Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1991 SWC MinutesMOUNT PROSPECT RECYCLING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MARCH 21, 1991 PRESENT: Bill Donovan, Paul Hoefert, Joe Kubik, George Luteri, Carl Maas, Ken Westlake and Mary Winkler ABSENT: Dick Bachhuber and Elizabeth Herbert Also in attendance: George Van Geem and Don Wiebel - Village Trustees Herbert Weeks, Glen Andler, Trudy Deutschmann and Lisa Angell - Staff Doris and Harold Rentschler - Mount Prospect residents Bob Tally and Ralph Rascon - Browning-Ferris Industries CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Westlake at 7:35 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the February 21, 1991 were approved with the following amendments: 1) Page 2 under other business - Dr. Luteri requested it be noted he was going to contact Lincoln Junior High School regarding the curbside recycling program. 2) Page 2 under Balefill Update - 4th line - sight, to read, sites 5th line - will be filing, to read, may be filing. CITIZENS FORUM Mr. Rentschler stated he was questioned by a neighbor as to why the Village did not collect plastics and corrugated cardboard. Chairman Westlake responded that the Recycling Commission had recommended additional recyclables be included in curbside pickup last year, but the Village Board did not approve of the expansion. He did inform Mr. Rentschler that the new contract, effective August 1, 1991, would include curbside collection of plastics and that ARC currently accepts corrugated cardboard at their Recycling Center for no revenue. Mr. Harold Rentschler encouraged the Recycling Commission to proceed with adding more recyclables to the program as soon as possible. Chairman Westlake assured him the Commission would do so. STATUS REPORT ON CURRENT PROGRAMS In respect to the yard material program Chairman Westlake asked if yard material bags would be collected throughout the growing season. Public Works Deputy Director Glen Andler affirmed that bags would be accepted for collection throughout the growing season. Chairman Westlake also commented on the termination of recycling services to Cottonwood. Lisa Angell stated Cottonwood Management had been very supportive of the Village's efforts during implementation and termination. She also mentioned Cottonwood was open to alternative recycling methods for residents. In anticipation of a lengthy discussion during the Commission's review of the solid waste bid proposals, Commercial Recycling was moved up on the agenda. COMMERCIAL RECYCLING Paul Hoefert referred the Commissioners to the Business Recycling Guide and Business Recycling Certificate they each should have received. As none of the Commissioners were able to attend the Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Ecologizing for Profit, Paul asked Lisa Angell to report. Lisa stated the presentation by Jacqueline Neurauter was very good and there seemed to be a positive response among attedees to the commercial recycling publication. She also added that Janet Hansen from the Chamber would be contacting Chairman Westlake to sign the Recycling Certificates to be awarded to participating businesses. REVIEW OF BIDS FOR NEW WASTE SERVICES CONTRACT Before beginning his presentation on the bid results, Glen Andler reviewed the Village's current solid waste contract including pricing for single and multifamily refuse collection, recycling and yard materials. Glen then presented several scenarios for the Commission to consider in terms of contract services and costs. The alternative chosen will determine which scavenger is awarded is refuse/recycling contract. Part 1 (Basic Services) 1) Basic Service Proposals - Three Year Total Costs to the Village for unlimited refuse and recycling services to Single and Multifamily Units. Additional collection services under basic services were, yard materials, reusable household goods and bulk items. Costs for direct billing to residents were also identified. When only the total cost to the Village is considered the bid from Laidlaw is the lowest. When the total value of the contract is considered (including the cost of the second pick up at multifamily homes) Waste Management is the low bidder. Part 2 - Alternate #1 (Pay -by -Bag) 1) Single family pay -by -bag proposals - Glen went through the costs submitted by each of the bidders for this collection and disposal system for refuse, yard material and reusable household goods. Based on the pricing submitted by the four (4) scavengers ARC Disposal is the low bidder at $0.98 a bag. Part 3 - Alternate #2 (Contractor Supplied Container(s)) Z Single family monthly fee for refuse collection and disposal in containers supplied by the contractor. Glen stated only one (1) scavenger, Laidlaw, bid on this type of system. There was no further discussion on this alternative. Following a few questions regarding the overall contract proposal Glen stated that the Village Manager, Finance Director, Public Works Director and he had spent a great deal of time analyzing the bid results, as well as, the need to reduce the Village's solid waste stream and provide a fiscally sound solid waste budget. Therefore, staff's recommendation to the Commission for a new solid waste contract is a volume -based collection service. The proposal is a modified pay -by -bag program as was presented as follows: The pay -by -bag system as proposed would allow each single family unit one container of refuse per week and unlimited amount of recyclables. In addition to this there would be one scheduled Spring and Fall special clean up where residents would be allowed an unlimited amount of refuse with certain restrictions. Yard materials including brush, would continue to be paid for on a user basis utilizing prepaid stickers. The stickers would be attached to either a standard 32 gallon container of yard materials or a 30 gallon generic biodegradable bag and all bundles of brush. Single families generating more than one container of refuse would be required to purchase a prepaid sticker that would have to be attached to the container before the scavenger would pick it up. All bulk items would require the same prepaid sticker. A similar allowance for basic sold waste collection service to multifamily units would be provided. Complexes would be charged on a per refuse container basis versus the current per unit charge. Under the pay -by -bag system the Village would pay for a proportionate amount of the first pickup equivalent to the one container allowed to the single family unit. At the same time the Village would provide unlimited pickup of recyclables. If a multifamily setting recycles and waste is substantially reduced they would be allowed to go to a once a week pickup, which would reduce their costs for solid waste collection. Recognizing the major change being proposed, it is recommended that initially the Village would provide all single family units two containers per week, as well as the first pickup of multifamily containers. This would begin August 1, 1991, and run through January 1, 1992. At that time residents would switch to the basic one can service outlined above. The proposal was well received by the Commissioners but there were several questions regarding the recycling program. One concern was with the contamination and processing of materials commingled at multifamily complexes. Glen stated Browning Ferris was the only hauler expressing concern over commingled materials and therefore, BFI did not include glass collection at multifamily sites. In response to the concern as to whether the bin currently used for recyclables was adequate, considering the additional materials, Glen stated the Village would be purchasing 19 gallon bins for the residents to use when it is time to reorder. He also pointed out residents will no longer need to separate their recyclables, ending the problem with brown bags blowing in neighborhoods. A concern was also raised regarding ARC Disposal's wish to not pickup corrugated boxes right of way and how it would affect the educational program for the new service. Glen responded that this may be an item that could be negotiated. In regard to the use of a 32 gallon container or garbage bag Glen stated either a can or bag would be acceptable as long as it did not exceed 50 pounds. A general concern was how residents were going to react to this program when they are use to having the service paid through their taxes. Glen stated this concept is supported in by the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County. The solid waste plan by SWANCC idenitifies this type of collection as one communities may want to adopt to effectively reduce waste and contain solid waste costs. Glen added SWANCC provides incentives to communities practicing waste reduction. Chairman Westlake questioned whether the scenario for no free service had been evaluated. Glen responded that the Village is here to provide services therefore, it was not given serious consideration. Questions regarding sticker price and distribution were also addressed by Glen. At this time a set rate has not been identified, but Glen indicated it may be between $1.15 and $1.25. The scavenger would be responsible for sticker distribution in approximately 10 retail locations. In response to the question of what the recommendation should be, Glen stated staff would like the Commission to make a recommendation this evening to be presented at the next Board meeting. He also stated staff were looking for the Commission's support and recommendation for a Solid Waste Coordinator. Although the Commissioners generally supported the position it was felt the documentation of current, adminstrative staff time should be done separate from maintenance staff time. A motion was then made and seconded to support the pay -by -bag program and all the other administrative recommendations. Question was raised as to whether we would be taking a risk with ARC. Herb Weeks responded that ARC had been slow in entering recycling services but are now committed to expanding refuse and recycing services. ARC is currently serving Rosemont, Franklin Park and Park Ridge. During the discussion on service Glen took the opportunity to compliment Browning Ferris on the excellent service they have provided the Village over the years. In response to the question whether ARC would use the new transfer site if the balefill was built Glen stated yes, but in the mean time ARC would use their own transfer site. There were a few questions as to whether the Village could revert to the basic full service system if the program was not successfully adopted by residents. Glen stated yes the Village would always have this perogative. In terms of the proposed adjustment period one thought was to lengthen it to one year and the other to eliminate it. A concern about residents holding over garbage from one week to the next to avoid the sticker cost was raised as a potential health hazard. With all questions and concerns addressed, a vote of the motion on the floor, to accept the proposal for a pay -by -bag service for single and multifamily units as outlined in Glen Andler's memorandum, was taken. The motion was unanimously accepted. A to motion to accept the proposal to hire a Solid Waste/Environmental Services Coordinator was moved and seconded. Paul Hoefert stated although he felt the position was warranted he could not support it based on the memo as written. He recommended a more detailed break down of administrative hours separate from maintenance hours. Staff agreed to provide the information as requested. In repsonse to whether the budgetary aspects of this position should be discussed, ie, salary, Herb Weeks responded he would prefer to discuss salary with the Village Manager before openly discussing. With all questions and concerns addressed, a vote on the motion to hire a Solid Waste/Environmental Services Coordinator was taken. The motion was unanimously accepted. OUT REACH TO INSTITUTIONS Mary Winkler read the letter she drafted encouraging schools and churces who are not currently recycling to do so through the curbside program. The Commission thanked Mary for writing the letter, but did suggest the number of schools and churches currently receiving curbside service be added to the letter. The letter with the recommended addition will be typed on Public Works letterhead and be mailed out. OTHER BUSINESS Mary Winkler asked if Public Works had any give aways relating to recycling she could use as part of an Earth Day Liturgy. Public Works staff assured Mary they could provide her with some sort of handout. Paul Hoefert asked if any of the Commissioners could help man the recycling booth at Friendship Conservatory during the Earth Day Celebration. Ken Westlake will be making a presentation during the April 27 event. George Luteri asked about providing recycling bins at outdoor events. It was agreed efforts should be made to provide organizations/groups holding outdoor events with bins if they did not have their own method of collection. All the Commissioners were encouraged to attend next Tuesday evenings Board of Trustees meeting as the recommendation for the new solid waste contract will be made. Glen will draft a recommendation for Chairman Westlake to make at the meeting. NEXT MEETING The next meeting will be Thursday, April 18, 1991. rl X"a iMM.iy:U� Before the meeting was called to adjourn Harold Rentschler reminded everyone to get out and vote April 2, and to vote yes on the new Police/Fire Station referendum. There being no other business a motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, M. Lisa Angell