Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-26 Government Operations Committee Minutes Government Operations Committee January 26, 2010 Minutes Councilor Attendance: Wheeler, Gratwick, Palmer, Blanchette Staff Attendance: Nicklas, Hupp, Ring, Wardwell, Hughes Others: Member of the Recycling Committee, Kathy Guerin, Nick Bearce, Others, Eric Russell, BDN Committee Chair Wheeler opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. 1. Airport Committee Nicklas began by reminding the Committee that an Airport Committee existed before 2000 and, prior to that, the Committee was disbanded with the duties being assigned to the Business & Economic Development Committee. Later in 2003, the Airport issues were assigned to the Infrastructure Committee. The Ordinance under discussion would establish the Airport Committee as a standing Committee of the City Council. Wheeler had recommended this action stating that it would give the Airport, which is the City’s largest enterprise operation, a home base from which to operate in terms of its relationship with the Council. He recognizes that from time to time the Airport Director meets with B&ED, Finance and/or Infrastructure depending on the nature of the item. There is nothing in this Ordinance that would prevent the Airport Committee from referring items to other Committees as required. He feels that it would be more comfortable for the Airport to have its own Committee and meet on a regular basis. This has been referred to the full Council with a recommendation for adoption. 2. Recycling Committee Report Ring referred to an October 2009 Council Workshop dealing with potential changes that might be seen in the overall management program including the curbside rubbish collection and recycling. By passage of Council Order 09-316, the Recycling Committee and Staff were asked to explore and identify alternatives that the City might want to consider. Ring said that the group that worked on this believes this is the most realistic or viable alternative that the City might consider. Ring introduced Kathy Guerin, who noted that for the past few years the Recycling Committee and City staff have explored ways to make Bangor’s Recycling Program more efficient. Single stream recycling is now offered by at least two companies in Maine. As these programs have developed, information and data have been continually changing Guerin also pointed out that during this time these businesses have heavily solicited the communities that bring recyclables into Bangor for processing and are endangering the most significant portion of Bangor’s Recycling revenue stream. As a result, Bangor may not have the luxury of waiting another year to make decisions on how the recycling program should change. She said that the data from this report is taken from the Maine State Planning Office which oversees and measures Bangor’s solid waste and recycling progress. Bangor is mandated by State Statue to report annually to the Maine Legislature. This report will put into perspective the larger issues in the environment from which the recommendation comes from. Guerin pointed out that Maine residents and visitors generated over 2 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2007, which is up 3% from 2006. Waste generation is a function of many different types of things such as population growth, lifestyles, and economic activity, and manufacturing and production practices. Recently, waste generation had leveled, but it is on the rise again. The waste generation per person in Maine is way above the national average. The average Mainer generates about 3200 pounds of municipal solid waste a year, which is 8.8 lbs per person per day. The national average is 4.6 lbs per person per day. Guerin continued to cite specific statistics from the report handed out. The State is now challenging Maine communities to reduce waste generation by 5% every two years. She spoke of the State initiatives to help advance recycling in the near future. To achieve a 50% recycling goal would require municipal and private sector recycling programs to handle 300,000 tons more of material based on what is generated today. This number is expected to grow each year. Over the next 20 years, simply to maintain the States current 34.8% recycling rate will require public and private programs to double their recycling and handling abilities. She spoke of two recycling options for the City. The first is called “Cost Shifting” which is often referred to as “pay as you throw”. This is when the curbside collection remains unchanged and the residents purchase special trash bags at local retail outlets. The trash generated is paid for through the purchase of these bags. Households are more likely to be conscious of the waste they generate and how much they can recycle to reduce the trash they dispose of. The City realizes revenue from the sale of the bags and the revenue may help to offset the cost of the collection. Guerin said that in 2006 there were 70 towns that had implemented this fee for service program. The other option is the “Single Stream” recycling. This means that recyclables are still picked up curbside and all recyclables are put into the blue bin but not separated at the curb. This requires the City to sort at the curb and the truck will have different compartments and the driver and worker will sort it. The loose recyclables are consolidated locally and then transported to either Portland, Maine or Auburn, MA depending on the contractor. The recyclables are then sorted with a semi automated system and then put into bales and then marketed. A revenue share on the sale of recyclables could offset some of the collections and transportation costs. She pointed out that a benefit would be the ease for residents, for pick up, and the City would see a cost savings. There would also be an increase in the recycling rate because this would allow the City to take more products. Currently, the disadvantage for collecting box board and more plastics is the lack of compartments on the trucks. This would give Bangor the opportunity to close the processing center, eliminate on-site processing costs, and sell the bailer. The disadvantages to this system are how costly it is to process off-site. There is huge capital involved in setting one of these programs up and whoever takes on this project will want their costs covered. It is also costly to transport loose materials to Portland and even more so to Auburn, which is 300 miles away. The quality of the finished product is very substandard and a considerable loss of revenue from the sale of goods because of it. Another disadvantage is when Bangor loses control over its revenue and processing costs because someone else is doing it. If the City does not like the contractor, the bailer has been sold and other communities are no longer coming to Bangor, it will be difficult to take control back. Gratwick commended Guerin pointing out that she has a long 20 year history on recycling both local and on a State level. He asked if the Committee should go out and ask for RFPs for these different alternatives in order to have data. Wheeler pointed out that the Committee will not take any action today but should give the City Engineer and his staff the Committee’s opinion. Blanchette pointed out that the City is entering into transitional phase again. She reflected on the past when the City gave up the control of trash pickup and went to Sawyer Environmental and created a lot of uneasiness with Bangor residents. Once the control is given up, she feels that it is very hard to get it back. Bearce spoke about all the advantages to these programs stating that the businesses in the City of Bangor are subsidizing the home owner as far as rubbish pick up. He pointed out that this service is something that the homeowner receives but not the businesses. If the ‘pay as you throw’ program is adopted, the businesses can take advantage of it as well and will no longer be subsidizing the homeowners rubbish pickup. Ring referred to the packet and pointed out specific information and figures for the Committee. (See packet attached) Ring stated that the recommendation of the Recycling Committee and the Staff is that the City should look at several long term objectives in solid waste management. The City should evaluate Single Steam as an option, evaluate a user pay program, and also explore Recycling Collection by contract. He recognized that changes are a challenge and if the City feels that it is in the best interest to effect the change, it needs to be recognized that it will require time to educate the public and arrange contractors to provide the new service. Staff’s experience has always been that contracting the service works better in a long term contract. He pointed out some additional recommendations that were more short term. One thought would be to negotiate a 1 year contract extension with Pine Tree Waste. Staff has had some initial conversations with them, and Pine Tree seems to be receptive to that idea. Assuming that, staff recommends a favorable contract extension for a 5 year rubbish collection for the current curbside collection and for automated rubbish curbside collection with containers. Staff also recommends RFPs for a five-year recycling collection contract for curbside sort recycling, single stream curbside and automated single stream recycling curbside collection with new containers. Staff recommends that these RFP’s be done as soon as possible in order to have them back before the beginning of next year’s fiscal year. If services are provided under these contracts, Ring assumes it will become effective at the beginning of the following fiscal year. Monique wondered about composting and stated that it has been discussed as an unutilized tool. She understands that the State is looking for communities to take pilot composting programs. Jerry Hughes spoke about this pilot program indicating that the State is looking for a site for regional composting. Ring said although he agrees with Monique and thinks that the City should pursue it, these other services would still be required and need to be pursued as well. He said that when the recycling program began, it was encouraged to participate in back yard composting programs. He said that what he is hearing today is more of a regional composting effort and more information needs to be obtained. Nick spoke about the RFPs noting that there will need to be some education on the cost shifting or the pay as you throw. He said this is not something that should be handled by staff and that experienced people are needed to help. He also stated that there is very few contractors near this part of Maine that can do rubbish pick up. He suggested splitting Bangor into an East side and a West side with the hope of having more contractors able to handle half the City and submitting RFP’s. Ring worries that the level of service would be perceived as different when having more than one contractor. Gratwick made a motion that the Government Operations Committee accepts the recommendations that have been presented by the staff to go out for RFPs as listed. Palmer seconded the motion and said that there is a lot to process and pointed out that things are constantly changing such as the economy, fuel costs, etc. He also applauded the work of the Recycling Committee and would like to see this expanded to other members of this community. He said that residents need to be educated and is concerned with families with varying levels of income if a Pay as You Throw system is implemented. A person with means will be able to throw anything away, but lower income families might move and leave all their trash behind. He believes there is a lot to work out and thinks that there should be a reward system for those that recycle. Ring reiterated that the approval from the committee allows staff to pursue discussions to negotiate a favorable one year contract extension for the rubbish collection and to issue RFP’s for 5 year contracts for both rubbish collection and recycling collection with the options that were outlined in the report. Ring also recognized the amount of work that the Recycling Committee has put into this. Adjourned at 6:30 p.m.