2004-05-26CITY OF BEVERLY, MASSACHUSETTS
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION: Trash and Recycling Study Committee
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: May 26, 2004
LOCATION: Third Floor, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Nancy Frates, Catherine Rich-Duval,
Jean Phinney, Mary Rodrick, Kevin Ennis
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Coughlin, Ralph Forgione
OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Seamans, Sharon Byrne Kishida
RECORDER: Sharon Byrne Kishida
Frates calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2 committee members were absent (Forgione
and Coughlin). Rodrick noted we had quorum (more than 4 committee members were
present.)
Frates announces that Forgione has hurt his back and will not be able to attend meetings (at
least in the short term), but would like to continue to serve and assist the committee in its
work. Committee agrees that if Forgione wants to remain on the committee, they would
welcome his service. Frates says she will follow up with Mayor Scanlon to see if he would
want to appoint another member.
Frates also mentions that Cassidy is unable to be there due to a meeting conflict. Seamans
from the City’s Engineering Department is present and will be a regular attendee. Everyone
is introduced to Seamans.
5/11/04 Meeting Minutes are reviewed. Kishida suggests 2 changes which are accepted and
approved.
Ennis then asks for the start time of the upcoming Public Hearing (June 7, 2004) on the
proposed Trash Fee. Rodrick explains how the Public Hearing is scheduled to start at 7 with
the regular council meeting beginning at 8, but that frequently what happens is the Public
Hearing portion extends into the regular council meeting.
Phinney then says that she has asked to meet with both the Board of Trustees and
Management Company of her condo complex (Gateway) to learn how the proposed trash
fee will affect condo owners since they only have 2 water meters and their water bill is in
their condo fee. (Most Beverly residents will see their trash fee on their water and sewer
bill). Phinney states that Gateway gets one municipal pick-up per week and pays for one
private pick-up per week.
Noting the challenges of who should and shouldn’t be billed, Seamans states that the City
plans to bill everyone who falls under the parameters of the City’s collection and that the
burden will be on the household / business to demonstrate that they do not utilize municipal
collection and are therefore, exempt from paying trash fee.
Trash and Recycling Study Committee Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2004 meeting Page 1 of 4
Next, Kishida asks for a volunteer to take minutes of the meetings. Rodrick says she will do
the minutes if meetings can be taped. Kishida says she will look into getting a tape recorder.
Ennis says there is a Microsoft software program that can record meeting onto a disk and
display in Word for editing. Ennis didn’t know the name of the program. Both he and
Kishida said they would research. Kishida thought that the estimated $100 cost could be a
reimbursable expense (from DEP).
nd
The committee then takes up the 2 draft of mission statement that was included on the
5/11/04 meeting minutes. The draft statement reads:
“The goal of the study committee will be to review Beverly’s solid waste program,
investigate alternatives and opportunities to increase recycling and reduce trash
generation, the financial implications of the alternatives, and citizens’ willingness to
participate. Based on its findings, the committee will then make its recommendation to
the Mayor and City Council for their consideration and ultimate decision. Pending
positive reception of its recommendation, the Committee will also assist in the
educational outreach component and program implementation.”
Rich-Duval says she would like to remove the word financial before the word implications; that
it isn’t necessary and that taking it out does not mean that we would not still consider the
financial implications. Ennis states that knowing the financial implications of all of the
alternatives we consider is key to this committee’s mission, although he agrees that it need
not be stated. Phinney and Rich-Duval both comment that a good mission statement should
be short and to the point. Rich-Duval further recommends that citizen’s willingness to participate
be changed to state how alternatives will impact both the City and its citizens. Rich-Duval
also suggests that the next sentence end after the word Council and that the final sentence be
eliminated altogether since it goes beyond the original Scope of Work. All changes are
accepted and incorporated as follows:
“The goal of the study committee will be to review Beverly’s solid waste program,
investigate alternatives and opportunities to increase recycling and reduce trash
generation, the implications of those alternatives, and their impact on the City and its
citizens. Based on its findings, the committee will then make its recommendation to
the Mayor and City Council.”
Thinking this may be an easier read, I have changed the format to read as follows…
The goal of the Trash and Recycling Study Committee will be:
·
To review Beverly’s solid waste program
·
To investigate alternatives and opportunities to increase recycling and reduce trash generation
·
To examine the implications of those alternatives and their impact on the City and its citizens
Based on its findings, the committee will then make its recommendation to the Mayor and City Council.
Trash and Recycling Study Committee Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2004 meeting Page 2 of 4
Kishida then spends the next 1 + hour reviewing with the Committee the particulars of
Beverly’s trash/recycling/HHW/yardwaste program, as well as present and projected budget
details.
As part of the conversation, several more handouts were distributed:
·
Updated estimated budget breakdowns for the fiscal years 2004 – 2006 including
estimated municipally generated trash tonnage
·
Illegal dumping ordinance
·
Trash tonnage spreadsheet 1996 – 2003
·
Recycling tonnage spreadsheet 1997 –2003
Seamans comments that municipally generated trash tonnage numbers also include abuse of
public receptacles (i.e. illegal dumping). Rich-Duval remarks that Beverly’s recycling tonnage
is only second to Haverhill’s (on the Northeast District 2 contract info spreadsheet) and
requests that recycling pounds per capita comparison information be provided for the next
meeting. Kishida said she would provide but that it was important to not only look at
recycling pounds per capita but to look at trash pounds per capita at the same time.
Ennis also says he has many more questions, but because of the late hour would not ask
them now. Kishida asks him to send them to her in an email and that she will respond to
the group, or research for the next meeting.
Next we discuss the formation of Sub-Committees as outlined at our first meeting. The
following committee members signed up for Sub-Committee assignments:
Finance: Ennis
Mentoring Communities – field trips: Frates
Phinney
Rich-Duval
Outreach / Survey: Rodrick
We then had a brief discussion about the outreach component of our work distinguishing
between the outreach that will occur during our 6 month study period that will include
distribution of the survey (getting the word out and getting residents to complete), as well as
holding a public forum to present study recommendations and get feedback, and the
outreach component that may or may not occur as the result of the committee’s
recommendations. Rich-Duval discusses using the water / sewer bill as a means to
communicate to residents, using the example of instructing residents on how to properly
prepare cardboard for recycling collection. Rodrick comments that she has researched this
previously (for enclosing the HHW - Household Hazardous Waste collection flyer) and
because the city uses an outside mail house, that it is not possible.
This segued into the discussion of allowing public comment during the committee meetings.
Frates says that she has researched the question and the Committee is not required to hear
Trash and Recycling Study Committee Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2004 meeting Page 3 of 4
public input, and she would like to hold to the 2 month moratorium to give the committee
sufficient time to educate itself. Rodrick states that there was a resident at the last meeting
who had something to offer the group. Kishida states that getting public input is an
important and invaluable component of the committee’s work, but that the value of the
public’s input may not be fully understood and appreciated until the committee is further
along in its study. Rodrick comments that no members of the public were present this
evening. Frates comments that should the trash fee pass, the spotlight will turn to this
committee, and that we should anticipate greater interest on the part of the public. It was
agreed to hold to the 2-month moratorium suggested at the first meeting, and use that time
to get up to speed on the issue.
Next, the committee discusses the circulation list, who is on it and what they should receive
(all meeting agendas, minutes?) Kishida says she will draft 2 emails for the committee to
review, one to go to Primary list and the other for JRM introducing them to the committee
and asking for their assistance. She will distribute drafts in advance of next meeting so that
the Committee can make a determination then.
The committee then takes up setting the Agenda for its next meeting and beyond. It is
agreed that Kishida will give an introduction to PAYT and discussion would focus on that.
Looking ahead to the next meeting (June 23) would be a discussion on flat fees. Frates also
requested information on the city’s CRT collection program, in particular focusing on the
success / or not of this PAYT program. Kishida comments that she has good curbside
collection numbers, as well as illegally dumped numbers, but they are not an apple to apple
comparison. Kishida will bring for next meeting.
Kishida distributes 2 articles about PAYT and hands out 2 copies of the EPA’s
(Environmental Protection Agency – Federal) video on PAYT and 2 copies of Mass DEP’s
(Department of Environmental Protection - state) PAYT Implementation Guide as
homework for next meeting. Kishida says she will see to it that Forgione and Coughlin
receive copies of all the meeting handouts.
Frates: motion to adjourn, seconded by Rodrick. All members in favor, motion
carries.
The meeting is adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 9.
Trash and Recycling Study Committee Meeting Minutes
May 26, 2004 meeting Page 4 of 4