CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Solid Waste Reduction and Management Task Force

Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: Monday, March 28, 2011

Committee Members Present (All Present): Mark Carmien, Co-Chair; Terry Culhane, Board
of Public Works; Wendy Foxmyn, Co- Chair; Marianne LaBarge, Ward 6 Councilor; David
Narkewicz, At-Large City Councilor and Council President; Mimi Odgers, Water Not Waste;
Donna Salloom Board of Health; Rosemary Schmidt, Board of Public Works; and David Starr,
GREEN Northampton.
Staff Present: Jim Laurila, City Engineer; Karen Bouquillon, Solid Waste Supervisor; David
Veleta, Assistant Environmental Engineer; Arlene Miller, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection Municipal Assistance Coordinator.
Others Present: Richard Guzowski, Chair of 1989 Recycling Committee; Richard Carnall,
Valley Recycling; Susan Timberlake; Michael Janik; Emily Wergin, Pedal People; Steve Lucas, ;
Twig Burlingame; Gene Tacy, City Councilor Ward 7; Roger Guzowski, Five College
Recycling Coordinator, Craig Odgers (filmed the meeting)
Wendy Foxmyn called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.

Public Comment

Richard Guzowski read the email he had sent to the Task Force. He congratulated them for
reaching a decision to recommend Option 1 as the method to deal with the City’s trash “during
the transition period while the landfill closes”. He stated this recommendation took 9 meetings,
2 public forums and 1 hour and 58 minutes to make. He seriously doubted that the
recommendation to switch to a bag program can or should be made in 38 minutes. He doubted
the recommendations about comprehensive recycling education (along with most of the other
recommendations made at the last meeting) will see any funding or attention because the revenue
stream from the landfill is disappearing. He recommended the only way to deal with additional
trash-related issues would be to recommend they require further study by this or another
committee.

Twig Burlingame said he was concerned the BPW will not follow the Task Force’s
recommendations- they have their own agenda. He said he is OK with paying more, and people
like the current system. He disputed comments made by Roe Schmidt at the last meeting about
the environmental impacts associated with Option 1 due to vehicle traffic. He felt her statements
were ill-informed and wrong. He went on to say people who use the drop-off centers commonly
combine those trips with other errands - thus reducing the overall impact to the environment. He
added it seemed the Task Force relied on the Stantec study and City staff a lot, and these sources
are not always right.
Gene Tacy said the majority of residents he was in contact with last week from Ward 7 are in
favor of Option 1, including staying with the bag stickers. The outpouring of public opinion was
huge and lopsided towards keeping both the Glendale Road and Locust Street facilities open. He
said people do no want to be told where to purchase bags.

Review/Acceptance of 3/21/11 minutes

David Veleta, David Narkewicz, and Mark Carmien offered revisions for the 3/21/11 minutes.
Terry Culhane moved to accept the minutes as amended, and David Starr seconded the motion.
The 3/21/11 minutes were approved (8 in favor, with T. Culhane abstaining). Note: the
agendas, minutes and all resources distributed to the Task Force are posted on the Solid Waste
Reduction & Management Task Force website at http://www.northamptonma.gov/solidwaste.
The Task Force also has a Google Group at http://groups.google.com/group/solid-waste-
reduction--management-task-force?hl=en.

Review of recommendations from 3/21/11

M. Carmien summarized the motions the Task Force had made at the last meeting:

• Recommend Option 1; keep the current system of collecting trash, recycling and difficult
to manage waste.
• Change from the sticker system to a bag system, with the bags being made available
though local retailers.
• Explore a sustainable plan to establish and operate a reuse center and/or resource
recovery park
• Continue the food waste collection program now in place at the Locust Street transfer
station, and expand the program to include the Glendale Road transfer station.
• Promote the expansion of the waste management model currently in place at the Jackson
Street Elementary School to include all of the public schools

Mimi Odgers clarified why she had voted in favor of the PAYT bag program, saying statistics
show this system reduces waste and increases recycling. She said people are more aware of what
they’re throwing away with a bag system. She said the BPW will develop costs for the bags, and
her support of the bag system was not motivated by profit. She mentioned advertising on the
bags would create a new revenue stream.

Marianne LaBarge was hesitant about the PAYT bag system proposal. She had received tons of
emails, and it was not clear what the bags would cost the City versus stickers. She felt stickers
were the way to go, and recommended the DPW find a way to collect the money from
Attendants at the end of each shift (as she had suggested 9 years ago, but nothing had been done
about it). She said promoting businesses- forcing people to go into stores and buy stuff- was not
the City’s job. She concluded stickers vs. bags was a huge issue that would require open public
hearings.

2
M. Carmien referred to Table 3 and Table 4 to point out the bag cost used for all calculations to
arrive at the $111,036 estimated surplus under Option 1 was $2.00 per bag, with a $75 vehicle
permit fee. He said people are buying their own trash bags now for about $.15 each plus buying
a $2.00 bag sticker, so the proposed PAYT bag system (at $2.00/bag) should actually save
people $.15 per bag. He said three sizes of bags makes a lot of sense; this approach would
accommodate low volume users. He also said that there could be other venues where people
could buy the bags, such as schools and town offices, so the city would not be promoting any
businesses and force people to go into private stores.

Listing and voting on other recommendations

Referring to the summary of comments/recommendations from Task Force members that had
been submitted and/or verbalized from the last meeting, W. Foxmyn proposed to prioritize the
discussion by addressing those that had received the most support first. M. Carmien added the
focus should be on recommendations that had not been discussed yet (i.e., do not return to
recommendations that had already been made). M. Carmien acknowledged that he (and other
Task Force members) had done a great deal of outside research and had invested a lot of time
above and beyond the hours spent at meetings, reading the Stantec Report and asking questions
of the DPW staff. He stated that because of this work, these will be informed recommendations.

M. Odgers said weighting the recommendations should be a priority; there are lots of dreams
about what would be preferable- but the Task Force’s recommendations need to be manageable.
W. Foxmyn stated some of the recommendations had already been weighted. There was some
discussion about how to proceed with making recommendations.

RECYCLING COLLECTION
A discussion about whether or not to recommend single stream recycling (as opposed to dual
stream recycling) was deemed irrelevant at this time, and no action was taken.

PAY-AS-YOU-THROW, REUSE and COMPOSTING/ORGANICS DIVERSION

These topics were set aside for further discussion later in the meeting.

WASTE PREVENTION AND SOURCE REDUCTION

D. Narkewicz stated there has been a push-back in other communities about banning plastic bags
and other products, and he didn’t understand what the legal ramifications were. D. Starr said
waste bans are a viable part of the process, and the Task Force’s charge was to reduce the waste
stream. D. Narkewicz said the City could monitor what other communities are doing (i.e.,
banning Styrofoam). He added EPR is the dominant trend to address these kinds of issues on
Federal, State and local levels. M. Carmien said recommending the City implement bans on
Styrofoam and plastic bags was a great opportunity for the Task Force to get the ball rolling and
set a “high bar”, even if there was going to be some pushback. It would be up to the BPW and
City Council to explore the feasibility, and he thought this should be recommended. He added
that he would love to see Northampton be the first community in Massachusetts to ban single-use

3
plastic bags and Styrofoam containers. M. Odgers said she was wary about over-legislating, and
would prefer an approach where businesses would adopt sustainable practices voluntarily- which
could be promoted similar to the “local hero” campaign. A. Miller suggested recommending the
adoption of a “zero waste policy” might provide an umbrella for EPR, PAYT, reducing the use
of non-recyclable packaging and a lot of other concepts. David Starr agreed, saying
recommending the City become a "zero-waste programmized" community, disposal costs would
be minimized by reducing waste. M. Carmien made a motion to “explore opportunities for
legally restricting unnecessary packaging with municipal solid waste bans; write an ordinance for
City Council and/or BPH approval to ban non-recyclable/non-reusable containers (i.e.;
Styrofoam, dark plastic take-out containers, plastic bags, etc.) from being used in City
restaurants and stores”. There was some discussion about what such a vote would signify, about
winnowing down and prioritizing the list of recommendations, and re-writing various sections of
the recommendation summary. D. Salloom said even if the Task Force recommended moving
towards a zero waste plan, it would not affect the 50% of the population using private haulers.
She continued, “we‘re getting in front of ourselves without looking at this population”. D. Starr
stated this population could be reached through the schools and City-wide educational
campaigns. D. Salloom made a friendly amendment to M. Carmien's motion to rewrite the
Waste-Prevention/Source Reduction section under discussion, so the recommendation to the
BPW would become “adopt a zero-waste waste plan to include…” and then all the bullet points
starting with the 3rd bullet under this section (see Summary of Recommendations for complete
list). D. Starr asked if the Task Force supported a future curbside program using PAYT as a
component of a zero-waste plan. The answer was inconclusive since the task force already voted
against curbside and it was agreed the first bullet point in this section would not be included. T.
Culhane seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

PEDAL PEOPLE
Karen Bouquillon noted Task Force members had expressed enthusiastic support for this non-
motorized business in all of their comments. M. Carmien made a motion the Task Force
recommend the BPW site dumpsters around the city for use by non-motorized collection
services. D. Narkewicz seconded the motion. M. Carmien stated that this action would allow
Pedal People to improve their efficiency and to grow their business in new neighborhoods,
therefore reducing truck traffic and car trips to the transfer stations. D. Salloom expressed
concern about public health issues, saying these dumpsters might not have any security. J.
Laurila explained a number of State permits would be required to do this because waste hauling
is a regulated activity. He added the City’s involvement might raise the specter of providing
advantages to one hauler over another. M. Odgers said everyone agrees the Pedal People are
unique and wonderful but it is not the role of government to go into partnership with private
waste haulers. ( The motion was not approved (2 in favor, 4 against, 3 abstentions).

D. Narkewicz made a motion to allow the BPW to develop a short-term implementation plan
related to Option 1 to include the following; monitor the system’s revenues and costs carefully
during transition period; re-evaluate periodically to develop a long term plan. M. LaBarge
seconded the motion. There was no discussion. The motion was approved unanimously.
M. Odgers made a motion to increase the opportunity to recycle throughout the City by
increasing the number of public space recycling containers. D. Narkewicz asked if the City
would be responsible for collecting the materials. J. Laurila said the Pedal People are collecting

4
the trash and recycling downtown under a contract with the Parking Division, and the Recreation
Department collects the materials at the City’s parks and ball fields. D. Narkewicz suggested
recycling should also be expanded in City buildings. Roe Schmidt amended the motion to
recommend the BPW explore ways to increase the opportunities for recycling in public spaces
and City buildings. M. LaBarge seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

PAY-AS-YOU-THROW
M. Carmien made a motion to have the BPW explore the adoption of a PAYT bag program with
3 sizes of bags made from mostly recycled and biodegradable plastic. D. Starr explained
biodegradable bags do not decompose in a landfill, so there was no compelling reason to use
them. He said using clear plastic bags would help enforce mandatory recycling policies. A.
Miller said using biodegradable plastic film would increase the cost of the bags significantly. D.
Starr amended the motion to recommend the use of multiple sizes for the PAYT program, and
the bags should have mostly recycled content. D. Narkewicz seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.

COMPOSTING/ORGANICS DIVERSION
D. Narkewicz made a motion to recommend the BPW continue to promote backyard composting
through education and the distribution of compost bins at cost. T. Culhane seconded the motion.
The motion was accepted unanimously.

REUSE
M. Carmien talked about his recommendation for the BPW to organize a volunteer run “Swap
Shop Market” twice annually at one of the local schools. D. Salloom said the Task Force had
already made the recommendation to “create greater opportunities for the reuse of goods and
establish a reuse/resource recovery center/swap shop.” She felt this statement was inclusive of
the other recommendations listed under reuse. D. Starr shared his experience with a volunteer
group that was working on a reuse initiative. M. Odgers made a motion for the Mayor or City
Council to appoint a task force to create volunteer-run reuse programs until a more permanent
solution could be identified and established. M. Carmien seconded the motion. W. Foxmyn said
she had had more calls in support of a reuse center than any other issue, and activating a Task
Force might foster some action. The motion passed unanimously.

EDUCATION
M. Odgers asked if specific recommendations about education needed to be addressed, because
the Solid Waste Action Committee (SWAC) is already taking this on. D. Starr said the problem
was the SWAC had no budget, so it was an ineffective committee. D. Narkewicz spoke in
support of maintaining a full-time recycling coordinator and M. Carmien pointed out Table 4 had
already included a salary for this position. M. Carmien said education is key, and spoke in favor
of developing a pamphlet. M. Odgers suggested the Gazette could feature “great recycling
ideas” in a regular column. R. Schmidt asked who should make this happen. W. Foxmyn made
a motion to “keep information updated and available in multiple formats (e.g., websites, e-
mailings, bill stuffers, direct mailings, newspaper inserts), including information about difficult
to manage waste and composting”. T. Culhane seconded the motion. J. Laurila said the DPW
did a mailing last year, and (for the fourth time) is working on the Earth Day guide with the
Gazette. R. Schmidt expressed concern that a pamphlet that contained a lot of detail about reuse,

5
recycling and waste reduction might not be mailable. M. Carmien made a motion to recommend
the BPW develop a pamphlet on “how and what to recycle and compost” to insert into quarterly
mailings (property tax bills, water bills), as well in the packaging of official Northampton trash
bags. D. Starr seconded the motion. D. Narkewicz said this motion could be incorporated into
the motion on the floor. He made a friendly amendment to the original motion (made by W.
Foxmyn) to include “packaging of Northampton trash bags” in the list of examples of multiple
formats. T. Culhane was fine with that and continued his seconding of the motion. The motion
passed unanimously.

D. Narkewicz made a recommendation the DPW work with haulers to explore ways to provide
educational materials to their subscription customers. M. Carmien seconded the motion. The
motion passed with one abstention.

ENFORCEMENT
The discussion about enforcing the BOH’s new “mandatory recycling” regulations did not result
in a recommendation.

RECYCLING OPPORTUNITIES AND MARKETS

Karen Bouquillon announced clamshell containers will be accepted at the Springfield MRF,
effective April 22, 2011. D. Starr made a motion to recommend the DPW should work on
opening new markets for materials that are [currently] not recyclable. M. Carmien seconded the
motion. T. Culhane said this was outside of the Task Force charge. D. Starr explained how
frustrated and discouraged residents are about non –recyclable plastics, and making sure as little
as possible needs to be thrown away is in line with the Task Force’s charge. R. Schmidt said this
could be expressed in a recommendation to develop a zero waste plan; beyond this the Task
Force might be micro-managing. J. Laurila explained there was complexity, interconnectedness
and cost factors that made this a larger issue than the City could tackle on its own. He explained
how the State works to classify materials that can be diverted (carpet, asphalt shingles, etc.) as
well as developing markets to close the loop. M. Carmien agreed with D. Starr the motion was
related to waste reduction and therefore part of our charge, and he felt the recommendation could
be satisfied by including “working on new markets” was codified into the recycling
coordinator’s job description. Referring to a plastics collection event the DPW sponsored last
year, D. Starr said that was already happening. The motion was not approved (3 in favor, 4
opposed, 2 abstentions).

DIFFICULT TO MANAGE WASTE

W. Foxmyn made a motion to recommend the DPW use multiple education approaches; offer
residents financially self-sustaining, safe and accessible options for disposal with particular
attention to medical waste and household hazardous waste. D. Narkewicz seconded the motion.
There was not discussion. The motion passed unanimously.

M. Carmien made a motion to recommend the DPW use a certified E-Steward company (as
defined by the Basal Action Network) to manage the City’s e-waste. For discussion purposes,
Narkewicz seconded the motion. M. Carmien discussed issues associated with e-waste and
referred to the information he distributed about this topic at a previous meeting. He said the
vendor the City uses for electronics recycling (Complete Recycling Services, or CRS) was not

6
certified by the Basal Action Network (BAN) as an e-steward. When he contacted CRS, they
said they were willing to look at BAN’s certification process. J. Laurila asked if companies need
to pay BAN to participate, and what kind of outreach do they do. M. Carmien replied companies
do not need to pay BAN to be certified, BAN is non-profit watchdog for the industry around the
world, and BAN doesn’t contact companies, it’s the other way around. A. Miller said CRS is on
the State contract, and they have been vetted by DEP. R. Schmidt expressed concern the City’s’
E-waste is handled responsibly, but it doesn’t have to be specific to the BAN. There was
discussion about rewording the motion to include environmental responsibility. M. Carmien
amended the motion to read the BPW should use the most responsible and environmentally
sound approaches available for managing e-waste and other hazardous materials. D. Narkewicz
seconded the motion, mentioning that Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for e-waste will
be more and more influential in the future. The motion was approved unanimously.

M. Odgers made a motion to recommend the BPW put solar panels on the landfill to generate
revenue for funding educational programs. M. LaBarge seconded the motion. There was some
discussion about the recommendation on page 10 of the 3/21/11 minutes, which read “Form a
task force charged with focusing on alternative uses for the landfill site that include energy
production used to generate/save revenue to fund solid waste and recycling programs and
developing alternative uses for the landfill site, including solar energy.” M. Odgers proposed the
motion be amended to exclude composting as an alternative use of the landfill. D. Narkewicz
said this should be a separate motion, and the motion was not amended. W. Foxmyn made the
friendly amendment to the motion so it incorporated the original recommendation and read
“Form a task force charged with exploring use of solar panels for the landfill site to
generate/save revenue to fund solid waste and recycling programs”. M. LaBarge stated she was
fine with that and continued the seconding of the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

D. Narkewicz made a motion to support the ongoing acquisition of the Mass DOT site on Locust
Street as a potential site for a transfer station/reuse center. M. Odgers seconded the motion. D.
Salloom suggested this motion be included with recommendations about reuse. M. LaBarge said
the composting site should not be placed at the landfill. W. Foxmyn said there may be creative
potential for the Mass DOT site; possibly a turnkey operation for the private sector. Referring to
the Smith College transfer station design project, D. Narkewicz said it made sense to consolidate
the City’s transfer stations. M. Odgers said this should be reevaluated as time goes on; with
Valley Recycling in operation it may not be cost effective to develop the Mass DOT site as a
transfer station, but there may be other uses. T. Culhane said the DOT originally wanted the use
of the site restricted to waste management, but now any municipal use would be permissible.
The motion passed with one abstention.

M. LaBarge made a motion that food should not be brought into the Glendale Road facility. M.
Odgers seconded the motion, saying it was an equity issue, the Glendale Road neighborhood has
endured odors and traffic, it has not been a shared sacrifice, and composting should be explored
elsewhere. J. Laurila made a clarification between collection and transfer vs. processing on the
property, and both M. LaBarge and M. Odgers agreed they were referring to processing on the
site, not collection. D. Salloom mentioned anaerobic digester technologies, and that organics
diversion should be encouraged throughout the City as long as it is handled responsibly. She felt
delving into this area was micro managing. M. Carmien asked what the revenue potential of the

7
organics business might be, why would the City want to get into it, and were there other sites
around the city that could be used such as the Smith Vocational HS farmland on Burts Pit Road
that was similarly used several years ago. J. Laurila said there is a lot of enthusiasm for
collection of organics in the region and there may be interest in managing it within the City. He
referred to the Stantec study, saying it had looked into a regional anaerobic digestion system. He
said a properly managed facility would not generate odors, but you can’t say “never”. A. Miller
added, the benefit in having a local site is to reduce the costs associated with transportation, and
yes, it could be a money-maker. D. Veleta asked if M. Odgers meant yard and leaf composting
as well. She said food waste only; the neighborhood had 40 years of negative impacts while the
rest of the City got the benefits; other sites (farms) should be explored. J. Laurila said the
Northampton Landfill (among many others) had been included as a potential site in the PVPC
regional study, and the State is currently conducting a study in preparation for banning
commercial organics from disposal. He said organics processing facilities require a site
assignment, and permitting is a long process. A. Miller said at the very least, the site would
require a permit modification. The motion was not approved (3 in favor, 4 opposed, 2
abstentions).

M. Carmien made a motion to recommend the BPW work with appropriate governing bodies to
increase the fines from the current $25-$100 for illegal dumping and littering. David Starr
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

W. Foxmyn made a motion the BPW should utilize best practices in municipal decision-making
as they move forward, including meeting in settings that are accessible and accommodating to
the public, engaging the public in dialogue, holding community forums, using many options for
the dissemination of information and going above and beyond the Open Meeting Law in
transparency in the decision-making process. D. Narkewicz seconded the motion. R. Schmidt
said the BPW already uses best practices; they are exemplary in this way. M. Odgers agreed,
saying the BPW does a good job with one issue- that their minds are already made up before
public forums. The motion passed unanimously.

Preparation of Final Report

M. Carmien made a motion the final report be comprised of the approved recommendations and
presented in bullet form to the BPW. M. Odgers seconded the motion. K. Bouquillon, W.
Foxmyn and M. Carmien agreed to work together to get the final report prepared by April 1,
2011. The report will be posted on the website and emailed to all Task Force members.

Amid words of thanks and acknowledgements about how well the Task Force members had
worked together, the meeting adjourned at 9:40pm.

(These meeting minutes were prepared by Karen Bouquillon based on hand written notes taken during the
meeting and reviewed/edited by Co-Chairs Foxmyn and Carmien. Meeting attendees are asked to review
this summary to make sure it is an accurate reflection of meeting discussions. The minutes can be
amended per vote of the committee members.)

8
 Summary of Recommendations

Develop an implementation plan (hours, materials accepted and other details) which
maintains the current system of collecting trash, recycling and difficult to manage waste
at the Locust Street and Glendale Road facilities ; monitor the system’s revenues and
costs carefully during transition period; re-evaluate periodically to develop a long term
plan.

Change from the PAYT sticker system to a PAYT bag system, with multiple sizes of
bags made with mostly recycled content and made available for purchase though local
retailers.

Develop and implement a means-based discount (as opposed to a senior discount).

Explore a sustainable plan to establish and operate a reuse center and/or resource
recovery park. In cooperation with the Mayor and/or City Council, appoint a task force to
create volunteer-run reuse programs until a more permanent center/park can be identified
and established.

Continue the food waste collection program and expand the program to both transfer
stations.

Promote the expansion of the waste management model currently in place at the Jackson
Street Elementary School to all public schools.

Adopt a zero-waste waste plan, including but not limited to:

o Explore opportunities for legally restricting unnecessary packaging with
municipal solid waste bans; write an ordinance for City Council and/or BOH
approval to ban non-recyclable/non-reusable containers (i.e.; Styrofoam, dark
plastic take-out containers, plastic bags, etc.) from being used in City restaurants
and stores
o Participate in Extended Producer Responsibility efforts on local and State levels
o Perform outreach to businesses to encourage use of recyclable packaging
materials
o Write a resolution encouraging local shops and markets to place signs in their
parking lots and/or front doors reminding customers to bring their reusable bags
into the store
o Identify markets for products that cannot currently be recycled

Explore ways to increase the opportunities to recycle in public spaces and City buildings.

Continue to promote backyard composting through education and the distribution of

compost bins at cost.

9
Use the most responsible and environmentally sound approaches available for managing
e-waste and other hazardous materials.

Keep information updated and available in multiple formats (e.g., websites, e-mailings,
bill stuffers, direct mailings, newspaper inserts, packaging for the Northampton trash
bags), including information about difficult to manage waste and composting.

Work with haulers to explore ways to provide educational materials to their subscription
customers.

For difficult to manage waste, offer residents financially self-sustaining, safe and
accessible options for disposal, using the most responsible and environmentally sound
approaches available (particularly for e-waste, unwanted medications and other
hazardous materials).
Form a task force charged with exploring use of solar panels for the landfill site to
generate/save revenues to fund solid waste and recycling programs.
Support the acquisition of the Mass DOT site on Locust Street as a potential site for a
transfer station/reuse center.

In cooperation with the Board of Health and City Council, increase the fines for illegal
dumping and littering.

Utilize best practices in municipal decision-making as the BPW moves forward,

including meeting in settings that are accessible and accommodating to the public,
engaging the public in dialogue, holding community forums, using many options for the
dissemination of information and going above and beyond the Open Meeting Law in
transparency in the decision-making process.

10