All Pawtucket All The Time

Dear Councilors:

 I write to you out of concern that the city is seriously considering putting an added burden on our already over-burdened taxpayers in the form of mandatory charges for expensive trash bags through a so-called recycling company based in South Carolina.

 While at first appearance it may seem that what this company is proposing would bring a quick financial windfall to the city, I believe it could potentially come more under the heading of, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”

 Too many questions remain unanswered or unaddressed about this proposal, which also appears to be taking on the shape of a sole source contract without competitive bidding, nor even any requests for proposals that might elicit competitors and cut the price. Why?

 It is my recommendation that, minimally, much more study is required and a wider search for other possible vendors must be done before we even begin to think of socking the taxpayers for $2 a trash bag, 52 weeks a year, which at a modest two weekly bags per household would dump $208 a year on taxpayers’ shoulders, for a service their regular taxes have always paid for in full. Especially in times like these, that’s way out of line.

 Key questions I have yet to see addressed in the public forums or elsewhere include:

 What are the percentage distributions of revenue that the city and Waste Zero would respectively receive? Without knowing this share-to-share basis, it remains impossible to even begin evaluating if this is a good deal for the city or a bad one, or how bad or good, or whether the city’s end should be higher and by how much.

Even if such a program does, at some point, become necessary to reduce the city’s waste stream tonnage and tipping fees to the landfill, as well as boost recycling by residents, everything possible should be done to minimize costs to residents. It is not at all clear that outsourcing this service to a for-profit company assures that.

Has the city examined whether it can provide the same, or better, service by  keeping the program in house, thus cutting the cost to taxpayers and residents? 

Other questions I have include: Why was this proposal not put out to bid or an RFP process to minimally get more competitive pricing? What was the $1.7 million in estimated annual revenue for the city based on? How much would the vendor make on that basis? How has that worked out in other communities where this program is already running? What has been the reaction of those residents? Is there any federal “green” stimulus money that could help the city defray costs of a city-run program to increase recycling? How does money spent on a vendor for bookkeeping costs save the city any money, since the city itself for budget purposes must run all those numbers anyway? Will the city be hiring yet more outside lawyers to monitor this sole source contract? 

No sensible person these days can deny the importance of recycling, and statistics show the city can and should do better, and in fact must improve its recycling rate to meet the state’s rising standards to avoid hefty financial penalties for not doing so. I’m sure we all agree that recycling what waste we have and reducing what’s dumped at the landfill is the only environmentally and fiscally responsible way to go.

I’m also sure that city officials tasked with this responsibility, particularly Director Carney, spend many thankless hours seeking solutions to boost recycling and cut costs.

But surely this vendor, which was basically a bag supply and reprocessing company before changing its name and focus a year ago this month, cannot be the sole supplier of biodegradable bags (which it has only moved to in recent weeks) in this country. And even if it is decided that pay-as-you-throw is the only way to go – which for my part, I remain far from convinced – then much more must be done to reduce costs to taxpayers, many of whom already separate out all their recyclables yet would also take a hit.

Further, the city needs to look at other areas where related savings may be made, such as the large goods disposal that currently costs taxpayers approximately $150,000 a year.

At a time where the city continues to struggle to pay for the basics like fire, police and schools, and taxpayers are weighed down by a continued bad economy, any program that would put more weight on taxpayers’ shoulders should be much more heavily scrutinized and scrupulously examined than this proposal has been thus far.

I call on both the Mayor and City Council to slow down the runaway freight train of this proposal until it is more thoroughly looked at to assure whatever action is taken is in the best interests of all taxpayers, and not just another quick fix we may all live to regret.

Sincerely, 

Donald R. Grebien

Pawtucket, Rhode Island