Town Services and Outreach Committee Sep 17, 2026

We're recording. Please go ahead. >> Thank you. So, good morning. It is Thursday, September 17th and 2026. This is a regular meeting of the town services and outreach committee. Chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extended through June 30, 2027 give public bodies like this the ability to hold meetings remotely. This meeting is accessible in real time via Zoom and by phone and is being recorded. I'm going to begin first to make sure that everyone on the committee and our guests can be heard. I'm going to start with Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> U Jennifer Tob. >> Yes. >> Uh councelor Lord >> present. >> Okay. And councelor Churchill is absent today. He has a family matter. We also have uh Mimi Kaplan. Mimi, if you could just check in. >> Yep. Hello. >> Thank you, Mimi. Um and uh Paul Bachmann, our town manager, is present. >> Good morning. >> And Amber Kenna Martins, one of the sponsors, is joining us today as a panelist. Amber, >> good morning. >> And we also have Guilford Moing in the background there who will be with us. and of course as always our council clerk Athena O'Keefe. Um >> morning. >> So we're going to begin. So if you take a look at the agenda, we begin with public comment in just a moment. Um we're going to then turn to continue discussion of the uh waste hauler request for proposals, the decision points which we had a good discussion last time. We have um one town manager appointment that we will be reviewing and I will give a very brief update on uh the RAAC advisory committee survey of town boards and committees. We have a couple of minutes to approve um and this time the chair actually um has them in front of him which is good. Um and then we'll talk about future agenda items. So there's no plan change to the agenda. Um I'm going to begin first with public comment. Public comment is welcome on matters within the jurisdiction of TSO. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. When recognized, please state your name and where you live. Um, do we have anyone? I have to open my own. I see one attendee with her hand raised and that is Darcy Dumont. So, Darcy, if you would please unmute and speak for three up to three minutes. >> Okay. Hi. Um, good morning. My name is Darcy Dumont. I live in district three and I'm commenting on behalf of zero waste Ammerst. Um, this will be short. Zero ZWA has uh previously commented on the RFP topics on your agenda today. Uh, so please refer to those comments that are um I will send this to all of you and you probably already have it. Um those previous comments especially important in Mimi Kaplan's document presented for today's meeting are her additional comments at the end um of the chart around timing and process of implementation. CWA strongly urges both the adoption of a bylaw to provide a framework for the program and clear board of health regulations to provide more guidance for haulers around the details. I also want to thank counselors Ryan and Tob for attending the D meeting on residential curbside compost pickup. Um and Mimi and Susan of course. Um, it was exciting to hear how the state is seriously discussing the implementation of residential curbside compost pickup and a ban on organics and the waist stream. Um, so uh you I will send you the rest of the the written comments that we already submitted. Thank you. >> Thank you, Darcy. Um I see no other hands up and so um that will end public comment. I wanted to start for a moment um before we turn to decision uh just Darcy mentioned this in in her comments. Um a number of us did attend the uh organic subcommittee. I know Jennifer was there. I was there. Um I believe um um Mimi was there. Uh any particular takeaways or thoughts from that? Um Jennifer? >> Well, yeah, just that we are getting ahead of the curb. I mean, uh, all that we are trying to accomplish with our our proposed bylaw is what where the state is working towards that where it will be required at some point in the future statewide for composting and um and they will have actual benchmarks and st and standards for you know how much of organics has to be diverted from the waist stream. But they did talk about you know there they are very sensitive to rolling this out in such a way that the the public will there will be a lot of education and it will be rolled out gradually. So this isn't they were they were very sensitive to how this would be received by the public and and that this was a huge change but it's a direction that we we need to go in. Mimi, I don't know if you had a chance to attend or if you had any thoughts or takeaways. >> Yeah, unfortunately I had to leave before they really got into the heart of it for an appointment. So, they they do record them and they do um it will be on the website, so I'll watch it as soon as it's available. >> But no, that's fine. I just wondered if you had a chance to to attend because it was a long meeting. Um >> Susan attended and I don't know if you know this, she she had a conflict this morning. She's going to jump on at 11, but >> Okay. All right. Okay. >> Um I was struck and what I heard Pam, please. >> Sorry. If someone could share the link to that recording, that would be very helpful. Thank you. >> All right. I was struck by um kind of echoing what Jennifer said that um they seem very sensitive to what they're proposing. Um and I at the very end I got language like well it's clearly going to take time. um it's more uh setting expectations um and be more of a form of guidance than a compulsory mandate was the sense I got at least initially and now maybe I was misharing that near the end um but clearly they're moving in this direction there's no question it's definitely going to take time um but it seems that even when it's finally rolled out um I got the impression and Mimi maybe this is just me that it would be more in the form of guidance and compliance standards. There would really be a tremendous amount of enforcement. Um, and enforcement always is a challenge, I think, for any of these programs. But, and the other thing they mentioned some kinds of machines. One of the the commenters discussed devices that some towns have that allow residents I don't know if they're if they can access the machines at a common place or whether they help them buy them, but they can take um uh you know food waste and compress it and it uh then allows them to dispose of it either on their own or at a at a site. Um, but it it reduces uh smell and anyway that was struck by I don't we may want to look into that see if that's even possible in in our community. Um, but they seem the commenter suggested they found some success with that. Um, and while it does allow people to dispose of it in their trash, which is concerning, um, the commenter pointed out that it also reduces odor and it's perfectly allow someone to put it. Um, so if you're, you know, have weeks go by before you can access your compost. Um, and they mentioned a couple of names of these kinds of machines. Are you familiar with that sort of thing? And does it have any, is there any reason to look further into that? Um, that's the other thing I just picked up other than the, you know, they have lots of ways and you know this better than anyone, um, to get funding. Um, they talked a lot about various funding um, mechanisms, etc. But did that did are you familiar with these kinds of devices that apparently you can use to compress food waste and and then later you can dispose of it. >> I have not heard of that and I missed that piece of it but I would be happy to look more into it. >> No, I mean it's I don't want to use up your time but I can look into it as well but I don't know if Jennifer was struck by that. Um, I got the names of a couple of the uh uh the the machines that they they mentioned. Um, anyway, that those are the takeaways I had and it was very informative. Um, John Fischer is very impressive. Um, he certainly seems to be and his staff seem to be well on top of things and they're taking a very uh thorough and broad picture. So, that I'm Thank you for letting us know about that, Susan Wait. um thank you for encouraging us to attend and we will make the link available to other committee members. So I want to go now to the uh previous discussion briefly just to review it and then move on to our next um set of items we need to discuss. And one of the reasons I want to go back over our previous discussion um Mimi is that we did not have um access to your memo um last time we met. And so, um, everyone now has had a chance to read it. And I felt there were a couple of, uh, things in there that we either didn't get a chance to talk about as much as I would like. We could come back to them later, I suppose. Um, and there also might have been some further thoughts or questions people had once they had a chance to look over that part of the memo that dealt with what we discussed last time. Um, and so, uh, just by s by way of review, um, we essentially, um, I think there's general agreement on a 5-year contract, though that is to be determined. Um, then there was evaluation criteria, and that's something that, um, I thought it might be worth a moment or two just to get clarity on and also maybe further discussion. Um the rubric that you will use Mimi is a kind of st I mean Guilford described and Guilford forgive me my notes aren't as good as they should be but I think I remember it highly preferred preferred and not preferred but anyway some kind of simple three-step um uh ranking and we've not really talked about ranking or priority um in any specific way either the way it will be presented in the RFP um and what language would be used uh was one thing that struck Um and then you in your memo listed a series of things where you know we should establish some priorities. What's most important, what's important, what's less important. Um and using whatever language we think we should. We agreed last time that numbers really don't make a lot of sense, but some kind of prioritization. And one thing that I struck me in thinking about this and going back over the discussion and looking at your memo is I don't recall us talking about cost savings to the consumer as like you know one of the most important or is is it something we're ranking as highly important, highly preferred. Um and I'm hoping today as we go through this and maybe even as we review last time um we talk a little bit about um that factor. How important is that when we're weighing things? Um cost savings versus other desires, other desitter. Um so, uh sustainability practices we did talk about and we we agreed at least initially for some kind of general language, but that would be something that would be and now my question to the committee to Mimi. Um we're going to call that highly preferred, preferred, not preferred. what's the language we're going to use and to what degree do we have consensus on these categories or can we get to consensus as to what uh how we're going to rank them. So that was the first thing I felt I wanted to come back to last time. Um based on what I read in your memo and based on our discussion, any thoughts from my colleagues or uh any thoughts from Mimi about prioritization, ranking um and particularly for me cost to consumer as an example, but there are others. Um, some of that language came from Susan. Um, and it's too bad she's not here because I'm sure she would want to um, kind of explain that further. Um, I did have a note from last time saying that I would look for wording and other RFPs, um, which I haven't had a chance to do yet. Um, and that might help give you some guidance. >> I mean, it's >> Yeah. Sorry, Mimi. Go ahead. >> No, no, no. I said obviously it's it's your decision about what you're going to prioritize. >> Paul, >> yeah, I I think that's right. So, under the procurement laws, there are different categories you can use. You can do highly advantageous, advantageous, >> you know, compliant and not not compliant. uh something there. Those are not the exact words, but they're standard words that we use in all of our procurement. So, you don't you don't have to talk about what words you want to use on that. It is important to say, you know, we have to be explicit with the the biders to say what would make something in one of the four categories. Like, if I'm bidding on this, I want to know what what do I have to do to get to highly advantageous? What do I have to do to get to advantageous? what do I have to do to get and so you have to say like if someone is able to do um curbside composting to all residents on a weekly basis that would be highly advantageous. If they can do it uh they can do um curbside composting uh on a bi-weekly basis that would be advantageous. You just sort of have your categories of of values that you would place. And so that's that's what the task would be. >> You may not have to do that right now. I mean that could be once you I think that's really the details of of the procurement. I don't think that's really I don't think it's worth spending your time on that level of detail at this moment in time. I think you just want to get this the big picture stuff done today. >> Jennifer. >> Yeah. So I don't know if this would be under big picture but there were I I thought that that the deep that what you the document you prepared Mimi was really helpful. The one last week was helpful, but this had more detail. So, it was great. Um, but customer service was something that there were a lot of um that discussion, you know, that appeared in a few of the bullet points and I know that when we first started down this road, that was a real concern. If a lot of staff time was going, oh, and we probably have to have a half or twothirds times, is that correct? Staff working on the whole administering the whole program. But that the customer service aspect there was a concern about maybe how timeconuming that would be and that that could be part of the contract. But N mean it sounds like with municipalities that they have a much better experience if they do the customer service themselves. Is that correct? So I was wondering, you know, how much we needed to discuss that and what that would entail. It seems like there's been it's been problematic for those municipalities that have the contractor handle the customer service piece. I mean, that's the sense I got from Susan. Also, I spoke with the solid waste coordinators or DPW directors in four local communities, Long Meadow, East Long Meadow, South Hadley, and Agawam. They all handle complaints themselves. East Long Meadow has a halftime staff person. Agawam, she's twothirds time on solid waste. Um, Long Meadow and South Eley, I wasn't clear because it's DPW staff, so I'm not totally sure, but I know they're not spending all their time on this. So, I think it's totally doable. I mean obviously you know it's the startup of this program is going to require more staff time, more administrative time and then I think once it's going and then just dealing with the regular issues um I I mean I'm not sure how much time you would need. Um you know originally the assumption was a full-time but then after talking to these communities I'm not sure that's necessary. Um, you know, the way they do it in Awan, Tracy Deo, she spends a third of her time dealing with storm water, you know, so like she's, you know, so it's possible that you could have someone that's doing multiple, you know, working in multiple areas and and maybe you can, you know, see how much time is required of them. But but I would say that and I had heard I heard this from Susan, but I had heard it myself that there was a bad experience with one hauler in particular with not answering customer service calls or not just not doing an adequate job. So, in terms of the RFP, we could ask, you know, we could get a price or, you know, that could be part of what we're asking for and then we can decide if we want to handle the customer service inhouse or the contractor or should we decide that before the RFP goes out? >> I mean, Guilford might have a different opinion. I I remember Guilford saying, "Why don't you just put that in the RFP and see what they would charge?" And I and I guess there's no harm in doing that. Um, I don't know if you want to say anything about that, Gilford. >> I guess I'm just wondering is it ever a good experience when the contract I mean I know there was a concern like right now because the town is not involved. We you know I deal with USA if I have an issue but I know it's there's no confusion who's handling the customer service the town or the vendor. So I know there was a concern that if the vendor is not providing the kind of customer service that you know we think is you know the standard we want then the the um the resident is going to feel that the town is not being responsive. >> Well yes and then they're going to start calling the DPW or town hall anyway to say you know I'm not getting the assistance I need >> right. So, we'll come to some of this. I don't know if we'll get to it today, but it's certainly in the in the list of of topics. It's there near the near the end. But again, I think I I just want to hear from my colleagues. Um I mean, I've just gotten some comments from the the sponsors as well. And one thing that struck me was um you know, this you know, it's important that there be cost savings. It's important that you know, what's this going to cost the consumer? And maybe it was just me, but last time I didn't get the impression that that was something we were focused, we had lots of things to focus on. Um, and sometimes we made decisions that actually might uh increase the cost to consumer. Um, in other places we had decisions we could make that might uh decrease the cost to consumer, but it wasn't really I felt it wasn't really at the front of our conversation. We were focusing on other things. Not that those things weren't important, but it again was back to my question of prioritization and ranking. Um and maybe it doesn't apply. I think broadly speaking, how important is it to this committee that um when we force when we're faced with the decision um are we going to rank cost savings higher than say sustainability? Um are we going to rank cost savings higher than certain other um you know things that might be better for the planet? Um and maybe it's going to be case by case. Um, but I just I wanted to make the point that it's something we should perhaps as we go through this, we should be uh more clearly addressing the issue of what's this going to cost and is there anything we can do to decrease the cost? Um, and if we're if it's going to increase the cost, can how do we justify that? Um, I'm not saying we can't. I'm not saying that wouldn't be right, but um, it seems something that I think we have to keep in our minds. I know certainly it's what I hear from some constituents. I'm hearing it I think a little bit from some of the sponsors who are saying you know by the way what's we want to know what the cost to consumer is but um as we go through this I want to make sure we are asking the question at each step um you know what is going to be the as far as we can tell what's the cost impact and are we willing to take a higher cost for the sake of some other goal or are we going to say in this case this is might be a place where um lower cost would be preferable the other thought I had and then I'll shut up is that I think the lower the cost however ever whatever however this shakes out, the more ability we'll have to persuade people to participate in the program because we're going to be asking them to make some serious changes at least some of them uh probably majority of people serious changes to the way an important part of their life has been going for many years and if we can say to them yes it's going to be at first a little rocky and there going to be some hiccups but this is saving you and then we can tell them x amount of money but if we're telling them we're going to make these changes and it's going to cost you a lot more that is going to be a problem. So I think cost savings can not only it's something we can also use as a carrot um in a in a process that um is going to be challenging across the board. Um all right I'm going to shut up. I'm first uh Guilford and then uh Jennifer and then Amber. >> Um your in your proposal though you need to evaluate based on the not the cost. You can't you won't be able to see the cost. >> No. Exactly. Right. >> Until the end. So, you have to kind of word the proposal so that you're looking at the services they're providing. And if they're not willing to do weekly service, but you want weekly service, that's that's a little less. if they're willing to do do the customer outreach and give provide you a report weekly of the issues they have. Those are the things you can put in the RFP that will help you see what they're going to do for for customer service. So the RF the RFP needs to have that kind of structure to it in which a lot of it will be put in if if you say if once you're done reviewing this it comes to the procurement people they'll come up with this criteria of what is based on what you're telling them of what's more important and then what ranks higher. Um but really you just need to decide what services are most important to you. If composting is most important and someone says, "Well, I'm not doing composting or you need to hire somebody else for composting." That's something that would give that person less points. If you're willing to do multiple contracts, which I think we you were leaning towards multiple contracts. >> Yes, >> that's fine. But you're not going to be able to sit down and look at the proposals and say, "Well, which one costs the most when you're reviewing the proposal?" Because that's not allowed. >> Right. >> Just a >> Right. No. Ed Guilford, what I'm thinking is for instance last time, we'll come to this in a second when we review uh the idea of trash carts, but we uh had a preference uh for um weekly uh pickup and that's more costly. So I was think I wonder if we should take a moment and rethink that because how important is it for us to generate a process that um would actually save people some money and yes it would be more challenging but on the other hand it's 45 gallon carts da da da da. So, um, that was an example, weekly versus bi-weekly. And there's some others where a preference one way or the other has a definite, we don't know what the exact number is, but we know it would have a cost impact because it's simply going to be cost a vendor more to run their trucks every week. And if we had a proposal that said, let's run it every two weeks, and then our cons our residents say, yeah, but what am I? We can say, well, we can work with you on that. But anyway, so that's an example. Weekly versus bi-weekly. last time we pumped for weekly Jennifer and then Amber. >> Um, yeah, I'll be brief, but I the pay as you throw component of the program. I mean, we've always it's I think zero waste Amherst has always it's almost been an assumption that if you reduce the if you're incentivized to reduce your trash, then there will be a lower cost. And I know that in the last council session, Andy Steinberg did a we could get it an analysis and he said it actually, you know, he was a little skeptical initially, but that it really did reduce the cost to the consu to the resident. So maybe we can pull that up. >> Uh but and let me make a point and then go to Amber. Jennifer, um take pay as you throw. Um if it's every week that they're going to run their trucks every week, that both has an environmental impact and also has a cost impact. Also, if we have pay as you throw bags, which is what I support, um we it was noted in the memo and something I don't think we discussed last time and we could discuss a little bit or at least note. Um vendors are going to say that's going to take us a lot more time. The truck's going to have to stop every time there's a bag. The the uh the tenants have to get out and get the bag. Um and so that's going to increase costs. One option that's offered in some communities is you have drop off points. So if you have to go to your pay as you throw bag, you either take it to the transfer station or there are certain other places where you could take it. Um and while that's an inconvenience to the consumer um it could uh significantly reduce the cost overall the program because now the vendor simply uses because they're moving more and more to me mechanical mechanized systems. >> Yeah. So I maybe every other the bi-weekly I you know I want to give Amber a chance to speak but um yeah uh >> I also worry since we do you know are the largest growing segment of our community are elderly residents >> that you know I think there's a lot of people that can't put their bags in the car and drive it to the transfer station. Although a lot of res you know use it but that's also a concern. So, I think I'd rather see a larger bin if we go to the bi-weekly. Um, because I I think that's I I I know a lot of my neighbors would not be able to lift up a trash bag and put it in their car and drive to the transfer station >> Amber. >> Yeah. Um, I guess in terms of the, you know, cost savings versus our, you know, our environmental and sustainability goals, I guess my first question would be, do we know how much people are currently paying? I mean, aside from like I could look up my bill from USA Waste and Recycling and tell you what I'm paying. I don't know if everyone across town is, you know, paying something similar, high or lower. I don't know if we have an average, but um, you know, I would love to be able to tell people you're going to save. Um I you know but I don't know if we know what everyone's currently paying. Um and then the other thing is you know I think for evaluating proposals I I would really like to see um what are best practices what cost is attached to them you know so the things that we have prioritized around pay as you throw um a smaller bin um the recycling um with the bi-weekly pickup dual stream um the composting with industrial composting um you know because the whole point of the proposal is is waste reduction Um, and then if we know what it costs and we see that it's cost prohibitive, are there things that we can do to make it less expensive? Um, you know, and I think George, to your point about the bi-weekly, like I do think that's going to help us a lot. Um, you know, I can see the argument for that. Um, I can also see the argument, uh, Jennifer, for increasing the size, you know, of the cart a little bit to make the bi-weekly more feasible. Um but yeah, I think um we we have to, you know, balance both. And with people changing their behaviors, um which is the goal here, if it's also cost prohibitive, I get that that's not going to be something people are going to want to do and it's going to be really badly received. So, but I but I think we just we need to know the cost. And if there is a way to know how much people are currently paying across town for their um for their waste pickup, I would love to know. Minim My understanding was it's between 500 and 550 generally for USA for trash and recycling and more if you added in compost. >> I think that was in zero waste ammers documents unless it's gone up. Um >> I doubt it's gone down. >> No, I'm sure it hasn't gone down. Um you know I mean I will say about the overflow bags that technology is evolving. Susan had sent something a few months ago showing some system where they were able to if the bags if the bags were on top of the trash carts and they were able to just >> lift them all up >> do it all automatically. Um, and then one note I mean and I think she we said this in the document is that it's a very small number of municipalities doing bi-weekly pickup and you know and South Hadley has this system where overflow has to go to the transfer station. I think they and maybe one or two others are the only ones that do that probably for a reason. Paul. >> Yeah. And just to clarify on if we're using the the normal procurement method, which we do, um there the way it works is that you say what you want, people respond to what you want, and then there's a second envelope that we don't look at, >> right? >> That has the price in it. So you don't look at the price, you evaluate the proposals for what they're going to do, and you establish your criteria. So if it's, you know, highly advantageous, advantageous, or not compliant, or not advantageous. And those are the three categories you get to use. So, um, so you when we get there, we I mean I think it's really best to get to like what's your preferred options right at this moment in time and then we can sort of fiddle with that the procurement document when we get to that point. I think we're just right now getting to a proposal to the council. Are we ready to go forward with this or not? >> Mimi. Yeah, I think there is room in the RFP to put lots of options like weekly, you know, cost for weekly pickup, cost for bi-weekly, and we can just say, well, if it's bi-weekly, it's going to be a 64gallon cart versus a 45. Um, there's some things though I feel like it's confusing if you haven't made up your mind. Like I do think you do I could be wrong but I think you have to make decide if you're doing the overflow bags like what you do have to decide what your pay is you throw method is. I think that's helpful for issuing the RFP. Um >> yes and I think Mimi last time it was there was a very broad consensus for pay I think pa throw bags is something we have agreed we are going to do that's a given um >> oh okay I thought there was discussion of bringing overflow to the transfer station instead of doing that >> that's not a discussion we really had I think when we have I don't recall that in any detail um >> okay >> I I could be misremembering but um I definitely pay as you throw how we handle that is somewhat you know Paul mentioned or I I believe maybe it was you maybe but anyway they no it was you that you can put them on top of the bins um and that would you know anyway but those are details I agree um but definitely pay as you throw and again if my colleagues disagree or dissent they should raise their hands and speak up but in my review 45gallon we we came to the conclusion last time that while 35 might be the best practice and it is used in a number of communities um because we're transitioning The argument was that we should put allow a slightly larger bin. Um that's not written stone, but again you that sounds like something that there could be options in the in the RFP. So that particular decision point maybe is not crucial, but pay as you throw is um and any others that you can highlight um as we go through this. Absolutely. But that um we last time agreed I believe that while owner procurement is to be determined um it might again cost savings wise it might be better if they if the vendor purchased them um there's also some advantages to the town purchasing them uh but cost would be a factor. So on that one we simply left it that um at the end the RFP should make it clear that at the end of the contract um the the carts would be owned by the town. Um but procurement is something to be determined. Um we did agree to weekly collection but what I'm hearing is that that too could be an option in the RFP. It's not something we have to definitively decide upon. Um because there are both environmental uh factors and also cost factors to weekly versus bi-weekly. So that might be an example of where something would be left to we'll see what the responses are. But there'll be options in the RFP as to weekly versus bi-weekly. If it were bi-weekly, how much would that cost? If it were weekly, how much would that cost? Um, but yes, to all vendors, you're going to have to do pay as you throw. Yes, to all vendors, we're going to we're going to own the cards at the end of the contract. Um any others that then please help me here but any others Mimi or that colleagues that they would say this is a this is a definite this is definitely going to be and this is a right. So Jennifer >> two things well you know I've always thought universal curbside compost pickup I mean that's a main reason why we're doing this. So if that's not part of the service >> I actually agreed with um uh Jill Breivik said that in her comments. you know, that's we're making this this is a big undertaking. So, that should be a core component. And I know I'm contradicting myself. I just wanted to get back to the bags. Um, I guess this was also, I think, a question in in Jill's um notes to us that at the last um TSO meeting, we discussed this. There was a lot of concern about bears and animals being able to break in with the bag to the bags, the overflow bags. And what we were told is they can get into the carts just as easily as they can get into the bags. And maybe although I said, you know, for I think for some elderly residents particularly, it might be hard to take the bags to the transfer station. I mean, maybe households, you know, that only have assuming maybe they only have two people. Um, thinking my own household, you know, you you would maybe have need you might not need the bags because you're not generating as much trash as a whole as a larger household. So, um, because I do think it's going to be more costly. Again, we'll see what the vendors say if they have to get out of the truck to pick up the bags, >> but again, the universal compost I think is very >> that would be one of the, you know, make or break. That's a that's a given. Pay as you throw is a given. Um, and these questions about costs that I raised earlier are certainly legitimate. They're on everybody's mind. There's no question. But, um, you know, and we'll be but that's not a uh that's not defining element here. Okay. Um so that's a brief longer than I would like. Pam please. >> I wanted to come back to the cost um topic and the question was you know what are the costs today? Um, one of the reasons that this subject got my attention is that two older neighbors of mine were both uh reaching the this is at least two years ago um were reaching the $700 720 um price ticket um because they were elderly and because they did not drag their bins out to the street. And if that in fact, as Jennifer mentioned, is our growing population, not only can these folks, you know, typically not haul that container, you know, into their car and take it to the transfer station, they're actually asking for a truck to to back down their driveway and pick up their their um bins, you know, out of the ordinary. So, I think what I guess we would we would have to ask for pricing that is reflective of an average rather than saying, you know, you're going to have these additional fees tacked on to your bill because you're elderly and you and you need the truck to come down the driveway. So, in other words, folks that that are able are going to pick up some of the slack for those who are less able um in terms of the pricing, I think. And if we just go for an average price, I think that's that benefits the community because it's, you know, more equitable across the board. >> Okay. So that in the uh memo that Mimi has given us um we have reached uh the topic of recycling I believe and that is a question of card size number of carts collection frequency and so if we could start there um and Mimi if you'd be willing you as you did aly last time you want to just briefly take us through this and the decision points and um we have the memo in front of us so we we can follow along I think this time. >> Okay. Um well this is definitely one where you can request costs for both weekly and by bi-weekly and this is split more like in terms of other communities. It's you know a lot of them do bi-weekly. Um, it's just if you do bi-weekly, you would have to probably go up to like a 95 gallon cart. Um, Susan had concerns that you're going to get more contamination where people are going to put in more things like electronics or tires. I brought that up to Tracy Deo in Awam. She says she hasn't seen that. Different population, of course, they have a lot of renters. They don't have students. Um uh we hadn't talked about dual stream um particularly I know that that was you know something that zero waste Ammerst is >> um prefers I wish Susan was here to talk about that because she just has so much more knowledge. Um but there are you know yes there's less contamination that's documented with dual stream recycling. The reason we didn't include that in the RFP initially was number one Ammerst residents are used to doing single stream. So that would take a whole another level of education and outreach about you know uh you know one week it's paper one week it's containers and how you do that um I have heard that technology has gotten better there is less contamination of single stream than previously I I know Darcy says she disagrees with that and I you know you'd have to do you know a deeper dive into the research into the data to to to really know um and you know that if the town's going to do revenue sharing. So the town's going to get some money back from the what's um what the revenue from from the recycling. Um and if it's cleaner, there's less contamination, then there will be a slightly higher revenue. The question is though if dual stream is if there's a higher cost like if what's quoted is higher um if it means the town has to purchase more carts because you need one cart for paper, one cart for containers, is that going to you know how's that all going to work out? Is it is it going to end up still being a higher cost? Um and um also just the I guess what you could call the hassle factor. Um so I initially I had just not even wanted to get into dual stream but I know that that's been discussed. So you know I guess you can discuss that. Um and then of course less frequent collection by weekly would reduce the hauler cost. Um it looks like it's about split by municipalities in the state in terms of weekly and bi-weekly. Um so yeah, I think those I think those were the main >> right >> the main points. >> And so I think for the committee um people need to weigh in um on their thoughts. Um do they want more information? um are they I mean what we're hearing is that um again one of the factors we're considering always beyond cost factor such as it is is um ease of use by the resident by the consumer um and also maintaining as much as possible uh within reason uh the current practices. the more we change the more resistance there's going to be the more complicated it gets the more possibility for you know people being upset etc etc so um one of the attractions of single stream is that's what people are used to one of the attractions of single stream is you don't have to be thinking well which week is I mean I remember this back in the day you know which is this this thing is this paper or is this paper right and if you miss it now you've got three you another two weeks to wait um uh versus contamination. Um my very limited uh knowledge and experience is that the technology has uh improved and while contamination cannot be eliminated um the industry has gotten at least in some areas to a point where they they very comfortable with uh working with single stream and they think it works fine. Um I know some don't agree but I'm not sure we're going to spend um you know anyway. So those are pro and con. So I need to hear thoughts from my colleagues um on this um and start again with Mimi please. >> Yeah, sorry I had just forgotten something which is to say that education and outreach is is going to be necessary in either case and that's one of the key factors in in reducing contamination levels. And I think Paul sent you an article um and I saw it about Greenfield which had recently I believe switched to single stream but they have done a lot of outreach and education and they've really reduced their contamination levels. >> So that's you know that's a factor. It's a factor in either really you know either system. Right. Right. So colleagues, >> Jennifer, I >> mean, can we put both options in um you know, in terms of of pricing, but I know then we're just kicking the can down the road, I guess, in terms of making a decision. Um, >> yeah. I mean, just for sake of argument, um, why, what would you think would be a strong reason for dual stream? Is it contamination? Is that, is that basically it? >> No, I think that's probably best practices. I mean, we'd, you know, environmentally, you know, dual stream is probably going to have the greatest impact, but it's, you know, I try and think of people, I mean, right now, you do have to remember what week our recycling is picked up by weekly, so you have to keep track of that. But I don't I'm just trying to think of um the resistance to having to keep track of what's being picked up on different weeks. >> It's also another cart, though maybe it would be two carts anyway because of the volume, but um you have a separate cart now for paper, a separate cart. So in theory, you could have four carts out um you know, trash, composting, um you know, paper and plastic and bottles. And so, uh, even if you don't have them at, I assume you wouldn't probably have them the same every week, you now have to maintain and store four different sets of carts. Um, so can it can be done and for some of us it's not a big deal. For others, it would be very challenging just from spacewise, let alone anything else. >> Yeah. I guess some of it again, if we look at our community, there's a lot of students and there's a lot of elderly people. I don't Yeah. >> So making it is my guess my thought and then I'll shut up. My thought is the simplest you simpler you can make it and the less amount of change you demand of people given all the other things we're doing that's a strong reason for me to favor um single stream and I need to hear arguments on the other side and contamination when I hear it I don't see that that actually is is a big issue these days but >> so we're really weighing having the greatest environmental impact with what we think is actually going to work in our community. Exactly, Ron. And if we give the community something that people are going to resist or or just not going to, right, that will have an environmental impact as well. Amber, please. >> Yeah. Um, I would like to know the the cost of both the single stream and the dual stream. Um, I think that we can see if, you know, if there's any cost benefit to to either one. I think that would be a factor. Um, you know, with the dual stream, I certainly remember years and years we had to separate our recycling and we had our bin, you know, for cardboard with a bin for the, you know, containers. And so, um, I personally don't think it's it's that big a deal. Um, so I I would like to know what the cost difference is. And, um, I think we should include both. >> Guilford. So, so for the point of the RFP, you're just saying you really want recycling and you want that included. It must be provided as part of the service they're providing. So, that's really what you want to say in the RFP. And then they can propose what they want to propose and you can review it and see if it meets your your so single stream, one cart instead of four carts or three carts. That's would be more preferable for the for the town. then that's the you're most advantageous. If having four carts, do you really want four carts? That may be less advantageous. So really what you're trying to say here and what you're telling Mimi is yes, we want recycling. We want it at least once a week, maybe no more than twice a week. Um, and that's what we should be put into the RFP for kind of going forward. But you want it and this is tell us how you're going to do it. Guilford, does the vendor need to know in advance which is more uh advantageous and which is less? Because that's the issue we as a committee are wrestling with um or can we just leave it wide open? Um because they might come back and say, "Okay, you say single stream, dual stream. Which one is is going to get us more points? Which one is going to more likely get us the contract?" Um do we have to make that decision or can we just leave it undecided? >> You could probably leave it undecided. your your most advantageous is that you want recycling pickup every week probably. And then if it's twice a week, that's, you know, acceptable. If it's once a month recycling, that's not acceptable because that's just means people are just going to put in their trash. >> So that's really how you're going to this would would pan out, I would. >> Okay. rather than getting into dual or single stream, we will see what the the vendors come back with us >> uh with um >> weekly versus bi-weekly thoughts is the assumption that that uh this would be every week or is the assumption it's going to be bi-weekly because that affects the size of the cart. So again um is the thought that that we will make that decision later. Is that something we have to decide today? We have decided that with trash we said 45 gallon um and uh but maybe here I don't know that size of cart >> I think you could put either. I think you could I don't think you have to decide yet. I think you could ask for I could be corrected on this, but I think you would just like we were talking about with trash, you could say if it's bi-weekly, it's going to be a 95 gallon and if it's weekly, it's going to be 64 gallon and get the cost for for both. >> Okay. Okay. How does that sound to the committee? Again, what we're trying to do is give Mimi guidance so that um she can finally write this thing. Um, so again, there will be a kind of option and obviously the larger cart for bi-weekly, the smaller cart for weekly. Um, my thoughts about I would like everything to be bi-weekly because of the environment and trucks on the streets and da da da da da. But that's not an issue we're going to resolve here. That's we'll that will come later. Right now, we're simply saying these are the two options that we would like in the RFP. And obviously, we want recycling. Pam, you're muted, Pam. Pam, you're still muted. >> Thank you. Uh, point being, I forgot what I was going to say because you kept you were talking and it bl my mind out. >> I have that effect. I'm sorry. I apologize. When it comes to you raise your hand again and I will I will immediately shut up and recognize you. >> I think that I think the topic was um are we are we talking bi-weekly? Oh, I know what I was going to ask. So if when I see a USA truck going up the street, one truck is going up the street for trash, another USA truck is going up the street for recycling. Is that actually the case? >> Okay, the answer seems to be yes. >> Yes, a different a different truck comes because it's picked up at different times, >> right? But that on the same >> so whether so whether we're doing this weekly or bi-weekly really is immaterial. There will always be two sets of trucks going up and down the streets. >> Well, there definitely will be two sets of trucks. The question is the frequency. So if you do it bi-weekly, um they will use less gas. They will have less labor costs because they only have to come through the town for for particular pickup every two weeks. if you say if it turns out it's a weekly collection for something every every week um yes you will have trucks but also the next week they'll be there again so the labor cost and fuel costs go up um so in in >> so if so if so if one week they go through and do trash the second week they go through and do recycling that's essentially a bi-weekly schedule for either of those elements >> right yeah so right >> go ahead I know. Just right now the trash truck is coming every week and then every other week there's two trucks because the recycling's coming as well. >> In my dream world that everything would be bi-weekly. Um, and I'm not sure that's possible. I'm not sure that's even, but that's my dream world that it reduces overall cost but also impact on the environment um, at least a little bit. Anyway, so what I'm hearing here is option in the RFP definitely we want recycling. Uh what weekly would be one size cart, bi-weekly would be another size cart. Please tell us uh which tell us uh what you will do and tell us the cost difference between the two. Any other points in that topic? I think that is is that the general right that's it. Then we make a decision at this point. Um, the way the memo is structured, we turn to composition audit and then curbside uh, issues related to waste and bulky collection. I wondered if we should talk about composting next. Does it matter? Mimi, do you have a preference? Does the committee have a preference? Do you want to just follow the memo or do you want to turn now to the whole question of curbside composting? Right now it's at the end of the memo and I'm wondering if some of the decisions made there wouldn't also maybe it won't but it could possibly impact some of these others or maybe vice versa. Amy, do you is there a reason why you let put curbside uh excuse me, composting at the end? Um and maybe we should just follow your guidance here or do you feel like we could move it up and because that's going to be I think well anyway there are a lot of topics we have to discuss but >> well I think it makes sense to talk about the composition audit in regard to recycling. >> Okay, >> that's I mean >> that'd be next next natural step. Okay, let's do that. >> Yeah, but then whether you talk about compost next or bulky waste, that's up to you. >> Yeah. Okay, fine. Thank you. Could we talk about composition audit then, please? >> Um, yeah, and I think you know that was left in from the Brookline Newton template and in talking with Susan and we both thought, well, that's probably something you can take out. That would be probably an extra cost. The haulers would not be excited to do that. it's probably not gonna really help the town that much in terms of how much you make in from revenue from the recycling because you're not a really large community. Um, so I guess my suggestion is you take that out. But yes, yes to revenue sharing because that's best practice and that's pretty much I believe what all communities do. >> Okay. >> Thoughts from the committee? Jennifer, >> I would um you know, heed uh Mimi's advice, you know, >> arguments for composition audit. I don't have the um I've got 14 pieces of paper in front of me, but if someone could step up and make the case um for why composition audit would be something we should do in spite of the cost and challenges. Um that would be benefit. I mean basically as I understand it, it simply gives the community a sense of how much money it is saving. Um how important is that? Well, what it's what it's doing is to um they're auditing the recycling material to make sure that they the the composition of paper to you know plastic to aluminum etc is accurate >> right >> you know um which in a larger community where you're getting more revenue from your recycling That could make sense. Um Susan was saying that this is a fairly new practice. I don't know how many communities are doing it. Um if there wasn't an added cost to doing it, I suppose it it could be beneficial. Um, but given the amount of extra labor that it would be for the hauler, my guess is there would definitely be an added cost and it probably in may not be worth it. >> It doesn't have an environmental positive impact doing this or contamination. Um, you know, being clear on is contamination a problem that's this does not address that or doesn't >> that's separate. So you are requiring them to do contamination audits and that's just generally what all communities do. I see that in every RFP. >> That's this is separate. This is a composition audit, not a contamination. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Well, I'm hearing at the moment I'm I will pause one more time, but I'm hearing revenue sharing definitely. Yes, that's that's a best practice that should be included. But the composition audit um both because it will probably raise the cost um and will provide less than a it doesn't seem to provide any particularly stellar benefit. Um we can forego that. That's what I'm hearing. Okay. Um we can come back to this. Nothing's written in stone, but that is that topic. Um, do people want to continue with the memo? Next would be curbside yard waste collection. We can save composting for later. Any thoughts on this one way or the other? So, on the memo right now, it's curbside yard waste collection. Okay. >> I think we should keep it in. >> Okay. I mean, no, but I mean, in terms of order of of discussion, um, I was going to suggest at this point we turn to composting. Um, but in the order of the memo, it comes at the end. curbside organic collection. Um, which and Mimy's was sort of indifferent. So, um, I think we should just continue. We'll just follow with the memo. Okay. Um, so curbside yard waste collection. Um, considerations. This will definitely increase program cost. Um, it might suggestion that Mimi makes in her memo is it might make sense for this to be folded or phased in alongside food waste collection. Oh, there it comes. Um, and if the transportation is accessible to residents, which we haven't gotten to yet, you might consider limited collection opportunities like seasonal to minimize cost. So cost obviously is something to be considered here. Um, I'm going to start with uh Mimi and then go to Pam. What do you mean? >> Uh, I was going to say that it is already currently seasonal. Um, >> right. >> When I talked to Steve Tlega, he said that it's there's and I mean, I'm sure some of you get this. So, it's two weeks in the fall >> where it's offered >> just so it's primarily leaves. I mean, you know, some communities do this. They offer it all year round. So, you know, you put your grass clippings, you put your whatever it is. Um, organic detritus. Um, and then there's also Christmas tree pickup to consider, >> which wait, I can't remember now. I have that written down. Do does the town currently do that? >> No. Okay. Right. You have to drop it off. >> Guilford's a Scrooge. He doesn't He doesn't like Christmas. >> We We used to do it, but then the haulers said they would pick it up, so we stopped doing it. >> Okay. All right. And just I mean, that's a question because I do not have a hauler. Um, do the haulers pick up Christmas trees? I assume they do. Jennifer, >> for their customers and those who don't, you can bring it to the transfer station. >> Exactly. Okay, fine. That's the current practice. Thank you. Uh Pam and then Jennifer, >> I was just going to ask and it it was confirmed here that we don't we don't currently offer yard waste except for these couple of opportunities that are that are managed by DPW. So it's um and I guess Christmas trees. Um it doesn't seem like a huge issue, I guess. Um maybe because more and more people are using yard services than ever used to. Uh and so the yard service companies are the ones, you know, hauling away stuff. Um >> it it doesn't seem like uh it doesn't seem like a component that is critical to the success of solid waste in in Ammerst. It just it seems, you know, I see people with um the bags that they buy from, I'll just say Home Depot, they stuff their their yard waste in it and then those are picked up, I think, by DPW during those twoe periods. If that if that process works, you know, why mess with it? I'm looking at I'm looking at Guilford. >> Well, now that would be taken on by the vendor, correct? So where this would be in the RFP and the RFP would say that we currently have a practice of seasonal pickup for these two weeks and the RFP would say something to the effect that um you know this would be something we would expect you to continue and the question for us is do we want to expand that do we want to ask for you know more but obviously that has a cost impact the more we ask for the more it's going to cost um so what I'm hearing at least from uh you know Pam is that you know the town seems perfectly copacetic with the current practice. Um, of course I remember the days when all you had to do is drag your leaves to the curb and then this big machine came and swept them all away. Um, then we switched to bags and that was, you know, that's what we do now. Um, I guess the question for the committee is is do they have a strong feeling of wanting to increase or expand this kind of service? Do they want to eliminate it completely? Um, or do they want to maintain the status quo? But whatever we decide goes in the RFP and the vendor then tells us what that's going to cost because Guilford's not going to be picking them up. Jennifer, yeah, I agree with Pam. The status quo is working. Like I know we always let our district mailing list know what the schedule is for the leaf pickup and people really appreciate that it's happening so they haven't asked for more. And Guilford will be hopefully on a beach someplace so he won't have to worry about this at all personally. >> That is true. >> Congratulate him on his retirement. But yes, so getting out in the nick of time. >> Guilford, please. >> So you're putting this R RFQ out, RFP out, and you're asking for proposals. It doesn't hurt to say we would think that if you could provide monthly yard waste pickup, that is very advantageous. If you want to do, you know, every quarter you do pickup, if you do every six months you do pickup and it has different ratings and then they'll put it in their price proposal and then you can see and doesn't mean you have to accept it in their price per proposal, but it'll get you the information that you can say, well, you can say two things with it. One, it costs too much. We like our old way. Or two, this is a service we think would be worthwhile. And then you're doing you are doing cost sharing in the recycling collection. So people are going to ask, what are you doing with that money? Well, you can say, well, we take that money and it's used to pay for it's used for pay for maybe some of these services and offset some of the cost. Um, but I would ask the question, you know, what can you provide me? And this is what we if you did it monthly, that'd be great. If you did it every quarter, that'd be okay. If you did every two months, that'd be fine. If you don't want to do it, neutral. I mean, don't mean it's it's not a problem to ask. >> Okay, good. Good. Mimi, does that help? I think that that's a reasonable suggestion that could go in the RFP, which is let's not eliminate possibilities. Let's make it as open as possible and see what comes back because offering an expanded service in a certain area would be another sweetener. It would be another, you know, element to help win people over to the program. We'd say, okay, you know, yes, it's this it's going to cost it's going to but here we're getting um some added benefit. So, um I don't know how many of those options we want to include. Um, but at least, and I'm thinking out loud here, um, maybe what, monthly, bimonthly, and seasonal. >> That's kind of how I would >> Yeah. And you know what? What can you offer us or not at all? May we don't do it. And that would be something we would that would be concerning, but okay. Thoughts? It seems Okay. Thank you, Gilford. I think that's a good suggestion. All right, let's go on to bulky waste collection. Let me just take a quick look at the time. How we doing? It is 11:08. Um, again, I'd like to to run this to 11:30 at the latest. Um, though last time we did have some extra few minutes. Um, but give or take, we have about 25 20 minutes, give or take. Um, bulky waste. Um the memo notes the the factor of the moveout period in town and the importance of landlord input. Um maybe I understand that to mean that some point this committee should reach out and get some uh input from area landlords as to their thoughts on on on this. Um, currently they all u contract with private firms or whatever to take care of their bulky waste materials. Nope. Guilford, please. So, enlighten us here if you would. Thank you. >> Um, almost all the landlords have a contract with the have a permit in the town. Bring it to the transfer station. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, so bulky waste, I would actually do the same way you did yard waste. See what they got on offer. Okay. >> Yeah. I mean I think you know the question is is it included in the overall cost and everybody is paying that and then you have to eventually decide okay well then what does that include? How many pickups uh etc. or is it something that um residents have to schedule on their own and they pay and it's just through the hauler and then the town is not involved. But I don't think I think you can just put in the RFP what is the what is going to be the cost for these you know this service and for these items and then and then I think you can make your decision on that. and decide whether the transfer station will still be an option. I'm going to raise my hand and speak. >> Please go ahead. Go ahead. >> Uh I I like the fact that landlords get their own permits, get their own, you know, dump um uh options. I don't think that the general populace of the town should have to pick up the price for that sort of largecale um disposal issue. That's just not something that I, you know, want my elderly neighbor to have to pay for that, you know, because they're pretty careful about what they put out. I think um uh I I like the idea of asking what it what it might cost and maybe if I were a landlord, I would say, "Oh, that's a better deal." Um that's a better deal, but maybe it's a service that could be signed up for rather than um placed on the population as a whole. I don't know how that would be structured. So go ahead, Mimi. Uh, >> I can just say that when I talked to Tracy and Agawam, they had initially put this in this in the RFP thinking that it would be part of the cost that all uh, households paid, but then to lower cost, they decided to take it out and then residents there just contract with the hauler. not contract, they um schedule and with the hauler and pay the hauler and she thinks it works very well. >> Okay. But again, what we would do in the RP is we would have this these options and then we'll we'll wait and see. What you're suggesting is we probably have the same experience Eggwam had. But let's we're not going to um rule it out at this point. Is that okay? All right. >> Yeah. Well, you need to get the cost in either case, right? I mean it's helpful information. >> Good. Okay. Any other decision points here maybe that you need to hear from us related to bulky waste collection? >> I don't think so. >> Okay. All right. Transfer station. From cost perspective, if you were able to spread out the operating expense across the entire um population as opposed to currently 2200 permit holders, um that would certainly reduce household costs. Mimi, >> uh I just wanted to clarify that that Susan wrote that and I didn't have a chance to correct it. I mean the one to this program would be starting with one to four family households. That's 5,000. >> Okay. So just can make that correction. >> Thank you. >> I would think that because Sorry, Amber, go ahead. >> Oh, are are we deciding about whether or not we want to do that? >> Uh >> at the cost over the entire everyone who lives in the town as opposed to having a subscription. >> It's open for discussion. >> Okay. Well, I'm in favor of that. Yeah, I mean I I I'm just thinking back to previous conversations about how people really love the transfer station and I think people who have not had access to the transfer station would appreciate it. Um because it would be spread out over everyone, it would be cheaper and especially if we're trying to reduce trash, it would be great to always have the option if you have extra trash cuz you like had a party or you move somewhere like help someone move then you could take stuff there. So, I like that >> you would have access to it as a resident, but you still would pay a fee when you brought your material to there's there' be a fee that you would pay it. Um, is your understanding, right? Everyone would have access because it's part of the of the package. Right now you have to have you have to just pay a special you have to get a stick or whatever but now um maybe you still have to prove that you're an Ammeris resident but essentially um every Ammeris resident would have access to the uh transfer station because um it's now a townwide service but when they got there with whatever they were bringing uh in terms of of you know bulky waste there they would be charged something. Um, they also help me here. They also could reach out to the uh the vendor and say just come and pick it up because and they'd pay the vendor uh we assume a fee um for some bulky waste. Um, but they do that because they just don't have the wherewithal to take it to the transfer station or they don't want to be bothered. Is that the situation we're envisioning? Um, somebody help me here. It's not good. It's not a pretty sight when I'm thinking out loud, but that's that's what you're going to get. Um, Jennifer, and I wasn't watching hands. Let me start with Mimi first and then we'll go to Jennifer and then Pam. >> Oh, I just wanted to clarify that we're not talking about regular household trash and recycling that that's not going to be open for that. We're talking about other services such as bulky waste. >> I think we need clarity. I think that is correct. That's my understanding. But that's something we really haven't discussed, which is, you know, and it's it's it's somewhat fraught discussion. uh you know especially someone like myself who uses the transport station for all the various services that we're now imagining uh everyone's going to have to pay for. Um what is the sense of the committee? Um, do they want to s I do they want a world in which uh if I don't want to participate in this program, I can just go to the transfer station um and drop off my my recycling and trash or um yeah I yeah thoughts on this or anything related to this? Um start with Jennifer then Pam. Uh yeah, I don't know if we should uh go to Guilford first, but I thought that everybody um was vendors are not going to be able to offer a price if they don't know how many households they're going to be delivering a service to. So, I think it has to be that everybody's in for a pickup at their home and then they can use the transfer station. Now, I thought that Yeah, I thought the transfer station might still be open for any kind of disposal, but I suppose you're right. Why would people take what they're paying for to be picked up? But I think I I agree with a Amber. I, you know, like the idea that anybody can use the transfer station and that the price where it may be more, I guess I'm not currently paying for the transfer station, but it sounds like it will be a much lower rate for everyone since it's being divided by all the households in town. So, I like the transfer station being open for everyone for disposal of large items, >> but I don't I think that the vendor has to know how many households will be in the program so that they can provide a price. >> Okay. Um, may I go Guilford next? Thank you, Guilford. And then Susan also has her hand up. So, Guilford first, then Susan. Guilford, you're muted. >> Uh, we did have one company in the RFI who said if the transfer station was open to the public, they would not participate and then not submit a proposal. Um, just so you know that. Um, the second thing is is that there's nothing in the proposal that talks about picking up townwide trash for at like the trash cans we have at the parks, the commons, downtown. So, the transfer station will needs to stay open for town trash unless there's an accommodation put in the RF in the proposal for them picking that up as well. Um, so just so you know that there's two two topics when you talk about the transfer station being open open for mun municipal trash, the trash we at pickup are open for the trash that people residents want to bring to us. And you have had one company say they would not participate if the transfer station stayed open to residents to use it. Susan and then Pam. >> Actually, I think Pam had her hand up before me. >> All right. Uh Pam, go ahead. >> Thank you. But um so that was a that's a new idea or thought about having the municipal wastes. Um it I if I think from my perspective, if we're going to implement this process, as much as I would prefer to go to the the transfer station myself, I think having everybody participate makes sense. Having the the transfer station available for those oneoff items like the bed frame or the mattress, etc. makes a lot of sense. there is there is so little opportunity otherwise to get you know rid of those kinds of things. Um I it would be you know if in fact the transfer station is open to the general public. I think a a a window sticker or something has to be issued along with your annual permit so that somebody from Shootsberry isn't bringing in their mattresses and their blah blah blah um to the transfer station. And I think that we would really want it to be um you know Amoris specific. Um that's >> Susan. >> I just wanted to explain that uh typically with a transfer station, a healthy transfer station, there they're fixed costs and they're variable costs, right? So the the price of the permits pay for the fixed costs like electricity and labor and stuff like that. the and then the variable costs are paid by disposal fees. So, uh I just wanted to explain that so that so that that we were we would be looking at spreading the fixed costs across 5,000 households instead of all costs so that people would still be paying the disposal fees. The other thing that I wanted to say is that you can make the transfer station anything you want. It does not have to be in the current incarnation, but it does serve. It's a service that is very valuable to a lot of residents. Um, even if they can't bring their trash there, there are lots of other things they can bring there, whether it's lithium ion batteries or or um um um brush that when they had a big clear out, etc., etc. So you can make this scalable um in that if you feel that given the services that the vendors haulers are providing, you don't need to be open two or three days a week, right? >> Um you could be open one day a week. You could be open for three hours a week, you know, for people to bring in certain things. Um, it's it's just I just want to make sure that you're thinking outside the box that we don't have to keep it in the current incarnation that it is. >> Yeah, >> Nene, >> I was just going to mention in the draft RFP, we do ask for quotes for um collecting from municipal buildings. So, all of the town buildings and schools. So, I mean, you know, depending on the cost, you could decide to have them collected and not use the transfer station or use the transfer station. >> Okay. >> The the right >> the DPW doesn't pick up at those facilities. Now, >> the DPW just picks up the parks, the commons, uh parks, commons, and some of the bus stops. So that's the trash that's not included in this RFP right now. >> Oh, sorry, Guilford. Sorry, I got confused. Okay, so that's just we're just talking parks. >> Parks common, >> bus stops, different Yeah, >> the USA picks up all the buildings right now. >> So, does this need to be included in the RFP? Is that what we're saying? Or is it we're just saying it's not going to be? And um so what happens to the trash in parks uh commons and uh bus stops? >> Well, we're we're set up to do it. We'll do it. We just have to have a place to take it. So the transfer station would stay open just for that. Right. >> The municipal >> use there. >> Right. Right. Mimi, what are the decision points uh that we need to uh give you some guidance on here so that you can proceed? Um clearly the transport Now I want to go back for a moment. Guilford says, "Okay, this one vendor says if transfer station stays open, we're not going to bid." I'd like to think that that was under the assumption that the transport station remains open for people bringing their recycling, their trash, etc. But when they see this and they, you know, assuming it comes out in the fashion that I'm imagining, um it turns out that no, um all that is is a is a guaranteed market for them. Um but it's going to be used for other things. Um it could be used as a congregation site. The town will be using it for potentially for municipal trash. Um there also be possibly bulky waste with a fee. But um so I'm hoping even that vendor um would say well yeah we'll we'll certainly bid on this because we see that it's not I mean Gilbert is that your understanding or do you think it's like maybe you just don't know you can't read their minds but um was it more a thought that well they're going to leave the transfer station open for people like me to do my trash and recycling etc. you know, I don't have a guaranteed market to heck with it. Or or is there just in general, no matter what the transfer station does, they're just not going to bid. >> No, the RFI was was if there was an option to either use the service from the hauler or use the transfer station, they were not interested. >> Right. Is it fair to say that this committee is agreed that what we're envisioning is that option is not going to be an option? And people need to think about that. And I certainly thinking about it as a individual because I think uh like some of you um I actually use a transfer station for my trash and recycling. And what we're saying is that the RFP will make it clear that that is not an option. I see one head nodding. Mimi. Um, does that give you sufficient I mean maybe it's already in the the the draft and I should know this but >> it's not what it currently says is the municipality intends to keep the existing transportation open for certain operations and services is yet to be determined and is open to proposals on its future operations including proposals to use it as an aggregation site for trash, recycling and other waste items. But I think we could just add in that it will not be available for regular residential trash and recycling. So that's clear. >> Yes, >> you can opt out. >> Yeah, basically. >> Well, Susan will say, >> okay, >> people can opt out, but that your only other opt out option would be another hauler, not to take it to the transfer station. >> But I'll let you say that, Susan. >> Yeah. No, it's it's because it's a fee for service. If if it if this was part of the general fund, you you wouldn't have you don't have to allow people to opt out. But because it's a fee for service, you have to opt you have to allow people to opt out. Now, um what what would they opt into? Um there it's possible that another hauler would still do subscription service, but I can tell you historically when that has happened, it's just not costefficient for haulers to come in for for 10 homes, you know, for the people who are hopping out. We had one hauler that did not win a bid in a community for curbside collection, and they undercut the price of the hauler that did win. and um offered subscription service to people for a lower price, but they couldn't make it. I mean, over time, it's like it fizzled because they just realized they they could not um you know, it wasn't um they weren't going to win. So, it ended up fizzling out. But, um yeah. Um, the other thing that I wanted to mention is that um Oh, I just it just left my mind. Never mind. I It'll come to me. >> Jennifer. >> So, I guess what we're saying is I have forgotten that, Susan, that we can't require people to purchase a service, but what we would do is provide the biders, the vendors. We would say this is how many households we had in Ammerst. So they could but then a resident could still opt out but they would be basing is that correct? But they would we would be it's almost like we're we're guaranteeing we're saying this is the number of households you'll be picking up from. But of course a resident could could they then decide they're not because we can't require them to pay the service. they have to I mean according to the board of health regulations they're required to have their trash handled in a certain way right so in that respect they don't have a choice but they have a choice of how they do it so different communities handle it different ways and South Hadley I it's interesting because South Hadley is even I think it's it's either from the general fund or it's partially covered from the general fund and it's a really great deal and even though it's a really good price he Um uh they had a couple people opt out and and um he's like fine, but if you opt out, you have to tell us h what you're what you're doing with your trash. This is a board of health regulation. What are you doing with your trash? What are you doing with your recycling? Um and and if you have a plan that's that's um acceptable to the board of health, then yes, you may opt out. I also want to just say that um the with it might be okay to have trash overflow at the transfer station. So where you don't take you don't take trash but you can take trash overflow >> and and pays you throw bags and you can even make them pretty expensive if you know if that's to cover make sure all your costs are covered. I have to say again in South Hadley, not only do they charge a fee for the bag, per bag, but they charge a transfer station fee. So, every time you come to the transfer station, you have to pay a fee. >> And so, it turns out that when you come with overflow, you know, um it it's it's it's not not free. It's not cheap. >> Yeah, Jennifer. But if we're saying I mean I think that we'd get a lot of push back if people were charged for taking their overflow to the transfer station. So we're saying we're going to build that into the cost. You know, we're going to spread it out among everyone so everybody they don't know. It's not like you're paying a separate fee. >> If you accept if you accept overflow trash and you have a pay as you throw system, you would need to pay for those bags. >> Yeah. You pay for the bags, but you wouldn't have wouldn't pay station. Yeah. I mean, that's a that's a that's a town decision, right? Right. But I agree with Jennifer that that would be that seems excessive and ownorous unless there's some very good reason why. Um uh I think looking at the time, we still have three major topics, two at least. Um one obviously is is curbside composting. Um the other is related to communication outreach and also service requests and what you know who handles that and what do we do with complaints and and staffing etc. And we do not have the time to deal with those today. So I'm going to suggest but again uh Paul may want to weigh in here that we would need uh Mimi's assistance at least one more time to get our way through this in its entirety. Um and hence our next meeting is is October 1. Um same time, same place, same venue. I don't know if Mimi is available. Uh I don't know if Susan is available, but um we still I don't see us getting through these three topics in the next five or 10 minutes. And we do have a couple of other items we have to attend to. Um and I think also people need perhaps to digest today's discussion. Um I think it's been very fruitful, but we've covered a lot. Um, I will be properly watching the tape again at least once um to try and sort through all of this. Um, Mimi, is there anything in particular as we unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to close out the discussion here for today and allow you and Susan um to go on to your own uh work. But uh is there anything in particular that um you still need to hear from us about beyond these three topics? Is there something in what we've discussed today that that could use some clarification? Um, >> I don't think >> you feel Yeah. You feel like you've learned a few things. Hopefully, we've been somewhat helpful to you today. You've been very helpful to us. I'm not sure how much help we've been to you. >> No, you made some decisions. >> Okay. Yeah, that's true. It's a low bar. It's a low bar. >> I can be there. I am available on the first at 10 a.m. So, >> all right. I do feel that it's very it's essential that you be present. Um I'm sorry we don't move as quickly as but yeah it's we move as fast as we move. Um all right I'm going to close out the discussion then I'm going to ask colleagues to obviously review uh in their notes and maybe even go back and watch the tape if you have the time but u please review what we've gone through today um and bring any concerns or questions obviously related to that. But we still have three topics essentially to cover. we should be able to finish that next time. And at that point, um hopefully Mimi will feel like she has sufficient uh information and decision points that she can finish the RFP and it can move to its next next steps. Okay. All right. Well, thank you both. Thank you, Mimi. Thank you, Susan. Um and uh Paul, the next item on the agenda, if I can find the agenda is Oh, I'm going to offer Yeah, I'd like to deal with the We have one uh town manager appointment. Um I believe it's actually sort of proforma. It's u uh Mark Barrett who is the housing authority rep for CPA. Um Paul, if you want to just take that. >> Yeah, this is a you know for the CPA committee. Each committee gets to appoint their designates. The housing authority voted on theirs. We're still waiting for two more committees to act. So, this is just a their designate. >> Any questions, concerns from committee members? >> Otherwise, I'm going to make a motion that TSO recommend that town council approve the appointment of Mark Barrett as housing authority representative to the community preservation act committee for a term to expire June 30, 2027. Second. >> Then a second from Jennifer Tob. I'm going to move directly to a vote. Uh Jennifer, >> yes. >> Council Lord, >> I Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Ryan is also an I. So the vote is 40 with one absent that appointment. Thank you, Paul. We have two sets of minutes. Um one from August 6th and one from September 3rd. Um I'm going to do them each separately. Um, I'm going to make a motion that we approve the August 6th, 2026 minutes as presented. Um, is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion, concerns, questions? If not, I'm going to move directly to vote. Um, and I'm an I. Jennifer Tob, >> yes. >> Councelor Lord, >> I. >> And Pam Rooney, >> yes. >> Thank you. Um, I'll make a motion again that we approve the minutes of September 3rd, 2026 as presented. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Pam Rooney is the second. Thank you, Pam. I'll move directly to a vote. Um, Pam Rooney, >> yes. >> Council Lord, >> I. >> Jennifer Tom, >> yes. >> And councelor Ryan is an I. Again, the vote is 40 with one absent. Um, I wanted I skipped over this, so let me go back to it. I apologize. I want to give you a very brief update on um if I can find my notes. I did hear from the resident advisory committee. They have in fact uh sent out a a rather exhaustive survey, but your chair and his uh infinite wisdom forgot to send it to you, so you haven't actually seen it. Um but they're not meeting again until um October 27 and so I've asked to be present at that meeting. Um they have gotten responses from eight boards and committees. It's not an overwhelming response but they have gotten responses. What I'm going to do uh with my apologies, but given all the other things we're doing, maybe it's just as well. I will send you I will include in a a message to you soon and make it available uh the survey. Um I could put all the response I guess I'll put all in there. Um we've gotten uh as I said actually responses from eight bodies. They've gotten eight responses. Um and you haven't seen the survey yet. So I'll send that to you. Um nothing shocking or surprising but um and hopefully we'll get a few more between now and October. Uh I believe it's October 27. Um, and I've asked to be present at that meeting. But just so you know that they did in fact put a survey together over the summer. They did in fact send it out and they have in fact gotten a number of responses and um, shortly I will send you actually that so you can look at it yourselves and we can certainly include that as a discussion item briefly at our next meeting. Um, but we will meet at least once, maybe even twice before RAAC meets and um reviews the the survey and I will ask their input uh and then we'll go on from there. Questions about that? Um, good. I again I'm sorry I didn't get it to you to for today's meeting, but I will. And um that is where we stand with our work on community boards and committees. Um future agenda items. It looks like once again on October one we're going to be continuing our discussion with um Mimi Kaplan. We have as I said three more topics to go over um plus I guess a general overall review of all topics and make sure that we're in agreement as to uh the general decision points with the RFP. Um, but I imagine we will finish with that. I hope we will finish with that at our next meeting. Um, I will offer us an opportunity to talk about the boards and committee survey. Are there other topics that we have? Um, I'm imagining we might have time for one other topic at that meeting. We don't have to decide today. Um, but I have mentioned in the past um, street lights is something we could begin to take up again. um and uh field survey the care and uptake of our fields. So, um, you can send me suggestions if you have some you'd like to make now, but right now what I'm envisioning is most of the meeting will again be uh waste hauler and uh if there's time available um I would like to get back to some of our other business and unless there's strong feeling one way or the other um well, we'll see what people think and you can send that to me offline if you wish. Um, but that's what I'm seeing as future agenda items. I have no topics unanticipated by the chair and uh so unless there's any further comment or thought um we can adjourn >> 20 minutes early. >> Well, I mean as again I toyed with the thought of trying to push us. >> No, no, that's just >> I know. I know. But uh I it's yeah I think we also need time to digest um and and for people to weigh in. So um all right I'm going to move to ajourn. Uh I guess we have to vote. >> Okay you second Jennifer. Thank you. I vote I Pam Rooney. >> Yes. >> Councelor Lord >> I. >> And Jennifer Todd. >> Yes. >> All right. The vote is unanimous with one absent. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. Thank you Paul. Thank you Athena. >> See you soon. Bye-bye.