37 Responses

1. I thought John’s proposal was very well presented (both written and at the meeting last night). To me, they came across as a very responsible partner. But after attending the meeting and carefully listening to all the comments, I think I am more in favor of keeping this with the VPPPW. But, to be sure, a difficult decision for Dave and the board.

   Also, I’d like to see a detailed list of expenses that we will avoid, along with any revenue from the sale of equip, etc…., as a result of going private. I don’t think comparing current expenses vs future expenses is the correct analysis. Especially since there are so much shared resources within the VPPPW, as was explained last night.

   3

   3

   Reply

   1. We will no longer be on the hook for payroll, insurance (especially workers comp), repairs, maintenance, overhead, etc.

      7

      2

      Reply

      1. After the meeting I don’t understand why this is continued. Overwhelming support to keep collection in house. Not everyone in the village is anti worker and anti community. We had no problem ponying the money for our Police/Fire. We don’t have a problem supporting DWP and all the functions they perform for everyone living here. Everyone relies on DPW every single day, more than Police/Fire. All to chase some community destroying designed grant that runs out in 5 years, then what. Once it’s gone it’ll be hard to come back. And after all that’s the plan.

         This is a slap in the face for everyone living in Pleasant Prairie.

         14

         3

         Reply

         1. The proposal calls for higher village cost and could reduce snow plowing. Nothing to like. Oh, yes, John’s would pick up recycling every week.

            2

            Reply

   2. Read between the lines. Pollocoff was planning on slipping this past the public’s eye with the vote until it gained enough attention from the residents. He’s been doing these bullshit tactics for 40 years. And if anyone thinks this is about money and not POLITICS. They don’t have a clue.

      2

      Reply

2. I have had garbage and recycling from John’s, WM and municipal. From a service perspective they all do a good job. The savings to PP will be in operational expenses: fleet maintenance, fleet replacement, the recycle containers, but the savings of salaries and benefits will be the longest term. Please remember as taxpayers you pay one half of the workers pension. Right now that is 7.2% of each salary. That rate continues to go up each year. Is there a plan to let these employees assume other positions? Early retirement packages? Loss of jobs should not be taken lightly, but the cost to continue “as is” will continue to rise.

   4

   2

   Reply

   1. The cost of John’s goes up every year. Even the guy from John’s said a compelling case not to go with them. His word, compelling.

      6

      3

      Reply

   2. Most people in PP are working people. We see what’s going on here. A kick in the pants for all of us.

      8

      3

      Reply

      1. How so?

         2

         1

         Reply

3. Anything that Polloncoff backs smells worse than the inside of a garbage truck! We need to find someone to run against him

   12

   Reply

   1. JB pollocoff

      1

      Reply

4. How much is the recycle fee going to be alone??

   2

   Reply

5. The thought of seeing trucks rolling through the village and carts with “John’s” plastered all over the place is an aesthetic I wouldn’t be looking forward to…a constant reminder of anti worker, anti community.

   5

   2

   Reply

   1. lol hurt feelings?

      4

      2

      Reply

6. A spreadsheet attached to the meeting agenda showed that John’s proposal would result in a net annual cost increase of $360,000 in the first year, which would undoubtedly need to be paid for by village residents. The board deferred to make a decision on John’s proposal due to resident opposition. Perhaps in the next agenda packet we’ll see some re-cooked numbers in favor of John’s proposal. I would expect no less. After all, this is essentially the same Village Board that gave the Steinbrink family a multi-million dollar windfall in the sale of their land to an Indian-owned out of state development corporation that will build out a large volume of ticky-tacky housing for Ill-Annoy refugees fleeing that lawless narco-state.

   9

   2

   Reply

   1. The kicking of the can delay tactic so hopefully the residents will move on and let them undermine our DPW.

      7

      1

      Reply

   2. So excited for the change! It’ll be a great savings

      2

      4

      Reply

7. The anti community vultures are circling…

   1

   1

   Reply

8. Penny wise pound foolish. Even though privatization costs go up anyway. The zeal for saving a few pennies today undermines.

   5

   2

   Reply

9. There is a huge transparency gap here. The village had private service and it was scrapped because it was cheaper and more efficient to use village employees so an infrastrrucure investment was made. Now they want to scrap it and be at the mercy of a private contractor over whom they have no control. The proposal they are looking at does not seem like much, if any, of a cost savings to village residents who will be under the gun — again — if the private contractor fizzles on service.

   9

   1

   Reply

10. I would suggest you folks at DPW to look for another job. If the entire village showed up to support you, Davey will make an exciting call used iin baseball, YOU’RE OUT!

    1

    1

    Reply

11. Here is what the village staff is saying (note that the change would be more costly AND **reduce** snow plowing in the village):

    Item (per unit cost)
    Curbside garbage (weekly)
    Curbside recycling (weekly)
    Bulk item collection
    RRC collection Village owned sites collection
    Year 1
    $9.73
    $7.57
    $1.50
    $1.50 $0.95
    Notes:
    Per unit cost is based on total number of units across all categories.
    The Village will have additional costs that remain as part of the overall Village Solid Waste service associated with the RRC operating and expenses.
    Village Impact Considerations
    Solid Waste Division Cost
    In consideration of the current proposal costs and remaining Village costs, a preliminary analysis was completed to look at the overall Solid Waste Division net annual cost. The current analysis indicates that the net annual cost is greater by approximately $361,000 (year 1) with outsourcing than current operations, not considering any potential grant funding. A cost and revenue comparison detail is included in the Village Board Packet.
    Snow Plow Operations
    Solid waste employees currently play a role in Village snow plowing operations, which require the coordinated efforts of all departmental field crews. The loss of four employees would reduce snow plowing capacity and further restrict time off availability for staff during the November through April seasonal period.

    5

    1

    Reply

12. Every decision based on money is shallow and short sighted. And we’re talking not much money here folks.

    4

    2

    Reply

    1. ” we’re talking not much money here folks”

       OK we will assume you can cover it then.

       3

       3

       Reply

13. Didn’t the village also fire their comms department, only to outsource it to a third party company out of Chicago?

    If they keep eliminating all of these jobs/services within the village, where do you think those savings will go? It won’t be to the residents of PP. They’ll be left paying more and more each year for these privatized services.

    But I bet some high-ranking village employees will be giving themselves fat raises…

    9

    Reply

14. John’s disposal. Hmmmm. Probably John Jr’s company – it’s fine he will just use the villlage resources.

    3

    2

    Reply

    1. WRONG! Doofus.

       2

       3

       Reply

15. Pleasant Prairie has been home to me for a long time, and I respect the passion and dedication of the employees in our Solid Waste Department. That said, the service residents receive is not meeting expectations. This is not to the employees fault what so ever, it is to the Village for even letting their be its own Solid Waste Department to begin with.

    At the recent Village Board meeting, key cost details were not clearly presented to the public, including the $50 service charge just to schedule a bulk-item pickup, plus an additional charge depending on the item. In many cases, that can push a single pickup close to $100. When costs like that are factored in, it absolutely changes what someone’s “average yearly bill” really looks like, especially for residents who need one bulk service.

    On top of that, the discussion did not fully account for the broader costs associated with running the Solid Waste Department, including fees, service charges, fuel, vehicles, insurance, maintenance, staffing, salaries, and benefits. A true all-in number matters, and I believe many residents would be surprised by what the total cost actually is when everything is included.

    I also want to recognize the Board for asking questions and requesting more information before making a decision of this size. The fact that this isn’t being rushed solely due to a potential grant timeline shows a commitment to doing what’s best for the Village, not what’s fastest, easiest or most profitable.

    Some of the backlash I’m seeing online feels incomplete and heavily driven by emotion rather than the full set of facts.

    If we’re comparing services strictly “on paper,” the difference is hard to ignore: Joe’s offers weekly garbage and recycling pickup plus monthly bulk service, while the Village currently provides weekly garbage, bi-weekly recycling, and additional charges for bulk pickup. If the question that night was simply “which service is better on paper,” the answer was clearly Joe’s.

    I encourage residents to dig deeper into the full picture: the service levels, the real total costs, and the fees that often don’t get discussed until you need something outside the basics. I believe our Administrator is working to correct years of inefficient spending and service gaps and to find a healthier, more transparent balance that Pleasant Prairie residents deserve. Yes this sometimes means making decisions people won’t like.

    If you do not like what I wrote then answer one question: Why hasn’t the level of service been at what it should be? If your answer is not enough employee’s then you have no clue what a shortage of employee’s truly looks like. The true and only answer is the real cost of doing this business which the Village should of never started in the first place.

    0

    4

    Reply

    1. No one is reading this novel

       7

       1

       Reply

    2. The analysis above correctly points out that John’s proposal does offer weekly recycling collection as opposed to bi-weekly and more favorable costs for collection of bulk goods. However, this also ignores the big picture. For starters, the sliver of the proposed outsourcing that benefits a fractional number of users who have bulk items or more recyclables. For the average homeowner, however, you’d have to be getting a heck of a lot of Amazon boxes to fill the recycling cart every two weeks. The village’s own documents say that the proposal would actually be more expensive annually than the present in-house service. The above post complains about the service level of garbage collection now but I remember what it was like before the village took it over: erratic at times and becoming more costly. The village’s analysis was that it could be done more efficiently by village employees at a favorable cost. There’s much more to this but let’s pause for a moment because something else in the post deserves attention: the claim that the village should never have undertaken garbage collection.

       The real valid complaint here is that for years Pleasant Prairie has touted that village taxpayers pay less than our city neighbors. There’s some smoke and mirrors in that because garbage collection and recycling in the city is included in the overall property tax levy. Village taxpayers pay extra for this service (and it’s not even deductible on your taxes if you’re able to itemize deductions).

       The outsourcing proposal by the village’s own analysis is flawed. Once the village abandons its infrastructure and the initial contract expires, taxpayers are at the mercy of the private contractors. John’s proposal itself includes annual cost increases. It’s much more difficult to go back to the drawing board once you’ve thrown out your staff and infrastructure plus you lost local control.

       Finally — and this is a BIG point overlooked in the post — there’s PUBLIC SAFETY. Two things were mentioned in the village’s own analysis. One was the existing cooperation between the public works staff and the police department where garbage may become an essential piece of a confidential investigation. That, however, is small potatoes compared to the impact on snow plowing which will suffer because of the loss of four public works employees who also help with snow plowing. The village used to win awards for municipal excellence, including snow plowing. When was the last time that happened? As the village grows in size snow plowing has already taken a hit and more growth with less staff will further deteriorate a critical public safety service. That alone should make village taxpayers want to keep what we have as opposed to subsidize a small number of heavy users with a ton of recyclables and bulk goods.

       2

       Reply

       1. You’re not smart enough to come up with your own comments? You use AI? lol 😂

          3

          Reply

16. who are you and what is your position on Unpleasant Prairie Board?

    3

    1

    Reply

    1. Ha definitely not part of that! Just my personal observation, and $100 out of pocket cost for something to get picked up.

       1

       Reply

17. So does John’s actually recycle or just throw it in the hole like everyone else?

    3

    Reply

    1. Anyone that deals with waste disposal knows that answer 😉. Sorry tree huggers. Most recycling programs are a complete scam

       1

       Reply

18. Having read the proposal and the village analysis one thing that is sorely lacking — and suspicious — is the absence of due diligence. One huge example: checking references. It’s as if this was a done deal and nothing was done to assess the contractor’s performance in other communities (and also what is being charged there).

    1

    Reply

19. PP related. Thank God the power plant got torn down before this anti environment regime got in!

    Reply