TSO Seeks Path Forward On Hauler Reform Proposal

Report On The Meeting Of The Town Services And Outreach Committee

Present
Anika Lopes (Chair, District 4), Andy Steinberg (at large), Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5), Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5). Absent: Dorothy Pam (District 3)

Also: Councilors Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Jennifer Taub (District 3)

Staff: Paul Bockelman (Town Manager), Guilford Mooring (Superintendent of Public Works), Amy Rusiecki (Assistant Superintendent Of Public Works), Athena O’Keefe (Clerk of Council)

Seven members of the public attended.

Hauler Reform
The agenda for the evening included a discussion of a work plan indicating steps to be taken to adopt a proposed new bylaw regulating trash collection in Amherst. At the start of the discussion, the prospects did not look great for moving forward with the original proposal (see here for PowerPoint presentation of proposed new bylaw). The creation of a new trash bylaw was originally proposed by Zero Waste Amherst nearly a year ago and the proposed bylaw has been endorsed by a dozen local organizations and committees including the Board of Health and the Energy and Climate Action Committee.  It would have the town contract with a hauler through a competitive bidding process and would require curbside composting as well as a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system that would tie residents’ trash costs to the volume of trash they produce. Sponsors (Councilors Andy Steinberg, Shalini Bahl-Milne, Jennifer Taub and Elllisha Walker representing the Town Council and Zero Waste Amherst (ZWA) representing the community)  suggest that the bylaw would cut the volume of trash going into the waste stream by as much as 50%, substantially reduce greenhouse gasses, and ultimately save Amherst residents money.

Town Manager Paul Bockelman said he did not see how the proposed bylaw would benefit the town, objected to taking on the work necessary to move the proposal forward, and vowed to not commit any town staff time to the effort until the Town Council orders him to do so. And Finance Committee Chair and TSO member Andy Steinberg, in his presentation of a work plan for the proposal, offered support for the general idea of reducing the waste stream but expressed skepticism about many of the specifics in the original proposal. But in the end, TSO appeared to agree to move forward with the original proposal (no formal vote was taken) by seeking a second Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) technical assistance grant (the first was undertaken nearly two years ago as a collaboration between ZWA and the Amherst DPW) and with the commitment of the sponsors to undertake additional research into best practices and to further explore what would work best in Amherst.

The Discussion
Steinberg thanked ZWA for their time and commitment in developing the bylaw revision and welcomed their continued involvement in the process. He prefaced his presentation of a work plan by noting the importance of reducing waste and adopting composting, and having the town take a larger role in this. He said that he asked to sign on late as a cosponsor of the bylaw because of the environmental impact that such a bylaw could have.  Steinberg then explained why he believes it is necessary for TSO to promote a somewhat different bylaw than the one originally proposed by ZWA, arguing that the committee has an obligation to consider what is right for the town. He said that right now, the town’s staff capacity is insufficient to incorporate the original proposal, and that people in government in communities of similar size to Amherst have told him  that the proposed changes would require a significant additional commitment of staff time, a commitment that Amherst is not in a position to take on. He said that he believes that the new system would be more costly, not less costly as ZWA has suggested, and was critical of ZWA for suggesting that costs would go down under the proposed new system, but  he didn’t offer any data to support his contention. Steinberg also said he worried about additional costs and labor that might be required for oversight and enforcement. However again, he didn’t address any of the specific comparative data that ZWA or the DEP consultant have provided. Finally, he suggested that a next step in moving toward reform would be to apply for more technical assistance, which is available from the DEP.

Two other co-sponsors,  Jennifer Taub and Shalini Bahl-Milne, spoke in favor of proceeding with the bylaw proposal as written, noting that the committee doesn’t have to speculate about the costs and benefits of the proposal, that these things are knowable, and that further research and comparisons with communities that have already undertaken similar reforms should resolve any concerns.

Taub reminded the committee that the motion from the Town Council that referred the proposed bylaw to TSO mentioned that the town would be working toward contracting with a hauler and that “the things that we are looking for would be obtained through a competitive bidding process. We’re not obliged to go that route if it proves not beneficial to the town but that’s the direction we have been tasked with,” she said. She added that the proposal in front of TSO is based on considerable study of what other similar-size communities have done and noted that the proposal has already incorporated input from Susan Waite from the DEP.

“Costs are going to go up from where they are now whether we change the system or not, but we need to ask, how do things look different when the town, instead of individual residents, contracts with the hauler —  – when you have the bargaining power of the entire town behind the negotiation?”

TOWN COUNCILOR SHALINI BAHL-MILNE (DISTRICT 5)

Bahl-Milne reminded the committee that last year, ZWA applied successfully for a technical assistance grant in collaboration with town staff. And the first part of the grant compared different options that the town migh undertake (see summary of results here). The conclusion of that process was that the town ought to contract with a hauler through a competitive bidding process. (This is different from the current process, where town residents contract individually with a single hauler, currently USA.) (Note:  At least one additional hauler has expressed interest in competing for the town’s business). Bahl-Milne noted that our household trash bills have already gone up substantially so that’s going to happen anyway.  “Costs are going to go up from where they are now whether we change the system or not,” she said, “but we need to ask, how do things look different when the town instead of individual residents contracts with the hauler — when you have the bargaining power of the entire town behind the negotiation?” She noted that seeking a competitive bid worked out well for Shutesbury and South Hadley. Under this process there would also be more transparency. “We’d be able to track how much trash is being produced by the town and how the interventions that we’re adopting [PAYT, curbside composting] are impacting the waste stream,” she said.

Steinberg emphasized that while advocates for the  proposal want it to move forward quickly, that will not likely be possible given the volume of business before TSO.

Taub countered that much of the work necessary for the proposal to move forward will be undertaken by the sponsors who also include Councilor Ellisha Walker (at large) as well as community sponsor ZWA. This will include the work of applying for a technical assistance grant from DEP and if successful, working with the consultant. And so she did not envision an onerous burden falling on TSO.

Devlin Gauthier asked what kind of work will be asked of town staff in moving this forward, and Bockelman responded that hauler reform was not established as a priority of the Town Council for 2020–2021. Town staff aligns itself with the stated goals of the council, he said, and he is not willing to allocate resources to it until it is adopted as a council goal. He also noted that the Energy and Climate Action Committee (ECAC) has not identified hauler reform as one of its priorities or a priority of  its Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CAARP). He added that “if it isn’t going to save the town money and if it isn’t going to help with our carbon action goals, then why are we acting on this?” and added, “If the council wants to identify hauler reform as a priority, then we can talk about town staff resources then, but not before.”

Bahl-Milne responded that hauler reform is indeed identified within CAARP (see below) and added, “ I don’t think that they have prioritized any of the things that they listed within the plan. I think the assumption has been that there would be town staff allocated to any aspect of the CAARP. And I think that we, the council, will indeed be identifying this proposal as a priority for the council and we ought not stop the process waiting for that to formally happen. And there’s a concern that there is great demand for Susan Waite’s time so we ought to move forward quickly.” She added,  “It’s simply speculation that costs to the town would go up under the proposed bylaw. We don’t know that it would cost more. So let’s take the steps to get more information and find out.”

In their  February 1, 2022 Annual Report to the Council, the Energy and Climate Action Committee wrote:

“Additionally, ECAC recommends the implementation of CAARP (Climate Action, Adaptation and Resilience Plan) Zero Waste Actions, based on the recent support by the Board of Health for moving forward at the current time. Mainstream Zero Waste Infrastructure and Programs, including transitioning the hauler system to include curbside compost pick up in basic service, a pay-as-you-throw fee structure, and local compost processing.”

Bockelman responded that he is OK with applying for the technical assistance grant but opposes allocating additional staff time to the proposal. He said he recognizes that other towns have adopted hauler reform with PAYT and curbside composting, and contracting with a hauler through a competitive bid process, but said, “We don’t have the staff to take on new projects.” 

Steinberg shared that one community mentioned in the data accumulated by the sponsors is Arlington, and said he has reached out to the Arlington town manager and the staff person who manages their solid waste collection. They reported that oversight of their trash system requires the equivalent of one full time person for a town of relatively the same size as Amherst. Steinberg asked,  “How would we fund that? Probably through an enterprise fund into which homeowners would pay.” He warned that we’d need to build the costs of administration of the system into the enterprise fund and said that we should not be telling residents that the costs of the new arrangement would likely be less for residents when that does not appear to be the case.

(Note: the staff time required to manage a similar system in Shutesbury, which is much smaller than Amherst, is far less than one full time equivalent and is incorporated into the duties of its comptroller with some assistance from the town’s Solid Waste Committee.)

DPW Superintendent Guilford Mooring noted that “we’ve been talking about this [proposal for hauler reform] for quite awhile and right now it seems like it would be a good thing to consider…but we might have to seek some funding to get to the next step.”

Taub added that we already know a lot about how this works in other towns. “Our community sponsors have done and continue to do a lot of research and have provided us with a lot of data looking at what other communities have done both within the state and beyond. Hopefully we can rely on their work to relieve the staff of some of the anticipated work. Maybe we can make progress in this fiscal year and establish it as a formal goal for the town manager for the next fiscal year.”

Bahl-Milne suggested that it would be a good idea if TSO could separate out what the individual sponsors can do in moving forward and what we’ll need to rely on town staff for.She proposed the committee commit to moving ahead with the technical assistance grant proposal to DEP.

Devlin Gauthier also  asked for clarity on who will be responsible for various aspects of the proposal and what will be the expectations  for demands on time for .

Bockleman said that the TSO and the council should let him know when hauler reform has been adopted as a council priority and then “it will be up to me to say what we’ll need from the town side to move this forward.”

Bahl-Milne offered that research will be done largely by the sponsors without a great demand on TSO members. “But we’re expecting that committee members will bring their own expertise to thinking about the information that is brought back to the committee by the sponsors.”

Chair Anika Lopes voiced concern that some members of the committee don’t have  time to take on anything new. Devlin Gauthier concurred. “I don’t know that I can make the commitment to help with any of this,” she said. Steinberg added, “We do have a lot on our plates and we will ask our community for patience as we work out the timeline.”

Taub responded that she’s not expecting TSO to take on the task of making this happen.  Community sponsors have already done and will continue to do a lot of the work. Bahl-Milne said that “anything related to safety, environment, or justice ought to come first.”

While no formal vote was taken on the work plan or  next steps, TSO gave the impression that they approve moving forward with town staff to apply for a technical assistance grant and to continue to move forward with research into the proposal, with council as well as community sponsors taking on the bulk of the work.

Water Regulation Bylaw
Devlin Gauthier moved that TSO recommend that the town council adopt the town manager’s recommendation for implementation and enforcement of water regulations. These recommendations effectively establish the town council as the town’s water commissioners, which among other responsibilities sets water regulations , while the town manager would implement and enforce  those regulations. The motion passed unanimously and without discussion (4-0 with one absent). The proposed new water regulation bylaw can be read here.

Public Comment

Tracy Zafian called attention to the upcoming public hearing  about parking on Lincoln Avenue and Sunset Avenue. She said that an anonymous flier was put on cars in the neighborhood asking people to show up and express concern about “the proposed parking ban”. She said that the flier contained incorrect information (e.g. there is a no proposal to ban parking, although some restrictions are proposed).  She asked TSO to put out a flier with accurate information that might damp down concerns that are being stirred up, and also asked for confirmation that the flier did not originate with any town body. 

Athena O”Keefe said she is familiar with the flier and confirmed that it did not come from anyone affiliated with the town.

Darcy DuMont spoke in support of the proposed hauler reform and expressed her hope that the project will move forward expeditiously. She reported that ZWA now has 25 volunteers committed to working on the sustainable neighborhood team program, and with a goal of about 75 volunteers to help the town do outreach for hauler reform and  other climate initiatives.

John Root, former chair of the town Recycling and Refuse Management Committee, thanked TSO for taking up the hauler reform bylaw. He said, “We created a solid waste master plan several years ago. The plan was considered but never adopted. The heart and soul of that master plan was removing compostable matter from the waste stream, so this is an opportunity to finally take up aspects of master plan recommendations. PAYT will also mark a major shift in public awareness of environmental impacts of solid waste policy. This is something that everyone can get behind so it has the potential to mend some of the political divisiveness that troubles the town.”