image description
The City Council debated the issue for about two hours Tuesday night before ultimately sending the toter plan back to the mayor.

Tired of Trash Talk, Council Returns Toters to Tyer

By Andy McKeeveriBerkshires Staff
Print Story | Email Story
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — After a year and a half and a dozen or so meetings, the mayor's trash proposal is basically back where it started.
 
The City Council returned the proposal to overhaul the garbage collection system back to Mayor Linda Tyer, asking for a revised plan. The proposal was crafted through the Resource Recovery Commission, which first met back in September 2016, but after three lengthy meetings at the City Council in recent months the councilors felt it was too flawed to be saved.
 
"I'm not convinced the toter system is right for Pittsfield," Council Vice President John Krol said.
 
Krol has been particularly concerned with the upfront cost for the city to purchase the 96-gallon and 45-gallon toters for residents. The $1.4 million upfront investment would have purchased enough toters for every city household to put garbage and recycling in. Rubbish would be restricted to the 45-gallon toters unless a resident purchased overflow bags.
 
Krol urged the council to send the proposal back to Tyer to see if she can craft a plan that more people can get behind — and one that Krol feels will avoid the upfront costs to get it started. 
 
Not everybody on the council wanted to let that particular proposal leave its jurisdiction. Council President Peter Marchetti considered holding another council of the whole meeting and have a process to systematically gather amendments — making it so essentially the council was rewriting it in a way they see fit. He said it is the council's job to dig into the weeds of the proposed ordinance, make changes, and then vote on it.
 
Councilor at Large Pete White had already drafted a handful amendments to do just that — including raising the size of the garbage toter to 65 gallons — and wanted to see the ordinance be sent to a council subcommittee.
 
"I think it is a mistake sending it to O and R. I think there is too much that may need to be changed," responded Ward 4 Councilor Christopher Connell.
 
Meanwhile, Councilor at Large Melissa Mazzeo is calling for a large community meeting. She said the proposal has been moving too quickly through the council process and wants to slow it down. She wants to have a large town hall type meeting to which residents can bring their concerns.
 
Ward 3 Councilor Nicholas Caccamo, whose request to the administration to consider a toter plan was the impetus for the ordinance, said enough thought and discussion had gone into it already. Caccamo had sat in the audience for every meeting of the Resource Recovery Commission, which went through the various pros and cons of the system. 
 
He said residents have since then made their opinions abundantly clear on the matter and the councilors have done their own research. 
 
"Homework has been done on this proposal in one form or another. I am ready to vote on this," Caccamo said.
 
The administration had laid out the costs, with an expected savings of somewhere between $89,000 and $200,000 depending on how much waste is reduced; reasoning for how the system would combat blight; and the benefits of recycling. The plan is eyed to increase the city's recycling rate from a dismal 11 percent and thus reduce the amount of trash the city pays to dispose of.
 
But the devil is in the details and it was the details that caused a hold up at the council. Councilors had questioned how senior citizens would handle the toters, how enforcement would be done, the details of the city's contract with Republic Services and Covanta, how it would work on certain roads, whether or not it would go to bid, and the ins and outs of the daily operations. 
 
And the councilors heard a lot from the city's residents. The debate over the move from unlimited garbage pickup has been one of the most talked about ordinances in recent memory. 
 
"I have a lot of concerns. I have a lot of constituents that are not happy with the overall program," said Ward 7 Councilor Anthony Simonelli.
 
The City Council has debated for multiple hours each time the toter plan came before it. After another two hours of discussion Tuesday, Marchetti urged to councilors to take some form of action because the conversations had become repetitive.
 
"We are continuing to spin the wheels and we need to do something different," he said. 
 
The council overall is receptive to making some changes to the collection system and, with a 7-4 vote, asked the mayor to return with a different plan. Councilors Connell, Helen Moon, Donna Todd Rivers, Krol, Simonelli, Mazzeo, and Kevin Morandi voted to send it back to the mayor while Councilors White, Marchetti, Earl Persip, and Caccamo voted against.
 
Following the meeting, Tyer refused to issue a comment on the vote or provide any insight on her next steps. The toter plan had been cited by the mayor on multiple occasions as a priority — starting in the budget book and just a day earlier in her state of the city speech.

Tags: trash,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

BRTA Focuses on a New Run Schedule

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Berkshire Regional Transit Authority is still working on maintaining its run schedules after dropping the route realignment proposal.

Last Thursday's meeting was Administrator Kathleen Lambert's first official meeting taking over the reins; retiring director Robert Malnati stayed during a transition period that ended last month.

Lambert is trying to create a schedule that will lessen cancellations. There was a two-hour meeting the week before with the drivers union to negotiate run bids and Lambert is working with the new operating company Keolis, which is taking over from Transdev.

The board spoke about anonymous emails from drivers, which Lambert said she has not seen. iBerkshires was not able to see those letters, but has received some. 

"They were lengthy emails from someone describing themselves as concerning BRTA employee, and there was a signed letter from a whole group of employees basically stating their concerns. So, you know, to me, it was a set of whistleblowers, and that, what my understanding is that this really triggers a need for some type of process to review the merits of these whistleblowers, not going to call them accusations, but basically expressions of concern," said member Stephen Bannon.

A letter iBerkshires received spoke of unhappy drivers who were considering quitting because of decisions being made without "input from frontline staff," frustration and falling morale, and the removal of the former general manager shortly after Lambert came in.

Lambert said it's difficult to navigate a new change. She also noted many drivers don't want to do Saturday runs and it has been hard negotiating with drivers on the new runs.

"I would like you all to keep in mind that the process of change is super difficult. Transdev has been here for 20 years, and some of these drivers have never known any other operating company, the way some of the operations have been handled has been archaic," she said. "So getting folks up to speed on how a modern transit system works is going to be painful for them. So I don't want to say that I'm unsympathetic, because I am sympathetic, but I am trying to coax people along with a system that's going to seem very strange to them."

The board spoke about better communication between them and Lambert, citing cooperation will be best moving forward.

"There's just a lot of stuff in the air right now, and there are a lot of fires to put out to make this a coordinated effort. And if we don't keep our communications open and be straightforward, then you get blindsided about how you know the input that you could get from us about your position, and how you know what's going on in your direction, and we get blindsided. And I think that we have to make sure that this is a collaboration," said member Sherry Youngkin.

"Both sides have responsibilities, because in the long run, this advisory board is going to have to make decisions as to how we brought forward and if we've gone forward in a fair and helpful way. And I think that's hopefully what everybody is looking for also." 

Transdev and Keolis held a three-day recruiting event interviewing almost 40 candidates and offering jobs to eight, but only three stayed on to start training. Lambert said it was disappointing but she will keep trying to retain more people.

In her first report to the board, she noted that ridership dipped a little over 10 percent, but still remains higher than last year, adding that was because of cancellations of services because of the lack of drivers.

Like the last meeting, some of the advisory board members were torn over the start of the Link413 service, worried that the start of the service took drivers away and the numbers of riders are low.

Lambert, however, said the ridership has doubled from last month.

"As I've spoken before, we have, generally, a six-month adoption for brand-new service before you can really go in and evaluate, are you being successful based on the grant that my predecessor wrote along with the team for PBTA and RTA, we are ahead of schedule, which is pretty good, so I'm hoping that will continue to improve," she said.

Member Renee Wood said the board never approved the service, adding the only thing she could find in the minutes was a vote to accept the equipment. She said it was supposed to be put on the agenda to discuss.

"The Link413 service has been three years in the making. It's been a grant that was accepted and has been working with our partners, PVTA and FRTA, to put into place. So I don't have the entire history of how that process worked, but it's been three years in the making, and did we not understand that once we accept that grant that we were going to put in new service?" Lambert said.

The board discussed if Title VI, the Civil Rights Act, was followed with an accurate review and accurate amount of time for public comment period on the service changes and if its attorney should review if the  grant conditions were properly followed.

Lambert said changes had the 60-day comment period included in the proposed route realignment packet, giving the opportunity for the community to respond to that as well but will look into the legality of the situation with their attorney.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories