The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992-01-08 Solid Waste Advisory Committee MinutesMINUTES OF THE SOLID PASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 8, 1992 The meeting was called to order at 7:43 P.M. Present were Steve Thomases, Don Anglehart, Trish Brigham, Carol Edwards, Sally Sabo, Anne Mark and Linda King. Also attending were Maryellen Becker, Bob Brown and Petra Conboy of Reading Recycles Plastics, and town liaison Ruth Cogan,; t. The minutes of the December meeting were approved. Recycler of the Month Linda announced that the January Recycler of the Month award will be presented to Cerratani's at 4 p.m., January 15. The store is receiving the award for its extensive recycling program, which now includes white paper. It was voted unanimously that Goddard Landscaping of Eric's Greenhouse would be the February Recycler of the Month. Goddard supplied the manpower to collect Christmas trees at the old dump site for 4 days. It is felt that the collection was much more successful than last year's collection in Woburn. (Carol will find out Goddard's estimate of trees collected.) Goddard was to chip the trees to make mulch. The criteria 'Carol drafted for choosing a Recycler of the Month were adopted with Sally's addition: " i. Demonstrated a creative or unusual approach to recycling." Carol will write up the final criteria and will keep an ongoing list of Recyclers of the Month for future reference. Linda will write an article for the local papers stating the criteria and inviting residents to.submit nominations to Ted McIntire, c/o DPW. Other Business Anne asked who will be going to Mike Shannon's Eagle Scout ceremony January 19. Anne, Ruth and Ted will attend the MRF workshop together January 9. Ruth announced that the town received a notice from RESCO saying that after December 31 it will not accept leaves. She suggested that the committee make an effort in April to educate residents that they can no longer put out leaves for Hiltz to pickup. Anne suggested that at the same time we should educate about composting. Hiltz has been bought by Waste Management, but the operation of trash collection and recycling will proceed as in the past. Selectmen's Meeting, January 8 Don, Carol and Anne (pinch-hitting for Steve) briefed the Selectmen January 8 on the committee's research on rubbish disposal options of (1) a transfer station, (2) privatization, and (3) volume-based fees. Most of the committee members watched the presentation on cable TV, and Sally's observation was that she didn't think the selectmen were very cognizant of the details. Steve agreed, and suggested the committee might help the Selectmen make a decision on how to proceed by sending them four guiding principles: Any action taken by the Selectmen should be consistent with: 1. Maintaining an option to privatize; 2. Encouraging reduction, e.g., pay-for-use instead of flat fee; 3. Encouraging recycling, especially in view of coming waste bans on glass and metals; - 4. Including pass-through costs in any determination of per-ton charges. The motion was passed to send these principles to the town manager in a memo saying the committee would use these principles in answering questions posed to us by the Board of Selectmen regarding future actions on solid waste issues. After much discussion about possibly adding another principle regarding choosing a disposal system that is viable, it was moved and passed that we would not send the memo, mostly because of the length of time it was taking to agree on wording and inclusion. Alternatives to Curbside Recycling Don suggested we have an additional meeting to discuss alternatives, and the committee agreed to meet Wednesday, January 22. This will be the sole topic, unless something more pressing presents 'itself. Recycling Survey A discussion of the results was postponed. Anne and Linda and still compiling the written comments. M E M O R A N D U M T0: Board of Selectmen FROM: Steve Thomases DATE: 7 February 1992 SUBJECT: Rubbish In coming to closure on the FY93 budget and the issue of Rubbish, in addition to the central question of how rubbish services may be provided and paid for, the following factors will need to be addressed: 1. State mandated bans on, acceptance of glass and metal containers (tin and aluminum cans) go into effect 31 December 1992, half way into`FY93. Official requests (from the City of.Worcester, for one) for delay have been denied. As a practical matter, Reading will have to recycle those materials then. 2. FY92 funding of recycling in Reading runs out on 31 March 1992. The nine month "gap" must be examined. It may be more expensive in the long run to suspend recycling than to continue it. If it is continued, the costs from 1 July can be budgeted or accounted for in the FY93 plan. The last quarter of FY92 remains a thorny problem. Can part of the $59,000 underrun in pass through costs for FY92 be used to cover the last three months of recycling? (3. months X $12,500 per month = $37,500 less reduced tipping of 3 months X 125 T. per month X t $24.00 per T. = $9,000 or $28,500.) 3. Recycling for FY93 needs to be explored. Psychologically, without a recycling program which offers some incentive to residents regardless of the way rubbish is dealt with, a comprehensive waste reduction program will have a very hard time being taken seriously. Should recycling be funded within the FY93 budget even if rubbish collection is privatized? If it is, the cost would be 12 months at $12,500 = $150,000 less reduced tipping of 1,500 T. at $24.18 per T. = $36,300 for a total budget requirement of $113,700. 4. Reduction of total tonnage must be encouraged by whatever solutions are .adopted. Pay-for-use must be accounted for so that residents can exercise some control over their own costs. Study by SWAC over the past year have shown that a per-container fee is the most commonly used and accepted method to implement this goal. SWAG should be asked to formalize a plan, ;along with. DPW and HHS. This should commence as soon as possible. This memo is a personal statement and not that of the SWAC. The SWAC has been patiently awaiting direction and/or instruction from the Board as to what issues and programs for which the Board needs to have better detail or more focus developed. I urge the Board to mobilize the resources of SWAC to address these issues. Mr. Eugene Nigro Chairman, Reading Board of Selectmen Dear Mr. Nigro, 24 January 1992 We are writing to express our dismay that the proposed town government reorganization eliminates the position of Director of Human Services. This position has played an important role in the Solid Waste Advisory Committee's work, because the Director has been one of our staff liaisons since the committee's inception, providing invaluable support, guidance, and expertise. This position has been one from which extraordinary productivity in the area of solid and hazardous waste has come: public education (to name just three projects: the educational efforts surrounding the recycling program itself, the development of the block leader program, and the follow-up recycling survey, all major undertakings), vendor research, implementation of town government recycling programs, the implementation of battery and tire collections, the obtaining of the MWRA hazardous waste collection grant, and very importantly, a central focus of advocacy for solid waste reduction and education programs. To lose a position that affords such scope for dedicated work in the solid and hazardous waste areas is, we feel, a matter of concern. This concern is all the more pressing as the proposed elimination comes at a time when Reading faces a pivotal decision regarding trash removal and recycling. As budget issues' (and all related implications such as the possible licensing of private haulers), the state "waste bans," and issues of regionalization continue to unfold, we feel the town needs a position in which expertise on these issues can be concentrated, and from which networking with industry and state agencies can be cultivated, in order to help the SWAC and other town officials evaluate trash disposal alternatives-- as has been the case under the current organization. The Director of Human Services, who by the nature of the position is concerned with the health and welfare of Reading's citizens, brings that perspective to solid and hazardous waste issues as well: a concern for the environment as it affects Reading residents, and a people-oriented view that is invaluable in successfully implementing programs that involve educating and motivating citizens to adopt new waste disposal habits. Again, as the town faces the possibility of dealing with its trash in new ways, the perspective afforded by this position seems to us to be of great value. There can be little doubt that a job is better accomplished by someone for whom it is a major focus rather than by someone for whom it is more peripheral. The SWAC has seen numerous examples of the need for concerted action on a particular project, and we have appreciated the professionalism and quick response we have enjoyed. We feel that much of this vitality and focus would be lost if the duties now performed by the Director of Human Services were to be divided. We are concerned that in the end, the town will lose productivity and that the cost will be greater. We are very appreciative that the Town Manager originally proposed instituting this position, from which the community as a whole (and the SWAC as apart of that community) have derived such benefit, and we strongly encourage that it be retained. Sincerely yours, Anne P. Mark for the Solid Waste Advisory Committee cc: Mr. Peter Hechenbleikner, Town Manager CALENDER 1991 RUBBISH TONNAGE RECYCLABLES TONS TOTAL TOTAL MONTH RESCO PAPER TIN AL GLASS RECYCLABLES- TONS JAN. 630.3 88.95 8.40 27.05 124.40 754.70 FEB. 529.1 83.12" 7.71 22.16 112.99 642.09 MAR. 679.7 93.40 7.85 23.08 124.33 804.03 APR. 674.8 98.11 7.27 25.02 130.40 805.20 MAY 757.3 99.95 6.65 23.17 129.77 887.07 .JUNE 944.5 94.10 5.02 21.36 120.48 1,064.98 JULY 640.1 83.90 5.72 21.91 111.53 751.63 AUG. 669.7 90.06 6.01 22.32 118.39 788.09 SEPT 981.7 90.99 5.68, 21.28 117.95 1,099.65 OCT.. 690.5 87.17 6.29 18.57 112.03 802.53 NOV. 669.2 89.21 7.10 18.76 115.07 784.27 DEC. 879.0 91.92 7.75 21.49 121.16 1,000.16 TOTAL 8,745.9 1,090.88 81.45 266.17 1,438.50 10,184.40 RUBBISH TONNAGE @ RESCO FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 JULY 996.9 1,022.7 976.6 1,039.8 749.3 640.13 AUGUST 1,004.6 1,011.7 1,022.0 1,024.1 806.2 669.75 SEPTEMBER 1,277.2 1,392.4 1,354.6 1,309.1 1,031.5 981.72 OCTOBER 1,105.0 1,249.5 1,073.4 1,085.0 658.5 690.58 NOVEMBER 1,307.8 1,385.2 1,435.6 903.1 626.3 669.24 .DECEMBER 1,434.5 1,256.1 1,327.6 1,045.3 765.0 879.06 JANUARY 832.6 810.3 827.0 840.0 630.3 600.20 FEBRUARY 697.2 737.2 735.4 710.1 529.1 MARCH 1,212.6 1,156.2 1,001.2 1,056.0 679.7 APRIL 1,350.5 1,338.3 1,139.9 1,034.7 674.8 MAY 1,405.8 1,365.7 1,317.9 1,116.8 757.3 JUNE 1,461.3 1,677.9 1,548.7 1,712.4 944.5 TOTALS 14,086.0 14,403.2 13,759.9 12,876.4 8,852.5 TOWN OF READING FY - 1993 BUDGET DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUMMARY: H7 PURCHASE OF SERVICES (FORM C) DIVISION: Rubbish Coll / Dosposal 312 DATE 10-Feb-92 ANNUAL ADOPTED TOWN FINANCE BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED MANAGER COMMITTEE (REVISED) EXPENDITURES (REVISED) BUDGET RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION FY - 1991 FY - 1991 FY - 1992 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 $ E S E S $ Collection 358,923 348,972 376,070 400,124 400,124 - Disposal 270,387 207,871 224-,640 259,935 - 259,935 Pass Through Cost ' 62,862 - 0 486,210 - 729,315 640,339 Professional Serv. 38,646 .38,646 38,646 26,000 26,000 Recycling • 168,774 168,766 127,738 0 0 Revisions (117,000) ------=T--- - - - S S $ S S TOTALS 782,592 764,255 1,253,304 1,415,374 1,326,398 0 TOWN OF READING FY - 1993 BUDGET DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUMMARY: H7 SUPPLIES (FORM D) DIVISION: Rubbish Coll / D osposal 312 DATE 10-Feb-92 ANNUAL ADOPTED TOWN FINANCE BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED MANAGER COMMITTEE (REVISED) EXPENDITURES (REVISED) BUDGET RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION FY - 1991 FY - 1991 FY - 1992 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 - E S S S S Public Education - 10,000 - - - - 5,023 3,000 - 3,000 0 $ $ $ $ $ S TOTALS 10,000 5,023 3,000 3,000 x - 0 0 TOWN OF READING FY - 1993 BUDGET DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUMMARY: H7 BUDGET SUMMARY (FORM A) DIVISION: Rubbish Coll / - - Dosposal 312 DATE: - 10-Feb-92 ANNUAL ADOPTED TOWN FINANCE BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED MANAGER COMMITTEE BUDGET (REVISED) EXPENDITURES (REVISED) BUDGET RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED SUMMARY FY - 1991 FY - 1991 FY - 1992 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 FY - 1993 $ $ $ ; PERSONAL SERVICES (FORM e) - 15,000 7,926 7,500 - 7,500 0 0 NONPERSONAL EXPENSES: PURCHASE OF SERVICES (FORM C) 782,592 764,255 1,253,304 1,415,374 1,326,398 0 SUPPLIES (FORM D) 10,000 5,023 3,000 3,000 0 0 OTHER CHARGES (FORM E) - 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL NONPERSONAL EXPENSES 792,592 769,278 1,256,304 1,418,374 1,326,398 0 CAPITAL OUTLAY (FORM F) 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ TOTALS 807,592 777,204 1,263,804 1,425,874 1,326,398 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - FINANCING PLAN: $ $ $ $ S $ GENERAL FUND 807,592 777,204 777,594 696,559 0 WATER FUND SEWER FUND . ELECTRIC FUND FEES 1.0Z TOTALS ,210 729,315 807,592 777,204 1,263,804 1,425,874 0 0 TOWN OF READING FY - 1993 BUDGET DEPARTMENT: PERSONAL SERVICES (FORM B) DIVISION: Public Works SUMMARY: H7 Rubbish Coll / DosposaL 312 DATE: 10-Feb-92 ANNUAL ADOPTED TOWN FINANCE BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET PROPOSED MANAGER COMMITTEE PERSONAL SERVICES (REVISED) EXPENDITURES (REVISED) BUDGET RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED CLASSIFICATION # FY - 1991 FY - 1991 # FY - 1992 # FY - 1993 # FY - 1993 FY - 1993 - $ $ S - S Overtime-Compost 15,000 " 7,926 0.3 7,500 7,500 0.3 0 $ E S S S S TOTALS 0.0 15,000 7,926 0.3'' 7,500 0.0 7,500 0.3 0 0