This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Trash Talk

Stoneham Patch---Trash Talk--Response to Tom Boussy by Robert J. Ranieri   11/19/13

Fellow Residents of Stoneham,

 

Find out what's happening in Stonehamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

I became involved in this discussion after viewing on cable the disrespectful and condescending manner in which our residents were treated at a Selectmen's meeting by Mr. Boussy and Mr. Vallarelli.  I also found it unusual that a vote regarding a new trash carrier and policy was being discussed without Mr. Grover in attendance.  He was on vacation, and apparently his 28 years of experience negotiating trash contracts was not valued high enough to reschedule this meeting and allow for his participation.  More likely, Mr. Grover was not present since he disagreed with the concept of entering into any ten year trash contracts.  Mr. Grover also felt that Hiltz, our present trash hauler for the last 11 years, offers excellent value and service to the town.

 

Find out what's happening in Stonehamwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

At this point, I will summarize parts of my presentation at the Selectmen's Meeting held on 10/8/13.  You can decide for yourself if you believe, as I do, our process of determining how we plan to spend $10 million is flawed by logging on to the Town's website and reviewing the videos of the Board of Selectmen's Meetings.

 

In reviewing the trash programs adopted by Melrose, Reading, North Reading, Saugus, and Wakefield, none went with a 10-year contract or an automated system as promoted by Mr. Boussy.  They felt narrow, tree lined streets and parked cars create problems for automated systems.  The barrels are picked up mechanically and emptied into the top of the truck causing low lying tree branches to be broken, and any trash dropped onto the streets will not be picked up since there is only a driver operating the truck.  The Law Firm of Copeland and Page held a recent seminar for local municipalities and recommended not to enter into trash contracts in excess of 5 years, in part, due to changing technologies.

 

The Town of Stoneham entered into 5 year trash collection contracts in the past, and always had option years in the 4th and 5th years to renegotiate the terms.  When the Town exercised the option and renegotiated, the price went down due to changes in trends, packaging or the economy.  Why should we not continue this successful strategy of writing 5 year contracts with options to renegotiate after years 3 and 4?  Even if one assumes higher rates of inflation, a 3 year reset to the contract will allow the Town the ability to mitigate the effects of higher inflation without assuming the risk of a 10 year contract. 

 

Mr. Boussy's choice is to enter into a 10 year contract with J.R.M. Hauling for an automated 1 barrel system.  The barrel will be in the range of 48 to 60 gallons in size for trash with unlimited recycling.  You will be limited to trash that will fit into this barrel with the lid closed each week.  You will also be allowed to place only 2 large items curbside for pickup each year without charge.  There is also a proposed one free curbside pickup for large items.  You will be required to prepay for any other large items to be disposed of at curbside.  In comparison, the other towns in our sample group offer 3 to 8 barrels for trash with pick up of at least one large item per week without any charge.  The proposed J.R.M. system is designed to save money by picking up less trash, but it will cost each of us more when paying separately for large items or if we require additional barrels for trash. 

 

Mr. Boussy and Mr. Vallarelli have said they are basing their decision, largely, in part, that J.R.M. will construct a new facility on the former site of the Carriage House Motel located on Route 1 in Peabody, MA.  In fact, they said it is a critical part of their decision to go with J.R.M.  This proposed site has been wrought with legal challenges opposing its construction, and other towns were promised, prior to entering into their contracts, that the facility would be up and running in 2012.  It makes no difference if a contractor owns a recycling facility as long as the contract is written so that all recyclables are owned by that contractor, and they must be taken to a licensed recycling facility.  Furthermore, it would be prudent to wait until the structure is up and running before committing the Town for the next 5-10 years.

 

In reviewing Mr. Boussy's financial presentation, I disagreed with a number of his assumptions which slanted in favor of J.R.M.'s proposal.  Firstly, the recycling rates of 20% for Hiltz, 26% for EZ, and 30% for J.R.M. are estimates in their proposals.  In my analysis, I changed the percentage of recycling in the 10 year presentation to reflect a midpoint of 25 % for each contractor.  Assuming they offer the same service with the same equipment as detailed in the Town's contract, they should have the same results.  Secondly, I lowered Mr. Boussy's estimate of 9,000 tons of total trash to 8,150 which reflects the most current actual tonnage.  In do so, I leveled the playing field in the analysis.  J.R.M. offered a $10,000 refund to the Town if they did not meet their estimate of 30% recycling.  This represents 1% of the annual cost to the Town of $1,000,000 under the J.R.M. 10 year proposal.  It does not offer much insurance to the Town when considering the total cost of the contract is in excess of $13,000,000 over the next 10 years.

 

In my view, the 10 year automated pickup plan offered by J.R.M. will cost the Town approximately $6.6 million over the first five years, and approximately $13.9 million over the ten years.  The Town will save approximately $439,000 over the next 5 years by choosing the base line 5 year contract with Hiltz instead of opting for the 10 year J.R.M. plan.  As in the past, we will have the same level of service with the options to renegotiate at the end of years 3 and 4 further enhancing our savings.  Also, we will have the opportunity to save further by utilizing our newly hired recycling coordinator to educate and inform our citizens.  Hiltz is a proven commodity with an excellent track record serving the Town of Stoneham for the last 11 years, and will save us money.  Furthermore, each of us pay for the trash pickup and deserve the best program at the best price.  My offer to further discuss my analysis with anyone, at any time, was disregarded.

 

Considering the financial challenges currently facing the Town of Stoneham, and the need to adequately fund our Schools, Police and Fire Departments, Public Works Department along with our social responsibility to other programs including our elderly, I believe it is time for the Selectmen to remove themselves from this process, and return to a traditional format where the Director of Public Works and the Town Administrator will interview the prospective contractors and give their recommendations without any undue pressure from the Selectmen.  I recommend Mr. Grover reinitiate contact with Hiltz, and further negotiate with them to achieve the best price for the Town.

 

I have reminded Mr. Boussy on more than one occasion that he represents and works for the citizens of this Town.  If he or any other elected Town officials cannot reconcile this concept, I thank you for your past contributions, and please step aside.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Robert J. Ranieri

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?