SOLID WASTE STUDY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT TO THE BOWDOINHAM
SELECT BOARD
JULY 2008
Background: The Solid Waste Study Committee was appointed by the Board of Selectpersons in
November 2007 to study the town’s present Solid Waste program. Specifically, the Board requested that
the Study Committee focus on the following areas: Barn (including future of), Single Stream Program
(expand or not to expand), Safety practices, Costs and efficiencies of the Program, and measuring the
community value of the barn. An advertisement was placed in the fall 2007 Bowdoinham News soliciting
participation in the Committee. Also, some members were individually contacted for participation based
on expertise in engineering, finance, or education. The following seven residents were selected for the
Committee: David Jones, Peter Sullivan, Elaine Diaz, Cathy Curtis, David Reinheimer, Richard Close,
and Andrew Fiori. David Berry, Solid Waste Director and Kathy Durgin-Leighton, Town Manager staffed
the Committee.
Meetings: The Committee met a total of 11 times. At the first meeting in November 2007, each
committee member was given a binder with copies of documents to help familiarize them with the
Program. Documents included: contracts (curbside pickup, barn lease, Mid-Maine Waste Action
Corporation), Solid Waste Ordinance, Budget (Revenues and Expenses), and recycling rate reports from
the Maine State Planning Office website. Officers were elected: David Jones, Chair and Peter Sullivan,
Vice Chair.
The Committee’s first order of business was to schedule a tour of the Barn. The Committee met at 9 am on
January 12th, a cold Saturday morning, for a comprehensive tour given by David Berry. The remainder of
the meetings included discussions based on reports prepared by David Berry and Kathy Durgin-Leighton,
as well as guest presentations by Sam Morris, Senior Planner from the Maine State Planning Office who
provides technical assistance and guidance to towns on solid waste management issues, and Karen
McNaughton of Pine Tree Waste. After the first two meetings, Committee member, Andrew Fiori resigned
for personal reasons.
The following is the culmination of the Committee’s work. Each member was asked to submit written
observations, considerations, and recommendations on each focus area. Staff then consolidated the
members’ submissions and met a final time with the Committee to review the results.
Barn – Is it prudent to continue leasing the Barn or should we consider purchasing? Or, should we begin
setting money aside in a reserve account to build a new facility in a different location. Currently, the
Town leases a portion of the barn from David Berry at $12,483/year.
Observation(s):
a. The town’s lease for the barn identifies the amount of space in the barn that is leased is 15,768
square feet. This seems to be a lot of space but the current rental rate is $0.79/SF that is well
below the market rate for this type of space. There is a large risk associated with renting the
barn, due to long-term availability.
b. The barn was a former chicken barn. According to the Town’s tax records, the barn was built
around 1960 and is 288 ft by 36 ft. with a 67 ft by 24 ft attached greenhouse. The barn exhibits
the expected signs of wear and tear from years of active use. No detailed inspection of the barn
was performed to determine potential capital expenditures that may be needed, but over time
continued maintenance and repairs may become an issue.
c. The third floor is not well utilized. Perhaps with expanded Single Stream, a smaller facility with
fewer employees and less equipment would still suffice for the future needs of the town.
d. The barn appears solid but should be inspected by a structural engineer to see if it has any
discrepancies that would make it unsafe or impractical to upgrade. Repairs are needed to a
section of the concrete floor at the back of the building near the loading dock.
e. There are spaces in the barn, not leased by the Town, that are used for other functions.
f. A one story facility would be more efficient – moving items to the second and third floors for
storage or to load the trucks adds costs.
g. Parking is inadequate as expressed by both staff and community users of the barn. The opposite
side of the Barn could be cleared to accommodate more parking with the personnel vehicles
parked at the far end of the building or more space at the present parking side could be cleared
with the metal truck parked further down the building.
Consideration(s):
a. The Recycling Barn is not conveniently located. While Route 138 (Post Rd) is a State identified
collector road, it is a narrow poorly maintained roadway. (Maintained by the Maine Department
of Transportation). Additionally, the site distances for vehicles exiting the parking lot appear to
be minimal.
b. The life expectancy of the barn will be better determined based upon results of the inspection by
a structural engineer.
c. A replacement facility could potentially be much smaller in size. Replacing the nearly 16,000
SF of facility space would likely cost more than $1 million. However, a much smaller facility
may be sufficient such as the West Gardiner facility.
Recommendation(s):
a. Continue leasing the Barn for use for the Town’s recycling efforts until an alternative is available
or the barn is no longer available. As with all risks, a barn contingency should be addressed.
b. The Committee unanimously agreed that the Town should not purchase the Barn.
c. The Town should hire a structural engineer to inspect and determine the condition and safety of
the Barn. A one, five, and ten year maintenance plan should be developed as a result of the
inspection.
d. The Barn lease should specifically identify the repairs and/or maintenance areas that are the
town’s responsibility versus the owner’s responsibility.
e. Define an emergency “trash/recycling” plan should something happen to the Barn or the owner
decide not to continue the lease agreement.
f. Begin investing funds toward a replacement facility (perhaps a combined facility with the Public
Works operations) at a more convenient location
Single Stream – Should the Town continue with Single Stream and if so, should we expand it?
Observation(s):
a. “Single Stream Recycling” as defined by Pine Tree Waste and ECO-Maine includes all the
following materials being combined into one bin: Newspapers, magazines, catalogs,
telephone/soft cover books, direct mail/envelopes, paper (all colors, staples/paperclips are okay),
paperboard (cereal/shoe boxes) milk/juice cartons, cardboard/brown paper bags, soda/juice/water
bottles (glass or plastic), milk jugs, bleach/detergent/shampoo bottles, food containers (cottage
cheese/margarine/yogurt), glass bottles/jars (any color), aluminum (pie plates/trays/foil), and
metal cans (tin/steel/aluminum)
b. Pine Tree Waste / FCR Recycling indicated it would cost ~$100,000 per year for them to pick up
all Single Stream recycling for the town.
c. The town’s recycling efforts are currently using “Single Stream” recycling only for mixed
recyclables (any clean household containers, of glass or metal. Any plastic marked #1 through #7. #2 oil
bottles must be completely drained. Styrofoam containers and packing are not picked up curbside, but may
be brought to the recycling barn.) and we pay FCR Recycling (division of Pine Tree Waste) about
$25/ton for tipping fees to dispose of this material. The 2006 data sheets indicate these materials
would have amounted to ~22 tons/year. We do not include all the other items included in the
typical “Single Stream” because the town has found it can sell the other materials such that the
total cost to the town is less.
d. An analysis of the costs to handle recycled paper stream (Newspaper, Corrugated Cardboard –
OCC, and Mixed Paper – MP) was provided by David Berry for these materials sold over the
first nine months of FY07/08:
Materials sold over the first nine months of FY07/08
News/Mags
Corrugated OCC
Mixed Paper
Weight (tons)
52
35
46
Price/ton
$76
$120
$75
Total Income
$3968
$4251
$3429
Baling and Handling Costs for these materials:
News/Magazines
Baling – no baling as all received in gaylords from residents
Storage/shipping - .75 hrs/ton x 52 tons x $13/hr
Trucking - $120/trip x 8 trips
Total Expense
$0
$ 507
$ 960
$1,467
Gross Income
$3,968
Net Income
$2,501
OCC
Baling – 80% baled by attendant during open hours (no extra hours)
20% baled during closed hours
Wire and electricity $7/ton x 35 tons
Storage & shipping
Total Expense
$0
$341
$245
$455
$1041
Gross Income
$4251
Net Income
$3,210
Mixed Paper
Baling – 7 hrs/ton x 46 tons x $13/hr.
Wire and electricity - $7/ton x 46 tons
Storage/shipping - .66 hrs. /ton x 46 tons x $13/hr
$4,186
$ 322
$ 395
Total Expense
$4,903
Gross Income
$3,429
Net Loss
($1,474)
(Net loss per ton for Mixed Paper: $32/ton)
Consideration(s):
a. FCR Recycling offered to do a test case where they will accept the town’s current “Single
Stream” as well as the town’s mixed paper (~68 tons/year) at a $0 tipping fee. This would only
be a test to see if this financially worked for both the town and FCR Recycling.
b. If we didn’t have such a good program already in place, single stream would be quite attractive.
Going further into the program is a one-way street and should be approached cautiously.
Recommendation(s):
a. Confirm and move ahead with the pilot project for “Single Stream” recycling with FCR
recycling for mixed recyclables and mixed paper. If this works for both parties, continue this
operation. Both mixed paper and mixed recyclables are handled at a loss when handled “inhouse” by the town. A two month pilot project will determine if the net loss to the town is
greater when doing in house or sending it through the single stream process.
b. Continue the current efforts of recycling as efficiently as possible at the least cost.
c. Should the recycling barn become unavailable to the town, consider combining solid waste
collection and single stream recycling into a town-wide contract and expanding the Single
Stream to include all the items. This would potentially eliminate the need for as large a facility
and it could be limited to Household Hazardous Waste and Universal Waste, which could likely
be consolidated with the Public Works operations.
Safety – Evaluating the operating procedures of the barn.
Observation(s):
a. The Committee visited the Recycling Barn January 12, 2008. Safety was one of the primary
issues the committee was looking at. Generally speaking, the committee was impressed with the
cleanliness and order of the barn as well as the attention to safety. No obvious safety issues were
identified during this visit.
b. The Barn is not handicap accessible.
c. Ice builds up outside the doors from the water dripping off the roof creating a hazard.
Consideration(s):
a. Safety Works (a division of the Maine Department of Labor) inspected the recycling Barn on
February 7, 2008. Its February 15, 2008 report identified 12 recommendations. These varied
from labeling circuit breakers and installing light switch covers to floor load capacity and fall
protection plans. David Berry reports all the recommendations have been or are in the progress
of being addressed.
b. Solid Waste and Recycling operations are traditionally very labor intensive and are frequently
the source of numerous injuries and workers compensation claims which can be very costly to
the town.
c. A deeper parking area might be safer for those unloading materials.
d. Open extended parking or another access from the opposite side of the Barn.
e. Certain materials could be better directed to specific unloading areas.
Recommendation(s):
a. Continue operating with Safety in mind. Watch for ways to eliminate repetitive manual labor
tasks by use of machines or technology.
b. Require/stop vehicles from pulling within four to five feet of the Barn to allow people to walk
between the barn and the vehicles. Walking behind vehicles is also dangerous with so many
vehicles coming and going.
c. Participate in safety training annually with particular attention to back injuries, personal
protection (sight, hearing, etc) and universal & hazardous waste handling.
d. Closely monitor injuries and workers compensation cases.
e. Look at possible ways to decrease the hazards created by the ice build up outside the doors and
around the Barn.
Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency
Observation(s):
a. The Committee found that the current program, with a 25% to 30% participation rate,
provides a recycling program with the least cost to the Town. As the cost of the tickets increased,
the amount of tickets sold has decreased. Therefore, cost to the town to Mid-Maine Waste Action
Corporation has decreased.
b. The program promotes and teaches recycling.
c. Current efforts are dictated by fiscal considerations, not life-value issues.
d. No firm guidelines exist regarding the town’s long-term recycling objectives.
e. There are no recycling goals regarding financial or volume. Maintaining a status-quo program
will be difficult over time as recycling is dynamic.
f. Recycling passion based on financial benefits and/or environmental interests.
g. Operations Breakdown as prepared by David Berry – 8 month period – total payroll $44,900.
Baling – Baling mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, and Styrofoam
Material for recycling
13%
Material for disposal
3%
$5,837
$1,347
Storage/Shipping – Moving finished product to shipping room and loading it for delivery,
including loading metal, appliances, and HHW, Moving OBW and mixed Recyclables to the 3 rd
floor and loading them for delivery.
Material for recycling
5%
$2,245
Material for disposal
16%
$7,184
HHW/UW – Collection and handling of all household hazardous waste and all universal
waste, including packaging for shipment.
17%
$7,633
Attendant – Responsible for oversight and management of all incoming materials – for
recycling or for disposal – collection of disposal fees, record-keeping.
40%
$17,960
Total Operational Cost for 8 month period:
$44,900
Consideration(s):
a. Dave Berry has taken a personal ownership of the Town’s Solid Waste and Recycling program.
When David decides it is time for him to retire or move on to something else it will have a
significant impact upon the program.
b. Dave has developed and maintains a very functional and viable program.
c. More needs to be promulgated to the citizens of the town both now and to those who move into
the town to let them know what is available and what procedures are in place to help them.
d. Balance financial and lifestyle considerations regarding recycling.
e. A one story facility would be more efficient – moving items to the second and third floors for
storage or to load the trucks adds costs.
Recommendation(s):
a. Continue with the program as it currently is being administered.
b. Continue looking for opportunities to decrease the costs to the town, while continuing the same
levels of service.
c. Consider instituting a training program for in-house personnel should Dave Berry retire.
d. Meet with Bowdoin Selectman to see if it would be profitable for Bowdoinham to accept more
of Bowdoin’s recycling.
e. Immediately begin assembling information on SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures), such that
others could use them to help operate the facility on a temporary (3-6 months) basis.
f. Distribute a survey either at town meeting or in the Bowdoinham News to see how the program
is received and what might be done to improve it in the eyes of the townspeople in order to
increase participation.
g. Establish a permanent Solid Waste Committee appointed by Select Board.
h. Meet annually with State Planning Office.
i. Continue to educate on recycling efforts and benefits with the Community School.
j. Develop worksheets to annually assess current and proposed future practices.
k. Vigorously promote recycling and composting
l. Develop a mission statement regarding the town’s recycling objectives.
m. Encourage dumpster users to participate in municipal program. There are currently over 100
known dumpsters in the town (approx.10% of households).
Measuring the “Community Value” of the barn
Observation(s):
a. This is a difficult thing to define or measure.
b. If one is talking about the social value, there are any numbers of ways members of the
community can socialize with other members of the community. These include the bean
suppers at the Fire Station, visiting or volunteering at the Library or some other function,
participating on Town Boards or Committees, attending and participating in Bowdoinham
Days, attending the Summer Sunday concerts or Farmers markets. There are numerous
alternative outlets to this appeal of the barn.
c. There is a “Community Value” to the Barn but that can be transferred to any such facility. The
Community Value is in the program and not the structure. Wherever the facility is located, the
community will meet to recycle and dispose of solid and hazardous wastes.
Summary: The Committee unanimously agreed that Bowdoinham’s Solid Waste Program is one of the
best in the state as confirmed by the State Planning Office. The success of the Program is largely due to
the efforts of its Director, David Berry. While David deserves the accolades of developing such a
successful program, there is a concern that the program could not run without David’s participation. Also,
the Bowdoinham Program is unique. The wood that is received at the Barn is used in the wood boiler to
heat the barn as well as the greenhouse that serves to grow David’s tomato plants for his farm business.
Also, the size of the Barn gives the Town advantages for increased storage space. However, building a
facility the size of the Barn would be cost prohibitive.
The Committee recommends that David begin developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
future use. Also, a training program or internship should be considered.
The Committee recognized that the Town has not established a recycling rate goal nor has it determined
how much is too much to spend on the Program. In other words, when does recycling cost too much, or
does it? Is it the Town’s goal to increase the recycling rate at any cost? Or, is it the goal of the Town to
have a program in place that residents may choose to participate in at the least amount of cost to the Town
budget? Are there too many dumpsters in town? Why do some residents choose to have dumpsters when
the data suggests that the cost of having a dumpster is greater than participating in the Town’s recycling
program. These questions remain unanswered. It is our hope that the Bowdoinham Select Board will
appoint a permanent Solid Waste Committee to help answer these questions.
Respectfully submitted to the Bowdoinham Select Board on this day, July 30, 2008.
Members of the Solid Waste Study Committee:
_________________________
David A. Jones, P.E., Chair
_________________________
Cathy Curtis
_________________________
Peter Sullivan, Vice Chair
_________________________
Elaine Diaz
_________________________
Richard Close
_________________________
David Reinheimer, P.E.