Hauler Reform Bylaw Continues to Languish in Committee

Report on the Meeting of the Town Services and Outreach Committee (TSO), June 13, 2024

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. The recording can be viewed here.

Present
Andy Steinberg (Chair, at large), George Ryan (District 3), Jennifer Taub (District 4), who left the meeting at timestamp 58:45, Bob Hegner (District 5), and Heather Hala Lord (District 3), who joined the meeting at timestamp 58:45.

Staff: Athena O’Keeffe (Clerk of Council), Paul Bockeman (Town Manager), Guilford Mooring (Superintendent of Public Works)

Also: Susan Waite (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Technical Assistance Coordinator)

The two items on the agenda were the disposition of the proposed waste hauler bylaw and the proposed traffic calming measures;  all but the last five minutes of the meeting were devoted to the waste hauler bylaw.

Public Comment
Darcy DuMont offered a comment in support of moving forward with the waste hauler bylaw, noting that a move to a town contract with a hauler and adopting pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) and curbside pickup of organics could substantially shrink the residential waste stream while saving residents money. Read her full comment here. 

Summary
The members of the committee as well as the Town Manager all agreed that the bylaw proposal had been stuck in TSO a long time (more than two years) and that it was time to hand it off to the Town Council.

Though there appeared to be general approval of sending the proposal back to council with a positive recommendation, there was some confusion about what might remain to be done before that happened. The possibility of having more outreach or getting more input from the Board of Health were discussed but Councilors did not appear to think those actions were needed. Bob Hegner agreed that ongoing costs could be covered by fees, but he worried about how the town would fund startup costs. Susan Waite weighed in about grants that might be available for startup. The Town Manager noted that staff time would need to be allocated to answer remaining questions about implementation and that there are no staff currently available to take on that work.

In terms of process, the councilors were uncertain about when the proposal has to go to the Finance Committee, specifically, does it have to go there before or after being  handed off to the Town Council.

Near the end of the 90-minute discussion, Superintendent of Public Works Guilford Mooring encouraged the committee to vote the proposal up or down, indicating that they are unlikely to turn up new information to resolve their remaining questions and in fact, the answers they seek could be provided by at least two of the vendors who are already doing this work. He suggested that the best way forward if they want to pursue the goals of the new bylaw is to issue an RFP (Request for Proposal). No action was taken, but Councilor Ryan appealed to the rest of the committee to vote on the proposal at their next meeting.

Discussion
Susan Waite, the technical assistance director of the Massachusetts  Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the consultant for the town’s current Mass DEP solid waste grant (and also a resident of Amherst), offered some context for the changes that the town is considering.

She said, “What I do is work with municipalities in Western Mass., providing technical assistance about grants, helping communities gain access to information, and coaching them when possible, and making sure that they have the resources they need to make educated decisions about how they are going to handle waste in their municipality.”

“The whole reason my job exists is because we have some waste capacity challenges in Massachusetts. It used to be that towns were able to accommodate their own trash through local landfills or dumps. And then we started producing more and more trash. And right now, Massachusetts has a waste capacity challenge, and probably 25 percent or more of waste has to be shipped elsewhere because our landfills are full.”

She continued, “We only have five incineration facilities, and they are pretty much running at capacity. We just lost two here in Western Mass. So the capacity is a challenge. If we are reliant on shipping our waste out of state, it means that there will be transportation fees. It means that other states can charge whatever they want to. Our trash puts us in a vulnerable position in terms of transportation, access, cost of fuel, and all sorts of things. So what Mass. DEP is trying to do is get municipalities to pay more attention to what’s in their trash, to divert as much as possible from that trash.”

“We want to divert anything that’s reusable, recyclable, of value, and then dispose of the rest. That’s partly why I’m here. We are in a potentially vulnerable position, because waste disposal costs are going up. I’ve been dealing with some towns around Western Mass. who have recently signed hauling contracts and the tipping fees are going up, the fuel charges are going up. Everything is going up, and what happens when waste costs too much is you get illegal dumping and all sorts of undesirable behaviors.

“I also see this opportunity to address some climate change concerns. If we are pulling out materials and preventing heavy material from being shipped long distances, that’s going to make a big impact, especially if the material is of value and can be used locally to enhance soil health, etc. 

“One more thing that I just want to point out is that [your proposal]  leverages the concept of economies of scale in two ways. It allows more local power in decision making, using collective power to get certain things that you want. It also makes Amherst more attractive to providers, to have a large body of clients who are on the same page. Right now we have a subscription service in Amherst, so it’s kind of piecemeal for the haulers, but by getting a large group of people together and requesting specific services, that makes things easier and more cost effective for them.”

“So now the question is, are you going to make the move? What I can provide is information about other municipalities, and we can take a look and learn from other communities and see how this is done in other communities.”

Jennifer Taub said that she is ready to move on this bylaw, noting that it was one of the main issues that her constituents raised when she was first elected to the council and that they continue to emphasize it, saying it should  be prioritized.

George Ryan asked,  “How do you implement PAYT ”when most waste haulers are moving toward automation with a single driver in the truck and mechanical loading of trash bins.

Waite responded that while charging for individual bags is probably the easiest way to monitor a PAYT system, there are alternative approaches, including charging by the size and number of toters.

Robert Hegner wanted to know how compliance would be managed under the new system. He asked, “Would the town need to employ a garbage inspector to go around and look, peer into carts and see what people are putting in the recycling stream versus the trash stream versus the compost stream? It’s not clear to a lot of people what can and cannot be recycled and that would likely get even more complex with composting.”

Andy Steinberg asked about public education, noting that the town’s transfer station has posted great signage to guide users about its dual stream system.

Waite said that Mass. DEP has spent a lot of energy creating an education-oriented public-facing website called Recycle Smart MA. A visitor to the website can type in any item, and it will tell you whether and how it can be recycled. And there is information about where your recycling goes. Some or all of the guides are translated into 13 languages. “So there is a lot of information out there. It’s just a matter of getting it into the hands of the residents,” she said. In addition, the Springfield Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) has produced several education videos on solid waste issues.

Ryan asked whether, if the aim of PAYT is to keep the “trash cart” smaller, size should specifically be addressed in the bylaw.

Steinberg responded that the bylaw establishes the basic system, and the details would be set out in the solid waste regulations, which are the purview of the Board of Health

Bockelman offered his vision of how the implementation of the new program would proceed, saying that it would initially apply only to single-family homes (perhaps those and duplexes) and that other residences and businesses would continue to contract out privately for services.  This way, the town could mandate that the hauler provide curbside pickup of organics and could regulate the size of the bins.

Bockelman then raised concerns about how to figure out a detailed implementation plan and resolve things like who will collect the money, who will be responsible for hauler compliance, and who will take complaints. And if a new department is created to do this work, how will that get done? He pointed out that the town has had to manage growing pains that accompanied the creation of CRESS. While acknowledging that a lot remains to figure out, he concluded by saying, “We are all sort of in agreement with the goals and the strategies, so let’s lay out a plan to get there.”

Taub questioned whether the bylaw really requires a new department, whether much more really has to be done to move the proposal forward, and whether answering the remaining questions is actually onerous.

Waite acknowledged that these are big changes for the town — attempting to move from a subscription to a town-managed service and at the same time adopting PAYT and curbside composting, and that it will take some time to get everything in place but Mass. DEP can help. 

Ryan said he thinks that the things that need to be figured out are not the responsibility of TSO and should be left to the Town Manager or the Town Council.

Hegner was worried about startup costs, how they will be calculated and who will pay them. But in the end he favored handing those concerns off to the council. He said, “We all recognize that reducing trash is a value. We all recognize that removing organics is a key piece of the strategy for reducing trash. And then the question is, how do we get there? I think the tool the council is considering is a bylaw, and that’s a fine way to do it. And probably the best way, because you’re the elected officials making the decision on behalf of the residents as opposed to a Board of Health regulation. I think having our elected officials make this decision is the right path to go.”

Ryan noted that the committee has addressed many of the tasks set for it, with the exception of two things: the committee is obligated to hold a listening session on the bylaw — the public needs to be informed and have a chance to ask questions and offer feedback — and he wants to hear from the Board of Health, which is responsible for the actual regulation. He praised Zero Waste Amherst for its  community outreach over the last few years and reminded the rest of the committee that a previous incarnation of the Board of Health had enthusiastically endorsed the new bylaw. 

Athena O’Keeffe reminded TSO that the carryover memo from the previous TSO instructed them to get input from the Finance Committee before handing the bylaw off to the Town Council. Ryan disputed this, however, saying it is customary for the council itself to refer to the Finance Committee. 

Bockleman then added that there is no staffing at present to do any of the work that needs to be done, such as answering  the questions about implementation and developing a financing plan. He said that he hopes that the council will support financing the work that needs to be done, but cautioned against underestimating the cost.

Mooring reiterated  that  if the town wants to pursue the bylaw change, the best path forward is to issue an RFP. He noted that at least two of the vendors who responded to the RFI “run a very complete operation with the other communities they work for. They handle everything and they charge for it…they handle calls, they handle complaints, they handle billing. They provide the share that goes to the town. The town takes that share and does what it does with it what it will…you can set it up a million ways. But really, I think what you’re doing now is saying, yes, we’re taking the next step, or no, we’re done with this. That’s really where it is, I think, right now, because you can keep asking the question, and you can go back to the Finance Committee, [which] is just going to look at what we already did and say, well, these are kind of the prices. But we don’t know this and that, and you’re not going to get [the answers] until we say, yes, we’re doing it, and move forward with some people and put out a proposal.”

Steinberg concluded by calling the discussion fruitful, and promising to make sure that everyone on the committee has the latest version of the bylaw for the next meeting, and that the committee has to figure out the startup cost issue. Ryan said that he wants the committee to vote at the next meeting on sending the bylaw on to council. He asked the sponsors to put the draft bylaw in the best possible form and that it be sent to the members of the committee in time for them to really consider it. 

Traffic Calming
Hegner asked if the town can install flexible delineators on the proposed bike lanes on Belchertown Road (see also here) to better protect cyclists from motor vehicles. Mooring responded that flexible delineators don’t work well in this climate zone because they interfere with snow plowing