The primary focus of the meeting was on the proposal for a universal curbside composting program. Darcy Dumont, representing Zero Waste Amherst, emphasized the need for mandatory universal curbside compost pickup, arguing that optional programs do not reduce waste. Dumont highlighted the success of other communities, such as Lexington, in transitioning to universal programs after finding voluntary options inadequate. She urged the committee to include all single to four-family residences in the town’s waste contract to facilitate larger participation in composting and recycling initiatives, thereby lowering costs for residents. Dumont also expressed concerns about the potential decline of the transfer station if curbside services were offered separately.

Following Dumont’s comments, the discussion shifted to the specifics of the proposed waste hauler bylaw program. The committee had previously recommended that the town council ask the manager to issue a request for proposal (RFP) for waste management services. The town manager outlined plans to prepare for a meeting scheduled for September 9, where further discussions would take place. The committee reviewed a draft report summarizing previous meetings and acknowledged the work done by committee members in preparation for the upcoming discussions.

The importance of explicitly addressing yard waste disposal in the program was discussed, with a committee member pointing out that yard waste is sometimes improperly categorized within recycling. The proposal should clarify how yard waste would be handled, particularly referencing the transfer station, which accepts yard waste but may not be included in the proposed options for waste management. The conversation underscored the need to consider how yard waste is currently managed in the community, noting that there is a lack of explicit mention of yard waste options in the existing waste hauling services.

Further, the necessity of hiring a consultant to assist in crafting the RFP and shaping a draft bylaw was a significant topic of discussion. The committee recognized their limited staff capacity to handle the detailed work necessary prior to issuing the RFP. The timeline revealed that the consultant would potentially be hired in December, while the committee aimed to adopt a draft bylaw in November. Adjustments to the schedule were deemed likely, as the consultant’s input would be critical in finalizing the bylaw.

There was a consensus on the need for the consultant’s expertise and guidance to assist in drafting the bylaw. Insights from other Northeast municipalities exploring curbside composting were shared, with the hope that engaging potential haulers would reveal opportunities for implementation despite the absence of a local vendor capable of providing such services.

The committee also debated the role of the transfer station, proposing that it remain open as an alternative for residents who wish to dispose of their waste themselves. The impact of potentially eliminating the transfer station on the number of households participating in curbside composting was considered, particularly in relation to cost implications for residents. A suggestion was made to establish a transfer station access fee for participants in the town’s composting program, which might contribute to the Enterprise fund that supports the transfer station’s operations.

Discussions highlighted the need for clear communication about what constitutes acceptable yard waste and the flexibility of the transfer station’s operations to adapt to community needs. The committee contemplated simplifying the language around the transfer station’s future by stating that it would remain open while acknowledging that its specific functions and operational details would be clarified as the RFP process unfolded.

The inclusion of businesses in the proposed waste management and composting regulations was another key topic. There was a suggestion to clarify whether businesses should be part of the composting initiative, as the current language included both residential and business entities. The role of the Board of Health in regulating commercial composting was acknowledged, with existing state guidelines requiring commercial entities producing over one ton of waste weekly to source-separate organic waste. The group agreed to set aside the discussion of businesses for future meetings, emphasizing the need to prioritize residential composting initiatives.

The meeting also involved discussing the rationale for changing the current waste management system. Several reasons were proposed, including the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, minimizing dependency on landfills, and clarifying the options available to residents regarding waste disposal. The need to adopt a “pay-as-you-throw” fee structure was considered a best practice in waste management.

The committee concluded with a series of questions proposed to guide the council’s decisions regarding the waste management system. These included whether the council agreed to amend the current waste system, whether curbside composting should be implemented, and if the council would support the town manager in issuing an RFP for consulting services.