no kidding. The T to E plant is what we should have been using all along. It is PAID FOR!
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/21/2009 2:13:49 PM) The citizens of tulsa have to pay for the M.E.T. whether they use it or not, at least with city recycling only those who use it, pay for it. The city of Tulsa's annual portion of the M.E.T's municipal subsidies is $576,076 and in March they received an additional supplemental allocation of $60,000 while city employees are forced to take furloughs. Out of the M.E.T's 11 recycling locations, only 5(less than half) are in the city of Tulsa, while 2/3 of their municipal subsidies(10 municipalities and Tulsa County) totaling $839,000, are paid by the rate payers in the city of Tulsa. This is another example of the citizens, taxpayers and utility customers being forced to subsidize services in suburban communities.
	Report Comment irwindale, Tulsa (9/21/2009 2:48:54 PM) Why change a thing. If once a week was good enough for north Tulsa for the last thirty years it should be good enough for the next thirty. Besides those living elsewhere in Tulsa are happy with twice a week service.
	Report Comment neverOUtofstyle, (9/21/2009 4:42:24 PM) The A Team, your #'s are wrong. Half of Met money goes to collect hazardous waste at the fairgrounds collection (which is mandated by the federal government). Secondly, there are 12 recycling centers. Third, the Met received $310,000 for its recycling operation in the 09-10 budget. With that $, they supported recycling efforts AND employed 100 workers with disabilities.
	Report Comment Centrist, the burbs (9/21/2009 7:23:14 PM) The Trash Plant is up and running. It has been for the past year. It is burning trash from several haulers. They just need to get Tulsa back on board. Some of the mayoral candidates have toured the Plant along with the current Mayor.
	Report Comment CWG, Tulsa (9/21/2009 7:37:15 PM) We could cut our trash generation by two thirds if we weren't so lazy.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/21/2009 7:53:00 PM) That's the numbers the Tulsa World reported in an April 4 article titled "M.E.T. faces a revenue gap".
	Report Comment CWG, Tulsa (9/21/2009 8:16:26 PM) Take your unnecessary trash to your very necessary receptable.
	Report Comment Mar, Tulsa (9/21/2009 8:26:34 PM) "...An initial impression, Adelson said, is that because Oklahoma is so hot, he would be worried about reducing the frequency of trash collection because of public health concerns. ..." Oh brother. I am originally from a town in Kansas and they have once a week trash service using the very large wheel trash carts with lids and straps to keep lids on, which they started using them about 10 years ago. There has been no problem with health concerns and it gets very hot in that town. "...Green waste such as lawn clippings and leaves need to be looked at as an asset rather than something to be discarded, Adelson said. .." I do agree with this comment. "... "We need to make it all uniform citywide," he said. "The way it is now doesn't make any sense." Bartlett also said the trash service needs to be able to pay for itself and not subsidized with the city's limited financial resources." I also agree with this.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/22/2009 12:39:50 AM) Indeed, the M.E.T. has opened yet another recycling center outside of Tulsa(Coweta) while there is a city hiring freeze, city departments have faced cuts and workers have been furloughed. That reiterates and reinforces my point about Tulsa subsidizing suburban communities, btw. The pollutant collection event is open to residents of Tulsa, Bixby, Broken Arrow, Claremore, Collinsville, Coweta, Glenpool, Jenks, Owasso, Sand Springs and rural Tulsa County and it is overwhelmingly subsidized by the city of Tulsa, once again reiterating my point about Tulsa subsidizing the suburbs.
	Report Comment recyclemichael, Tulsa (9/22/2009 7:19:58 AM) It is probably stupid of me to get into a discussion with an anonymous poster who is clearly out to get me...but the information is so incorrect that I feel compelled to answer. The A Team is either ignorant or lying. The City of Coweta paid all the capital and operating costs of their center. The pollutant collection program is not overwhelmingly subsidized by the City of Tulsa. Each community is equally charged based on participation. I don't know who you are, but you are wrong.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/22/2009 11:59:01 AM) Are you taking a paycut or furloughs? How about your staff? I've noticed you spend quite a bit of time posting on various message boards, usually on topics completely unrelated to your job, during what are typically considered work hours, do you believe this good stewardship of the tax dollars you receive? The Tulsa world must be ignorant liars because that is where I got this info, btw. Serving on this Task Force is a clear conflict of interest, that will only serve to feed growing skepticism about this task force in the public's mind and cloud the public's perception of the recommendations it makes. I encourage you to put this task force above your own ego, do the right thing, and resign.
	Report Comment recyclemichael, Tulsa (9/22/2009 3:56:53 PM) I take back what I said, I do know who you are. This has nothing to do with recycling. This person just hates me. It was only a matter of time before he used the TulsaWorld comments section to attack me.
	Report Comment The A Team, (9/24/2009 3:06:00 AM) You are jeopardizing the integrity and credibility of the recommendations of this task force by serving on it. You should do the right thing and resign.
	Report Comment Outsidethebox, (9/24/2009 10:37:32 AM) Okmulgee is trying to land a new concept in the reuse/manufacturing sector. Rather than the recycle option offered through this new concept, when we approached current leadership in Tulsa we were told they would rather use the incinerator - may be some air quality challanges with that plan. Hopefully a new viable all green option may be avilable very soon eliminating all of this discussion.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.