ENFIELD TOWN COUNCIL

MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008

A Public Hearing was called to order by Chairman Kaupin in the Council Chamber of the Enfield Town Hall, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 6:36 p.m.

ROLL-CALL – Present were Councilmen Bosco, Crowley, Dumont, Edgar, Jones, Kaupin, Kiner, Mangini, Nelson and Ragno. Councilman Lee was absent. Also present were Town Manager, Matthew Coppler; Assistant Town Manager, Daniel Vindigni; Town Clerk, Suzanne Olechnicki; Director of Public Works, Pia Hawke; Deputy Director of Public Works, Geoffrey McAlmond; Solid Waste Superintendent, Kevin Donahue; Road 2000 Coordinator, Thomas McGee; Director of Finance, Lynn Nenni; Chief of Police, Carl Sferrazza

Chairman Kaupin read the notice of Public Hearing which was published in the Journal Inquirer on Saturday, February 9, 2008 as follows:

TOWN OF ENFIELD

LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008

“The Enfield Town Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Enfield Town Hall, Council Chambers, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. to allow interested citizens an opportunity to express their opinions regarding the PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 70, SOLID WASTE, ARTICLE 1 SECTIONS 70-1 THROUGH 70-13; ARTICLE II SECTIONS 70-31 THROUGH 70-38 OF THE ENFIELD TOWN CODE.

Copies of the proposed ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk, 820 Enfield Street, Enfield, Connecticut, Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Also available at the Town’s website www.enfield-ct.gov.”

Chairman Kaupin announced the ground rules for the Public Hearing.

Mr. McAlmond highlighted the changes to the Solid Waste Ordinance. He noted the original ordinance was written about 15 years ago, and these revisions update this ordinance according to what Enfield does, as well as bring the Town in line with what the State has in place.

He noted they did add requirements for fixed containers to be licensed at a fee of $10 so that they can keep track of these containers. He stated vehicles weighing over 18,000 pounds will be considered commercial vehicles and will not be able to use the transfer station.

Mr. Hawkes provided the following information in a PowerPoint presentation:

• A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost effective.

• Two years after calling recycling a $40 million dollar drain on the city, New York City leaders realized that a redesigned, efficient recycling system could actually save the city $20 million dollars and they have now signed a 20-year recycling contract.

• Recycling helps families save money, especially in communities with regulated container sizes and inflated disposal rates for municipal solid waste (MSW).

• Each ton of recycling tendered to CRRA credits the town $10.

• Each ton of MSW tendered to CRRA costs the town $69.

• Moving one ton of recycling out of the MSW stream provides the town with a net savings of $79.

• Tipping fee increases of 10% or more are likely in the coming year.

• The Glass Packaging Institute states recycled glass uses only two-thirds the energy needed to manufacture glass from raw materials.

• According to Dr. Mike Biddle, President of MBA Polymers, recycling plastics uses only roughly 10 percent of the energy that it takes to make a pound of plastic from virgin materials.

• The Department of Energy states that a ton of paper made from recycled fibers conserves 7,000 gallons of water, up to 31 trees, 4,000 KWh of electricity and up to 60 pounds of air pollutants (not including carbon dioxide).

• Overall, recycling paper uses about 60% less energy than making paper from new materials.

• Each year disposal costs and energy costs for the collection process increases.

• This trend will multiply the cost savings of decreased MSW and increased recycling.

• Education and policing the curbside process will reduce handling costs (i.e. collection productivity, collection time and contamination rate) and increase Enfield’s CRRA tonnage credits.

• The current solid waste forecast for disposal fee savings is $106,500. This figure is based on an increase in the recycling rate by $40 and a corresponding reduction in MSW.

• While many factors affect the amount of MSW generated, Public Works estimates an increase of about 1.5% in the coming year.

• The CRRA disposal fee rates are expected to climb in the vicinity of $9 per ton.

CURRENT FISCAL YEAR COSTS

• The current tonnage for recycling reflects recovery from July 07/December 07

• Recycling 1,574 tons @ $10 credit/ton

• Recycling credit $15,740 to date

• Forecast for total recovered recyclables for Fiscal year/2,900/ton

• Forecast for reimbursement $29,000 for Fiscal Year 2007/2008

• MSW forecast tonnage

• Fiscal Year 07/08 MSW tonnage 18,000/tn

• MSW…7,500 tons @ $69/ton/$517,500

• MSW…11,500 tons @ $61/ton/$701,500 savings of $8 per ton

• Estimated $92,000 savings from MSW credit

• The estimate based on Enfield’s recycling credit and disposal credit and net disposal costs for Fiscal Year 07/08 is $1,190,100.

ESTIMATED 07/08 DISPOSAL COSTS

• Total estimated tons of MSW for fiscal year 2007/2008 is 18,000 tons

• CRRA standard rate is $69 per ton

• Estimated cost for year is $1,242,000 (18,000 tons X $69)

ESTIMATED CRRA RECYCLING CREDIT

• Enfield estimated recycling will be 2,900 tons

• Enfield’s estimated recycling credit will be $29,000 (2,900 tons X $10)

• Net cost after recycling credit is $1,213,000

ESTIMATED CRRA CREDIT

• Net cost after recycling credit is $1,213,000

• CRRA reduced rate for November to July fiscal year 2007/2008 is $61 or

• $8 less per ton MSW estimated at 11,500 tons for a credit of $92,000 (11,500 tons X $8)

• Net cost after recycling and CRRA credit is $1,121,000

ESTIMATED SAVINGS 2007/2008

• Full estimated cost for year is $1,242,000

• Net cost after recycling and CRRA credit is $1,121,000

• This reflects a total savings for fiscal year 2007/2008 of $121,000

40% INCREASE IN RECYCLING

• Recycling 4,200 tons @ $10 credit/ton
• Recyling Credit $42,000
• MSW estimated 16,800 tons @ $78/ton
• MSW costs $1,310,400
• Net: $1,268,400

70% INCREASE IN RECYCLING

• Recycling 5,100 tons @ $10 credit/ton
• Recycling credit $51,000
• MSW estimated 15,900 tons @ $78/ton
• MSW costs $1,240,200
• Net: $1,189,200

100% INCREASE IN RECYCLING

• Recycling 6,000 tons @ $10 credit/ton
• Recycling credit $60,000
• MSW estimated 15,000 tons @ $78/ton’
• MSW costs $1,170,000
• Net: $1,110,000

INCREASED RECYCLING PERCENTAGE COMPARISONS

• Estimating next year’s costs at an anticipated $78/ton MSW, $10/ton credit for recycling and a 1.5% increase in MSW weight.
• 0% net disposal cost $1,374,000
• 40% net disposal cost $1,268,400
• 70% net disposal cost $1,189,200
• 100% net disposal cost $1,110,000

INCREASED RECYCLING SAVINGS

• At 0% - none
• At 40% - $105,600
• At 70% - $184,800
• At 100% - $264,000

MSW TRENDS

• MSW in Enfield has shown a trend of increasing weight over the last five years, averaging 3.9% per year.
• Detailed change:

01-02: +9.7% 04-05: -0.1%

02-03: +4.5% 05-06: +10.2%

03-04: +0.4% 06-07: -0.6%

MSW TREND FACTORS

• In October, 2005, extensive Town flooding significantly increased disposal weights.

• In the summer of 2005, the transfer station implemented a pay as you go scale system.

• While the 2005 flooding was a single incident, the pay as you go system at the transfer station has permanently affected the curbside weights. This has reduced transfer station weights, but it translates to added handling costs at the curb. This at times has required additional trucks and manpower.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION

• A continuing community education program will not only reduce our disposal costs but also improve the appearance of the town.

• It will provide a keener sense of ownership and pride.

• It will draw town residents in to the process as active participants, because they are the largest part of the cost saving equation.

• Through empowering residents, they will have significant impact on costs.

SUMMARY

• To contain the Town’s costs associated with MSW and recycling, it’s necessary to create an incentive based, attitude shift in Enfield residents’ perception of waste disposal.

• To create this attitude shift, the intention is to provide clear, understandable goals and systems for Town residents.

• To motivate the residents, the intention is to clearly communicate the benefits to the Town and to residents individually, when necessary.

Mr. Hawkes stated an ad was placed in The Reminder on February 4^th to remind people what recycling is all about. He noted they’re also working with the Asnuntuck media center to provide more advertising about the recycling program

The public was then invited to speak.

Tom Walsh, 6 Rosanne Street

Referring to fines within the ordinance, Mr. Walsh stated his impression these are serious fines. He questioned how this can be policed. He raised the possibility of someone tossing items into another person’s receptacle.

Mr. Walsh pointed out the town of Bristol is already going to single stream collection, and they use a tipper barrel instead of the smaller blue bins used in Enfield. He noted the small blue bins break easily.

He questioned where the money from tipper barrel purchases will go. He suggested perhaps that money should go into a special account.

Hank Bankowski, 32 Middlesex Drive

Raised the following questions:

• Will we put everything together in the tipper barrel? What about yard waste?
• What happens when barrels get damaged?
• If there will be savings, will they be getting rid of employees?

Mr. Bankowski stated his belief it will take longer to collect trash. He noted he’d like barrels placed in a proper place, rather than left in the middle of the road or at the entrance to a driveway.

Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road

Questioned the maximum number of barrels a person can have. She noted she has four barrels – one for trash and the other three for yard waste. She pointed out she produces a lot of yard waste because her property has many pine trees that produce a lot of pinecones. She stated her hope the Town will take her yard waste all year long.

Ms. Jedziniak noted her daughter lives in another town and at the request of that town, residents place their barrels in a certain location and this results in a smooth-running operation.

Mrs. Collins, the Hazardville Section

Expressed her satisfaction with the service. She noted she only needs one tipper barrel.

Reg Leonard, 42 Fairfield Road

Stated his belief the Town is going in the right direction. He emphasized the need to explain the process to residents. He suggested a little card be produced that lists what people can place in their recycling bin.

Referring to the high fines for non-compliance, Mr. Leonard predicted the Town will have a lot of people coming before them concerning those fines. He acknowledged this system has to be done, but the Town has to make it easier for the public.

Chairman Kaupin read an e-mail from Tim Slade of 79 Brewster Road.

copy appended

Mr. Copper responded to some questions that were raised.

Mr. Coppler stated CRRA currently doesn’t accept single stream collection, although Enfield is prepared to do this now. He went on to state his hope that in the next year and a half, they’ll phase out the small recycling bins and start using tipper barrels for recycling.

As concerns where tipper barrel money will go, he stated they’ll probably have a special line item within the General Fund so that they can track the tipper barrel money. He pointed out any money from the General Fund that is undesignated has to go through the Town Council.

As concerns the possibility of someone being fined for something they did not do, Mr. Coppler stated his belief there would be an investigation of those incidents. He agreed the fines are high, but the intent is to make sure people are doing what they’re supposed to do.

As concerns everything going into one barrel, he noted the Town isn’t changing anything. He stated people should not be putting any yard waste in the large tipper barrel, but rather they should continue placing yard waste in the same barrels as they have been doing.

Referring to the question regarding what happens if a barrel is damaged, Mr. Coppler stated if a resident is buying a barrel from the Town, there’s a ten-year warranty. Mr. McAlmond pointed out people also have the option of purchasing a tipper barrel elsewhere. He noted there are 18-year old Town barrels still being used.

As concerns the question about reducing staff due to savings, Mr. Coppler noted at some point in time, they could be fully automated. He noted at that time, perhaps they’ll be able to reduce staff through attrition.

Referring to the comment that this process might take longer, Mr. Coppler noted the Solid Waste Committee looked at different methods of collection and they looked at how other communities did this, and it’s been their observation that this method is quicker.

Mr. Coppler stated people can obtain tipper barrels through the Public Works Office on Moody Road, and the barrel can be delivered to the resident’s home. He noted residents can also go on the Town’s website to obtain a form, and they can mail that form with a check. He added they are looking at other ways which might make it easier for residents to obtain their tipper barrel.

He stated it’s planned to come up with something people can have in their hands which lists what items are recyclable. He pointed out the Town will have a booth at the upcoming Home Show.

As concerns the question raised in Mr. Slade’s e-mail about what gives the Town authority in this process, Mr. Coppler pointed out the State of Connecticut gives the Town authority in this matter.

Mr. McAlmond pointed out the Solid Waste Ordinance refers to the related state statute at the bottom of each section.

Councilman Crowley questioned whether residents can spray paint their house number on the barrels, and Mr. McAlmond responded yes.

Councilman Ragno stated his belief the fines are very high. Mr. Coppler stated the Solid Waste Committee spent a lot of time debating this issue. He noted people do get a written warning before the fines, and a household wouldn’t get a written warning unless it was a chronic problem. He pointed out the fine would happen if a person did not respond. Councilman Ragno questioned whether there is a tracking of this process, and Mr. McAlmond responded yes. He pointed out there are those people who aren’t cooperative. He noted it’s not intended to make a profit on fines.

Councilman Ragno stated he would like to see bi-weekly pick up of yard waste. Mr. McAlmond indicated he’d look into that.

Councilman Jones referred to Section 70-3 (b), and noted 20-gallon capacity should be 48 gallon capacity, and Mr. McAlmond agreed, adding the Town doesn’t collect commercial solid waste.

Tom Walsh, 6 Rosanne Street

Stated he still feels the fines are excessive. He questioned whether people can purchase their own recycling bins instead of using the small blue bins supplied by the Town. He questioned if the Town will use a claw machine. Mr. Coppler responded yes to the second question. Mr. Donahue noted he can research the first question.

Mr. McAlmond pointed out these fines are less than the previous fines.

Hank Bankowski, 32 Middlesex Drive

Raised the following questions:

• If the recycling bin is damaged, can residents get another one?
• As concerns fines, will the Town have to hire someone to police this?
• If barrels are being picked up mechanically, how is it known there’s a violation?
• If residents purchase the barrel, how will it get delivered?

Mr. Bankowski stated the only time he sees barrels within the travel lanes is when employees leave them there. He noted it seems the residents always get the fines. He questioned whether employees get fined when they violate the ordinance.

Mr. Coppler stated if there is damage to the barrel, there’s a ten-year warranty. Mr. Donahue stated an 18-year warranty would have cost more. He went on to note he will look into the reimbursement policy.

Mr. Coppler stated the Town will not hire new personnel to police this.

Mr. Donahue explained workers do open the lid and look inside before emptying the tipper barrel.

Mr. Coppler stated residents can pick up their tipper barrels at the Moody Road garage, or it can be delivered to their homes.

Mr. Coppler stated the Town doesn’t do year-round yard waste collection. He noted this hasn’t been done in the past because there aren’t many homes putting out yard waste off season.

Margaret Jedziniak, 232 Abbe Road

Questioned what will be done about the litter that lines the road on the way to the landfill.

She questioned what happens if a worker leaves a barrel in the middle of the road and it’s struck and damaged.

Scott Monroe,

Stated he has had his tipper barrel for a long time, and he feels the Town does a great job with tipper barrels.

Councilman Dumont stated her understanding people can dispose of their off season yard waste at the landfill. Mr. Coppler responded that’s correct, and people would need to have a landfill permit and pay by the pound to dispose of this material.

Councilman Nelson stated his belief the fines are high. Mr. Coppler responded the Town will use common sense as concerns violations and fines. He pointed out the intent is to go after those people who are chronically abusing this system.

Councilman Nelson questioned the permit cost for contractors, and Mr. McAlmond responded $120 per year, and this can be pro-rated by the month.

Councilman Nelson stated there’s a rumor going around that all of this is leading up to private trash hauling. He went on to note that he was on the Solid Waste Committee, but never heard anything to that effect. Mr. McAlmond indicated that’s not the intent.

Councilman Mangini indicated she will not vote in favor of this if a “yes” vote supports the residents having to purchase their own tipper barrels.

Councilman Crowley raised the issue of workers’ compensation claims and noted the little blue recycling bins can be quite heavy to lift if they’re full of wet newspapers. Mr. McAlmond stated in the future they’ll be looking at tipper barrels for recycling.

Councilman Crowley questioned whether residents would have to purchase another tipper barrel if the Town goes with single stream collection. Mr. McAlmond responded that is a good question. Mr. Coppler pointed out at this time, the Town is in the mode to go with weekly recycling.

Councilman Crowley stated the Town and School System should be leading this through example. He stated his belief recycling education should start in the schools, and perhaps there could be an educational program regarding this. Mr. Coppler stated his belief that for several years, the education curriculum included information on recycling. He agreed with Councilman Crowley and noted they should work with the school system in this regard.

Councilman Bosco stated his belief the fines should be more graduated, i.e.., a warning, a couple small fines and then a bigger fine.

Councilman Bosco questioned whether a resident could label a barrel to show it contains recyclable material, and Mr. McAlmond responded yes. As concerns the fines, Mr. McAlmond pointed out there is an appeal process.

Councilman Kiner questioned whether the recycling truck can pick up tipper barrels, and Mr. McAlmond responded yes. Mr. Coppler stated his belief staff should look into this before the public starts buying tipper barrels for recycling.

Councilman Dumont questioned if there’s a limit as to how much recyclables are put out, and Mr. McAlmond responded no.

As no one else wished to speak, Chairman Kaupin closed the Public Hearing at 8:15 p.m.

Appended to minutes of

February 19, 2008

Public Hearing

From: Timothy Slade

To: Mayor Kaupin

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:34 PM

Subject: Proposed Solid Waste Ordinance

Mr. Mayor;

The mods/cahnges/revisions, etc. You spoke about have not been released to the public, apparently. Since the public hearing is less than a week away, I guess it has been determined we don't need to know what they are and will have another public hearing to discuss those.

Because of this omission, I am forced to comment on what is posted on the towns' website. Those comments are included in the attachment. Just to be clear, I would like these comments included in the public hearing. Also, just so you know, I fully expect a vote to be taken accepting these revisions regardless of any merit the comments may have.

Once again, I know you won't agree, but this seems to be another public hearing that will be simply "going through the motions". To obtain any real public input, the town must put out ALL the information and the correct information that will be decided, not just the preliminary, "draft" portion. It makes it difficult to accept that the council seriously wants public input when the town can't get the information out in a reasonable time.

I think this would be a good subject to discuss at the next advisory council meeting.

Recommended Solid Waste Ordinance Revision

1. Sec. 70-1 (1) states, “The town is authorized to regulate the disposition of solid waste generated within its boundaries, to collect a fee for that service, and to license refuse collectors”

Who authorized the town to regulate the disposition of solid waste?

What “fee” is collected?

2. Sec. 70-3 (a) states, in part “Solid waste containers shall be maintained by the resident in good and sound condition, free from holes and fissures.”

As the containers are sold and warranted by the town, shouldn’t the maintenance be by the town?

3. Sec. 70-4 (a) states, in part, “Containers shall be placed curbside, not encroaching upon the roadway, with orientation to facilitate automated collection as noted on the tipper barrel.

Define “encroaching upon the roadway”. On my street the roadway is separated by only the curb. Therefore, the barrel is either in the road or on the sidewalk. Additionally, the refuse collectors leave the empty barrel in the road. Are the residents to be held responsible for where the refuse collector leaves the container?

How will this restriction be managed during the winter when snow piles are between the “curb” and the open area of the roadway?

4. Sec. 70-6 (c) and (d) are identical. Is something missing?

5. Sec. 70-7 states “Except as otherwise specified in this chapter the director or his designee shall enforce all provisions of the chapter and the regulations as they apply both to solid waste that is transported to the DSWF or any other area designated by the director.

DPW, Solid Waste has already stated they do not enforce this ordinance, therefore why is this directive still in existence?

6. Sec. 70-11 (a) states “In order to carry out the terms of this chapter, the director may, from time to time, promulgate rules and regulations, which rules shall have the same binding effect as this chapter.

Further define “promulgate” as it applies to this ordinance. It has many definitions.

Hopefully, it does not provide the authority to arbitrarily make up rules.

7. Sec. 70-38 (h) & (I) imposes restrictions on a licensee that are not imposed on town provided refuse collection. These restrictions should be applied equally to all solid waste collectors.

8. Present information, policy and ordinance states “Tipper barrels used at curbside can be 35, 65 or 96 gallons.” The revised ordinance limits tipper barrel size to no less that 48 gal. and no larger than 96 gal.

9. What does one do if during the 1 or 2 weeks that the tipper barrel (Christmas, Thanksgiving), even the 96 gal., does not allow for all waste? Present and revised ordinance specifically states one cannot store solid waste. Can a brown tipper barrel be utilized with proper signage indicating it is solid waste, not yard waste?