Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Live reporting - legislation

1. Resolution 10-06: Acceptance of Gift- Franklin Library
motion to accept, seconded - passed 8-0

2. Bylaw Amendment 10-641: Chapter 82; Appendix A: List of Service Fee Rates, Solid Waste and Recycling Fees – 2nd Reading
motion to accept, seconded

(copy of cost comparison to be added later
copies of the three motions by the Recycling Committee)

Pfeffer - the committee voted to not increase the Beaver St fee
Nutting - yes, we are loosing money there and would like to get closer to break even

Pfeffer - how many stickers do we sell?
Nutting/Cantoreggi - about 2,500

Vallee - I will not support this fee increase as it will be a deterrent to recycling

Powderly - a couple of questions, first; a clarification on the bulk items being put out, there is no cost to the residents if the amount was above or below the forecasted amount
Nutting - that is correct

Powderly - second question; what if some residents can't physically manage these totters/bins?
Nutting - we'll be able to handle them but let's go with everything the same to start. We'll be able to offer a smaller one after a reasonable time to try the system.

Pfeffer - would there be a different fee for the smaller device?
Nutting - no, the fee would be the same for either size

Zollo - summary of what he is hearing
1 - promote recycling
2 - promote recycling in a cost effective manner
spreadsheet shows comparison of current system versus new system, current is $100,000 more than the new system

Nutting explains about the cost of the bins/totters is estimated as being paid off over the first five years, after the fifth year, there would be a further savings of about $19 per resident. The totters have at least a ten year life, likely beyond that so we'll save further money.

Zollo - I am having a hard time understanding why this would not be a benefit to the town and its citizens?

Kelly - How would the totters/bins would be distributed?
Cantoreggi - The contractor would distribute them to the residents

Mason - what about the maintenance, wheels falling off, etc.?
Cantoreggi - yes, there would be some damage from misuse, we have factored in $25,000 to cover the damage. We will have spares and parts available.

Whalen - the concept of imported trash, can you explain that?
Cantoreggi - Franklin has a curbside collection program, most of the surrounding communities do not. Imported trash is basically folks from other communities bringing in their trash to put on our curbs where we would pick it up. Millis has to pay a $1.50 a bag to dispose of it. They can save by coming here. It is hard to put a quantitative number on it. The bigger weight savings we'll get is with the lid, we would save on water weight.

Nutting - under this system, with bulk items, you'd still have to call and let us know they have something to pick up. It would be a separate truck to come by.

Jones - What about the existing barrels and recycle bins?
Cantoreggi - we would recycle them at Beaver St. One of the programs that Chris implemented at Beaver St was for recycling the large plastics. You can do the large kids toys, etc. that way.

Jones - I have two 65 gallon bins of my own, is there anyway to insert them in the system? I am all for recycling that is a good thing. I am looking to make this as easy as possible.
Cantoreggi - Ours are colored and have a tracking system in them.

Pfeffer - only the people that are paying for trash will be getting totters/bins?
Cantoreggi - yes, we've scrubbed the listing. It will be easier to track going forward with the tagged bins.

Vallee - Every other meeting it seems to me that Mr Nutting comes in here proposing a tax increase, it is disguised as a fee but it is a tax. The people outside are getting anaything, in fact their loosing their jobs. There are 2,000 families that are making less than $35,000 per year. There are 8,000 families making between $35,000 and $49,000. I will not support a tax increase whatsoever.

Dan Innauzzi (?) - On the bulk burnables, the proposal was for $25, did it change for the large items?
Nutting - We negotiated a flat fee rather than accept his proposal. That was his original proposal, it doesn't mean we have to accept that.

Dan Innauzzi - We are reducing the services as well as the cost so it not apples to apples.

John King - Is there a cap?
Nutting - the cap is that we have a contract that they will live to, they are not taking any risk in this. They have all kinds of statistics based upon what they do for a living.

John King - What is the number of bulk burnable items?
Nutting - There is no limit. There is about 1700 per year for the town. There is no risk in the current system, there is no risk in the new system.

John King - I would like to note that there is probably a risk in the future. Are we not essentially going from an unlimited recycling system to a limited recycling system?
Zollo - Single stream dramatically improves the recycling. All gets into one bucket, it is easier. The odds that we would increase the overall amount in the one container.

Nutting - with the totter its effectively four of our bins today that would go out each week. In all our research, we have seen nothing in this area as an issue.

Mason - I mentioned that I have been given one of the new totters to try out. I have found that I have not been able to fill this.

Peter Lopes - I have been very happy with the current contract. Is this a one year contract?
Nutting - No, this is a multiyear.

Lopes - Why wouldn't you count the 15%  reduction against the current contract? I think that defies logic.
Cantoreggi - the 15% is a forecasted reduction and actually a conservative number

Lopes - I think it is a bad time to be borrowing $800,000 with numbers that someone is guessing at. The numbers don't really mean anything if there just a guess.

Dellorco - I am very happy with the current system as it is. I worry about the $11 evaporating very quickly. For the sake of $11 I don't see the sense of changing. If every month or so, you put out an extra bag, the savings goes away. My understanding is that you can do single stream without the use of the totes. Was that pursued?
Nutting - no

Dellorco - it would save us the $800,000 and I am sure the current provider would be able to do this and save the money right away.

Mason - you're talking about an apples to oranges comparison, the bid that went out was for an automated trash pick up.
Dellorco - so there was no bid for single stream without the automation

Zollo - Is the current system single stream? did the current provider bid on the automated bid?

Nutting - yes, there were three bids, he was the highest. We started talking with them a year ago. It is quicker, faster, cheaper in the long run. Won't have as much blown litter down the street. You can't put a dollar value on some of these items. We would be the 22nd or 23rd community in the state to do this. We are not the first to do this.

Gene Garella - Chairman of the Recycling Committee
The trash budget is set up as an enterprise account, it is separate from the Town budget. The $800,000 would not detract from the Town budget, the schools needs, etc. The trash fee payers would be paying for this. The more we can recycle, the more we can reduce the trash and save on the tipping fees. I looked at this system to see that the costs would go down, otherwise the residents would not approve. We provide more convenience. We are buying them barrels that they would have to pay on their own.

Randy Davis - experience I had in Atlanta with the same contractor where I was on the homeowners board. They promised the same thing, we saw it the other way. The costs went up and we were stuck with the totes. What we saw it didn't change peoples habits. They were charged extra for the extra amounts they were putting out.

Mason - the fee is negotiated as part of the contract so it can not go up. other than the contracted price.

Powderly - any idea on how MA might be different?
Davis - That was ten years ago, maybe people have become more green.

Roger Sertivant (?) - I have purchase nice trash barrels recently and they might be recycled. At the end of five years, if this doesn't go forward, wouldn't we be needing to get new trash barrels or get another vendors barrel. To me the big problem is doing the separating, if I do it all it one it would be easier.

Nutting - the Town will own the barrels, so we will own them.
Mason - They are a standard design, more than one vendor uses these.

Jay Fredkin - I agree with a lot of the information.
1 - 800,000 bothers me, I would consider using what we have
2 - the bulk negotiations were done with the leading vendor why not with all three?
3 - you should let the vendors do some creativity, ask them for best and final, make sure there is some transparency across the board.

Zollo - let's just the accept the spec, the bidding process is best and final. The bid process produced difference that were not immaterial. All things would produce a net savings in the new system. Under the current system it is what it is. The current system does not produce. With the new system, the provider has made some assumptions that says there will be some reductions.

I am hearing wide discrepancies on the bulk items.

Citizen (TBD?) - Was there an override question on pay as you throw?
Nutting - Yes, in 2003.

Citizen (TBD?) Why aren't we doing that now?

Michael Galvin - the current contractor and a resident came in to comment
I can do single stream with existing trucks and save on the new trucks.
Something changed in the last week, Waste Management had bid $25 and now it is a flat rate? Something changed. It doesn't make sense.

Trying to pick out aspects of the system will break the system
Trust that the guys will work this system

Powderly - If we put it back out to bid, single stream, using our existing bins, without automation. The totters also bring cost control and reduction with water weight. There is a benefit not just because of single stream.  Would the benefits of a manual single stream system would outweigh the automated.

Citizens - imported trash, there is a massive assumption that the path to the street is level and clear. It also makes an assumption that at the end of this contract, we would still have the same system with the same barrels. We should embark on other ways to increase recycling. There are additional consumer constraints. I believe this chart is false and should be set aside.

Whalen - I gave a lot of thought to the elderly on how would implement this system. I have used and tried the barrels that were on display, They were extraordinarily easy to maneuver.

Jones - the single stream, whatever is in the barrel is assumed to be recycled?
Cantoreggi - yes

Jones - how would that catch items that shouldn't be recycled?
Cantoreggi - I can't sit here and say what people are going to do. It is an automated truck process. I haven't heard from others about that problem. The biggest problem is the solid waste. There were other proposals, pay as you go, etc. We were asked to come up with a single system. And we have.

Nutting - those items would get caught at the processing center.

Citizen (TBD?) - I have had my trash held and not picked up because it contained something it shouldn't.

Whalen - I was being relative in my assessment. Bending over and picking it up, versus tipping it back and rolling it, it is much easier and less risk of injuries.

Maxine Kinhart - I am single, with children, the wheeled unit changed my life, it is much easier. This is going to make my life a lot easier. I didn't hear that scenario said at all.

Robertson (?) - every week you have trash, seeing this coming in to save me a few bucks. I have two trash bins and they are full. How is this new plan really going to benefit people? I don't see the upside for certain holidays. The current system is flexible, I don't see how this will provide a benefit.

Mason - I am not a big fan of change especially when it is change for the sake of change. We are charged by the voters to be fiscally prudent. To me this is a no brainer, we are reducing trash, we are increasing recycling, I don't agree with not raising the Beaver St fee.

We have a motion on the table.

Powderly  can I make a motion to amend?
Nutting- the Beaver St fee is in the DPW budget, it is not in the enterprise find.

Vallee - what is the amount of the surplus and what do you propose to do with it?
Nutting - I would use part of the surplus to reduce the fee at budget time.

Role Call
No- Jones, Vallee
Abstain - Pfeffer
Yes - Kelly, Mason, Zollo, Whalen, Powderly

passes 5 (yes) - 2 (no) - 1 (abstain)

No comments:

Post a Comment