Logo

11/02/2015 Minutes

From: Michael S. Batcher

Subject: September 2, 2015 SWIP Planning Meeting Minutes

Date: September 2, 2015

Town Representatives: Keith Squires (Arlington), Stu Hurd (Bennington), Rob Gaiotti (Dorset), Tom Shuey (Pownal), Suzie dePeyster (Sandgate), Sandy Gaszek (Searsburg), Mitch Race (Shaftsbury), Nancy Bushika (Stamford), Steve Bendix (Sunderland), Mike Charette (Woodford)

Not in Attendance: Ricky Harrington (Glastenbury), John O’Keefe (Manchester), Mark Lourie (Rupert),

BCRC Staff: Michael S. Batcher

Location and Time: Arlington Town Hall – 4:00 to 6:00 PM

Introductions: Keith called the meeting to order. Tom Shuey is the new representative from Pownal as Megan Randall resigned.

Minutes: Keith asked if anyone had any changes to the minutes. Stu Hurd moved and Mitch Race seconded a motion to approve the minutes and the resolution was adopted unanimously.

Review of SWIP: Keith started the discussion on the SWIP that had been sent out as a marked up version. Stu had changed the use of the term “Alliance contractor” to Alliance as 1) he felt there were areas where Alliance members could perform certain tasks, 2) he did not feel the Alliance should be locked into hiring contractors and 3) the Alliance was responsible for implementation and there was no need to specify how that would be undertaken. Steve Bendix asked who would be responsible, and Stu responded that if the Alliance was and if the Alliance did not implement the plan it would be in violation. Michael stated that VT ANR had required some specificity on the “actor,” and Stu felt that ANR tried to push the envelope on what the laws and regulations allowed them to do. If they wanted to force the Alliance to be specific in this regard, ANR should clarify the laws or regulations that empower them to do so.

Keith summarized his comments on the draft where he had suggested that dates be pushed out or where the document stated that actions would be taken “soon” after adoption. Keith felt that the Alliance needed flexibility and Steve agreed that was a good policy.

The discussion then moved for a time to registration of haulers. Shaftsbury has not sent notices out as yet. Sandgate has and wondered how they should respond when they get a registration back. There was some discussion that the hauler may wish to have a letter from the town in their truck in case they are stopped by the state police or sheriff or other enforcement agent. Republic Services has not responded to registration requests. Nancy said that their letter to George Apkin and Sons was returned, and that the address may have changed.

Following that, the discussion moved back to the SWIP. Michael asked Mike Charette if Woodford had properly noticed the PAYT ordinance. Mike said he would make sure it was adopted properly. Stu then moved to adopt the revised plan and send it to VT ANR, and Mitch seconded. The resolution was adopted unanimously.

Discussion of BCRC Contract: Keith started the discussion on the proposed, revised BCRC contract. As with the plan, references to developing information on sludge treatment had been removed. Keith wanted to reduce the number of HHW events in Years 3, 4, and 5, but Michael said they were required in the VT ANR Materials Management Plan. While not specified in the Universal Recycling Law, the MMP had gone through the rule making procedure.

The group then discussed developing a permanent HHW facility and planned to reinvestigate that, possibly by asking another contractor for estimates or looking into training staff.

The group discussed how to pay for contractors. Stu did not want to maintain a checkbook. Instead, BCRC as the contractor would subcontract for services that were needed that BCRC could not provide. Michael was to check to see if the Alliance needed DUNS and EIN numbers and to register with the SAM system as does the LEPC.

Stu agreed to look into insurance to cover the board members, HHW events and other actions that might require insurance. He felt comfortable with the revised contract and moved to approve. Sandy seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Michael asked about choosing the web designer and outreach contractors. The consensus was to choose from Bennington County first and move out from there as necessary. Michael was directed to send the responses on the web site from Bennington County as well as a few others. He was also to send all four of the outreach responses – none of those were from Bennington County. Michael stated that if BCRC was responsible for hiring and overseeing a contractor, BCRC should ultimately choose the contractor and that was agreed upon by the group.

The group chose October 7th for the next meeting, depending on VT ANR responds. Nancy asked about the required survey. Keith asked Michael to send out the survey information as well as a revised spreadsheet on the budget. Stu moved to adjourn the meeting and Rob seconded and the motion carried unanimously.