1. CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Solid Waste Reduction and Management Task Force
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: Monday, March 14, 2011
Committee Members Present: Terry Culhane, Board of Public Works; Mark Carmien, Co-Chair;
Wendy Foxmyn, Co-Chair; Marianne LaBarge, Ward 6 Councilor; Mimi Odgers, Water Not Waste;
Donna Salloom, Board of Health; Rosemary Schmidt, Board of Public Works.
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: A sign-in sheet was not circulated at this Task Force meeting.
Wendy Foxmyn called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm.
Public Comment
Richard Guzowski expressed his hope the Task Force “got it” from the two public forums. He said
the Task Force was stuck in a “decision paralysis” and questioned when the group would have
enough information to recommend closing the drop-off centers or go to curbside collection. He
advised Locust Street should remain open, and to forget everything else with the exception of
expanding the City’s waste reduction efforts. He encouraged the Task Force to stop going around in
circles and take a straw vote…in secret if need be.
Review/Acceptance of 3/7/11 Minutes
Mark Carmien questioned whether he had seconded the minutes or not on 3/7/11. When the video
of the meeting is available, this will be checked and corrected if necessary. Terry Culhane moved to
accept the minutes and Marianne LaBarge seconded the motion. The 3/7/11 minutes were accepted
by consensus. 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.
Discuss Public Forums
There were 92 attendees at the 3/7/11 forum and 70 at the 3/11/11 forum, with some overlap of
participants. W. Foxmyn said both had gone very well. M. LaBarge said it was critical for her
decision-making process to hear from the taxpayers, noting there was a greater diversity of
comments at the second forum. Mimi Odgers said it would have been valuable to have held public
forums prior to the start of the Task Force meetings; there were many ideas raised that the Task
Force hadn’t talked about. In response to one of her examples (e.g., problems with narrow streets),
T. Culhane and W. Foxmyn agreed trash trucks can handle narrow/dead end streets. M. Odgers
disagreed, saying narrow streets get narrower in the winter, and trash gets buried by the snowplows.

2. M. Carmien said whatever recommendations are made, they will not be the last incarnation. New
technologies are constantly evolving, costs change, awareness about consumerism and waste
minimization will increase, etc. He thought a chipper/shredder going around the City was a great
idea.
M. Odgers said timetables and goals need to be set. While the City is in the trash business, there is
no incentive to push recycling, and this will change.
W. Foxmyn read questions that had been posed at the public forums for further consideration by the
Task Force:
What recyclables make money for the City?
T. Culhane said while it is true recycling makes money, overall it is still an expense. However,
recycling is not as expensive as disposal. Karen Bouquillon agreed, and added that the City is
guaranteed $15.67/ton for recyclables sent to the Springfield MRF, and there is also a revenue
share. The City is currently receiving $46.43/ton for MRF recyclables.
Where will Northampton’s trash go after the landfill closes?
Arlene Miller responded that there are several local landfills (Granby, Chicopee and South Hadley),
but all of these are slated to close in the near future. Covanta has waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities
in Springfield and Pittsfield. Allied Waste ships waste to OH and SC from a transfer facility in
Indian Orchard. Many local transfer stations are shipping waste to Seneca Falls NY (near
Syracuse). There is also a Wheelabrator WTE facility in Millbury. She said the waste at WTE
facilities is screened for radioactive waste, incineration reduces the volume of waste by 80%, and
metal is taken out at the back end. In Springfield the residual ash is landfilled at Bondi’s Island.
The tip fees at WTE facilities are generally at market rate, but there’s a difference between
contracted rates vs. spot market rates. M. Carmien said where Northampton’s trash is going should
be advertised at the transfer stations and on billboards. A. Miller explained the City’s trash might
go to points A, B, C and then D; the destination may be constantly changing. W. Foxmyn noted
that in terms of environmental justice, it is a catch 22 if people are living anywhere near these
disposal facilities. Donna Salloom said some things are easier to write into an RFP (e.g., including
the use of non-motorized collection vehicles), but requiring the use of a specific disposal facility
was more difficult to control. Jim Laurila said as a baseline, the City could require proof that the
disposal facility(s) are permitted/certified/licensed by the State and Federal agencies. The City
could also specify WTE only, landfilling only, or in-State only. He added when waste generation
decreases (due to a variety of causes, including a poor economy), WTE facilities get preference
because they must operate at or near capacity. M. Carmien said the Task Force was charged with
making recommendations about waste collection options, not disposal options.
How would dumpsters that the City currently provides for volunteer/community cleanup projects be
paid for once the landfill closes?
T. Culhane said the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (SWEF) will decrease when the landfill closes,
and that City programs would have to generate a healthy surplus to continue to provide these types
of services. He added stark choices may need to be made in the future. J. Laurila said the answer to
that question could not be determined now; it will depend on the availability of employees,
2

3. equipment and revenues at that time. M. Odgers stated the SWEF could be flush with cash if the
City would move ahead with solar power at the landfill- we are missing the boat by waiting. M.
LaBarge stated that Option 1 is huge for the public. At last Friday’s forum, one of the participants
talked about managing dog waste. She though it was a good idea to organize cleanup days and have
the barrels picked up by the City.
Why can’t the remaining capacity of the landfill be restricted to Northampton residents only?
T. Culhane replied the landfill is regulated by State and Federal agencies as a regional facility; the
landfill is permitted to accept 50,000 tons per year (TPY), but there is a breakeven point somewhere
around 40,000 TPY. The landfill would be operating at a loss at less than that. Certain financial
obligations have to be met. He said Northampton’s facility is “a little hobby landfill; they don’t
come smaller than ours.” Roe Schmidt added if the landfill served only Northampton, it would be
very expensive or perhaps not feasible at all. M. Odgers said the City received funds from the State
to build a regional landfill in the 1990’s. J. Laurila cleared up confusion about where the
community host fee comes from, saying that these funds are transferred from the SWEF to the
City’s general fund.
Why can’t the Locust Street Transfer Station be the one to remain open for Options 3 or 4 (which
propose that only Glendale Road remain open)?
J. Laurila said the Task Force could discuss this as an option. There are pros and cons- the Locust
Street site is centrally located, but it has more limitations than Glendale Road. R. Schmidt added
there is not enough room at Locust Street to handle difficult to manage waste, and there is a lot
going on at the DPW yard already.
In what way is a City curbside collection a pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) system?
T. Culhane said different size totes and unit-based bags for overflow could be used. A. Miller
added that PAYT bags could also be used exclusively.
Why is there not an option 5 that closes both transfer stations and lets residents rely on the Valley
Recycling facility?
M. Carmien stated Valley Recycling remains an alternative for anyone, under all of the options
under consideration.
D. Salloom offered a summary of the correspondence that had been sent to the Task Force to date:
(2) commitment to maximizing reduction, recycling and diversion of waste from the waste stream,
(3) support of Pay-As-You-Throw; (1) bags to be purchased at local stores; (1) multiple local
"neighborhood” recycling centers; (1) increase from serving 1-4 units to 1-5+ units; (1) any
municipal plan should include organics (compost) collection; (2) divert reusable and salvageable
items; (1) need-based discounts; (2) support for citywide composting; (2) concern about bears and
other animals; (9) support for Pedal People, non-motorized options; (1) disposal of pet waste; (2)
favor Option 2; (1) favor Option 3.
D. Salloom noted 50% of the City’s residents currently have curbside collection, but they were not
represented at the public forums. The word got out to residents that use the drop-off centers, but not
to others. T. Culhane said thousands of people are voting for curbside by spending $400/year or
more on this service. M. Carmien stated that it was not mutually exclusive.
3

4. W. Foxmyn asked, “What additional information do we need to make a decision?” R. Schmidt
suggested knowing more about air quality; could the impact of service by a single hauler be
compared to the impact of having six haulers? After some discussion, W. Foxmyn said it was a safe
assumption that multiple haulers would emit more pollution than a single hauler. M. Odgers added
having a single hauler would not eliminate all of the other haulers.
W. Foxmyn said one thing that came through in the hearing is people don’t like change. This
suggested to her that phasing in an implementation plan over time might make the most sense.
Changes to Table 1
M. Carmien explained that the “1 person household” had been changed back to “senior household”,
and why the trash generation rates of the different size households wasn’t linear. A. Miller pointed
out that DEP has a bunch of numbers, and the household generation rates should not be interpreted
too scientifically. They should be used in a more general way by asking, what do you generate?
Discussion topics
M. Odgers asked if CPA money could be used for developing the MassHighway site, and the
answer was no, because it is not related to historic/housing/recreational/open space criteria. T.
Culhane said if the State handed over the deed tomorrow, the costs to prepare the site could easily
reach $1million (building teardown, pavement, traffic control, salt shed, access roads, etc.). He said
the DPW is continuing to pursue it, hopefully with fewer restrictions and liabilities. J. Laurila
agreed it would be costly to acquire it; there is an old landfill that needs to be capped on the site,
and the City doesn’t have the money to cover these costs. R. Schmidt said the site was not a
relevant option at this time; and there was no surety it will be in the future. M. Carmien stated the
City’s Reuse Committee identified it as an ideal site for a reuse facility (to be called the “Re-Bay
Center”). M. Odgers pointed out the concept of a resource recovery park has a lot of public support.
R. Schmidt asked if the Task Force could recommend waste reduction, organics diversion (etc)
without getting into specifics about how these would be implemented. D. Salloom replied whatever
the Task Force decides to do, that a strong message must be to increase recycling and reduce waste
in easy, simple ways. To be feasible, it must be cost-effective and financially self-supporting.
Unit-based pricing accomplishes all of these goals.
W. Foxmyn referred the Task Force to the document David Starr had prepared, which provided
more specifics about waste reduction, education and other initiatives. M. LaBarge agreed with D.
Starr’s suggestions. J. Laurila mentioned the BPW had appointed a Solid Waste Action Committee
(SWAC) 1-1/2 years ago, with an ongoing charge to increase public education and outreach efforts.
R. Schmidt spoke briefly about what the SWAC is working on, and she mentioned David Starr
serves on this committee as well.
M. Odgers referred to K. Bouquillon’s idea to issue an RFP for an organics processing facility at the
landfill, favoring anaerobic digestion systems. She asked why the City had returned the DEP grant
to process source-separated organics (SSO’s) at the landfill several years ago. J. Laurila reviewed
the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s project that is attempting to address the region’s need
for SSO processing capacity. K. Bouquillon said the City never accepted the DEP grant funding
4

5. because the landfill expansion project was moving forward on the same parcel that was needed for
the composting operation, and the window of opportunity closed too quickly. M. Odgers stated
organic materials are heavy to move, and any processing facility should be in a more central
location.
Related to the issue of discounts, there was consensus the Task Force recommend that a system of
needs-based (not age-based) discounts be formulated. M. Carmien stated the Mayor was not aware
of any existing program in the City that could be used for this purpose, and any new discount
program should not increase administrative burdens.
Difficult to manage wastes (bulky items or materials that cannot fit into a bag or barrel, waste
prohibited from disposal, hazardous wastes, etc.) were discussed. M. Carmien noted these would
have to be managed one way or another under all 4 options. M. Odgers questioned whether the City
was covering the cost of recycling electronics at the landfill, and M. Carmien said there if the costs
are too high, the risk of illegal dumping increases. A. Miller explained that the electronics recycler
the City uses is on the State Contract for Universal Wastes. M. Carmien distributed a handout about
the Basel Action Network and his intention to make a recommendation to the City about using a
vendor that is a certified “e-steward”.
M. Carmien asked why the population served was defined as 1-4 family units. J. Laurila replied
this was not a recommendation; it was used a basis for calculating costs and it is the population that
is most commonly served by municipalities. A. Miller said historically, curbside programs funded
by taxes served 1-4 family units for financial reasons. The larger units were treated as commercial
businesses. User fees make it possible to include larger units and condominiums, because they pay
their fair share. W. Foxmyn noted her condominium association pays $135/year for weekly
collection of trash and recycling, and A. Miller said Longmeadow is about the same. J. Laurila said
the more diverse the population served, the more complicated it becomes to offer appropriate
services (e.g., carts vs. dumpsters, pickup frequencies, etc.). W. Foxmyn suggested opening up
services beyond 1-4 family units would increase participation. S. Salloom said haulers are already
competing for multifamily dwellings and condominiums. Roger Guzowski said different trucks are
used for commercial collection services. A. Miller said any contactor would have to provide
residential and commercial services if the municipal buildings and schools were included in the
contract. T. Culhane suggested a curbside contract could start with 1-4 units and larger units could
be phased in.
Future agenda items, planning concluding steps
W. Foxmyn asked the group again, “What additional information do we need to make decisions?”
M. Odgers said a [silent] straw vote should be taken at the next meeting to determine which
collection option should be pursued, then proceed to make decisions about difficult to manage
wastes and waste reduction. She said Task Force members should be prepared to list their top
options at the next meeting. She said the majority should rule, and a minority report was a
possibility.
R. Schmidt stated monetary costs are not the only costs to be considered. The public’s support for
keeping the Locust Street facility open and their concern for the environment are diametrically
5

6. opposed when the monetary and environmental costs associated with thousands of cars driving there
on a regular basis is taken into account.
W. Foxmyn said the Task Force hasn’t discussed curbside collection (pros and cons, environmental
benefits, impacts etc.), and requested that this be on the agenda at the next meeting.
M. Carmien said at the next meeting, the group should be prepared to reach consensus on which of
the options to recommend, and start addressing ancillary recommendations that will set the bar for
the BPW in terms of waste reduction. Earlier in the meeting, W. Foxmyn had said Robert’s Rules
might be used for voting decisions because consensus might not be achievable.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.
(These meeting minutes were prepared by Karen Bouquillon based on hand written notes taken
during the meeting and reviewed/edited by Co-Chair 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.)
6