TSO Considers Changes to Waste Hauler Policies
Photo: Nareeta Martin c/o Unspalsh
Local and Green
The following article appeared previously in the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
On Aug. 6, the Town Services and Outreach Committee of the Amherst Town Council (TSO) considered consultant Mimi Kaplan’s draft RFP and decision-point document addressing the reform of our waste hauler system based on the 2022 proposal to amend Amherst’s waste hauler bylaw. Participating in the discussion were committee members George Ryan (Chair), Jennifer Taub, and Andy Churchill, Town Manager Paul Bockelman, Superintendent of Public Works Guilford Mooring, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission consultant Mimi Kaplan, and Department of Environmental Protection Municipal Assistance Coordinator Susan Waite. They decided to address the major issues first.
The first topic was whether curbside organics collection should launch as universal and required at the outset, voluntary at first, or as a pilot. Universal collection is the clearest route to capturing food waste, which accounts for roughly one-third of household trash, and it is aligned with Amherst’s climate planning. But a phased or voluntary program could reduce initial cost and allow time for public education about compost collection.
The second major issue discussed was designing a PAYT (Pay as You Throw) program. The principal options are a small standard trash cart supplemented by paid overflow bags; multiple cart sizes with increasingly expensive rates; or changes in pickup frequency such as biweekly trash collection. Kaplan’s framework recognizes that these choices are not merely administrative: they create different incentives. Smaller, less frequently emptied trash capacity makes it harder to continue treating garbage disposal as unlimited, particularly once recycling and composting are available at the curb. Kaplan recommended the small weekly trash cart with paid overflow bags but also thought biweekly collection of the small cart should be offered for households that dispose of very little waste.
Recycling design was another consequential choice. Single-stream collection is generally simpler for residents and may be cheaper, but it can produce higher contamination. Dual-stream collection — separating paper from containers — can yield cleaner material and better recovery outcomes, though it may require more complex collection arrangements. The RFP as drafted doesn’t consider dual-stream recycling, and that was not explained during the meeting.
Finally, TSO ‘s discussion did not address the Transfer Station. About 27% of Amherst households currently use it, and it provides services beyond ordinary garbage collection, including compost drop-off, bulky waste, and recycling of hard-to-recycle materials. Choices regarding the Transfer Station range from retaining broad access with revised fees to limiting it to specialty materials and adding a modest universal charge for Transfer Station support so that all residents have access to all waste reduction services.
TSO decided to continue discussing the decision points at its Sept. 3 meeting.
Zero Waste Amherst’s Recommendations
In a public comment at the Aug. 6 meeting, Zero Waste Amherst (ZWA) stated that the RFP should favor bids that produce the greatest measurable reduction in waste and greenhouse-gas emissions — not simply the lowest immediate household price. Its recommendations create a relatively clear hierarchy among possible bids.
ZWA favors a three-year contract if universal curbside composting begins in the first year. It would recommend a five-year contract if composting begins as voluntary in years one and two and becomes mandatory in year three, with every household receiving a compost cart and substantial education occurring before universal participation. ZWA recommends a January or July 2027 launch. It also calls for contract requirements that vendors report separate Amherst-specific tonnage, waste-reduction, and emissions data, so the town can verify whether the system is achieving its stated purpose.
As for PAYT, ZWA recommended a 65-gallon trash cart collected every other week, coupled with paid overflow bags (though it prefers Kaplan’s recommendation of a weekly 35-gallon cart coupled with bags if offered with the option of biweekly and monthly trash collection). It considers this method more effective than a menu of larger and smaller priced carts because the household faces a direct financial and behavioral decision whenever its cart will not close. In ZWA’s view, a 96-gallon cart creates “creeping capacity”: households can keep putting recyclable or compostable material in the trash simply because there is room.
ZWA also urges Amherst to restore dual-stream recycling as an RFP option. It argues that the local dual-stream system can produce less contamination than single-stream processing and that alternate-week automated collection could make the system operationally feasible.
For organics, ZWA prefers using an industrial composting facility rather than anaerobic digestion. Its concern is that a digester may accept only food scraps while industrial composting can take food scraps, food-soiled paper, compostable packaging, containers, and utensils. That broader acceptance is particularly significant in a college and restaurant town, where disposable food-service materials can make up a sizable share of the waste stream.
ZWA recommends that the town own the carts, using available grants where possible, while the contractor maintains and replaces them. Town ownership would reduce vendor lock-in at the end of a contract term.
ZWA recommends retaining the Transfer Station as a core waste-reduction asset, accessible to all residents through a modest increase in the curbside fee. It recommends expanding hard-to-recycle programs, including Styrofoam, and using the station as a hauler aggregation site to reduce truck trips and costs. Finally, ZWA recommends that the town take on primary responsibility for outreach and education, coordinated with the vendor; the vendor should reinforce those materials on carts and online and provide transparent pricing.
The key question before TSO is whether the RFP will actively favor bids that maximize waste reduction, compost diversion, recycling quality, transparent performance reporting, and long-term municipal flexibility or those that avoid resident resistance to changing habits. It will take time and education, but this proposal is about changing our consumption and waste-reduction habits.
A cheaper, simpler, and more climate-resilient plan in the long run would be for the DPW to provide trash, recycling, and compost collection and disposal. If the town owns the carts and creates a billing system, it can always move to that option in the future.
Darcy DuMont is a former town councilor and sponsor of the legislation creating the Amherst Energy and Climate Action Committee. She is a founding member of Zero Waste Amherst, Local Energy Advocates of Western MA, and a non-voting member of Valley Green Energy Working Group. She can be contacted at dumint140@gmail.com.
Letter sent to the Amherst Town Council:
I have strong concerns about the proposed trash and recycling updates. The current plan is overly complex, requiring residents to manage multiple containers and rotating schedules that are difficult to track, especially for vulnerable community members and the majority of our population: students.
More importantly, the potential added costs are a major burden for households already balancing high property taxes that do not include trash collection like many surrounding cities.
Think about multi-family units raising their already outrageous rents because they now have another added cost on top of property tax, insurance, and the “Amherst” cost of doing business. Affordable housing is a dream in this Amherst government. Anything over $230 per year and 30 minutes weekly of my time sorting waste and complying with rules would be more that I spend now, which is already a lot. Please do not tell me I am solely responsible for the environment when companies are not required to collect and recycle their packaging, do not require their CEOs to travel economically (instead of private planes and super yachts) and data centers are everywhere causing more harm than all Amherst waste collection.
I request that local leadership reconsider these changes, prioritize affordability, and adopt a simpler system that works realistically for every household in Amherst.
Amherst is currently is a “washed hands” community, in that we take no responsibility for the reduction of waste produced here and picked up by private waste haulers . That needs to change, Having a town contract gained through a competitive bidding process can make that happen. Many communities across the US have adopted simple plans like the one proposed, which have the potential of diverting 75-80% of trash from from landfills and incinerators – up to 40% by diverting compostable materials and up to 40% by using a meaningful, proportional pay as you throw system. When recycling was first implemented back in the 1990s, there was also resistance, but now we understand, accept and value it without another thought. This will work for every household in Amherst and should cost less than what most households pay now, especially if they reduce their waste.
Many residents grow gardens and compost at home: they have no need for, nor interest in, having our compostables hauled away. And many residents produce so little “trash” that an occasional “pay-as-you-throw” bag suffices.
The good intentions of a “universal” hauler program are appreciated, but this is not a one-size-fits-all situation: to treat it as such would seem to make it a general tax on each property.
While some of us recognize the value of paying general taxes for things like public schools, public roadway maintenance, and public health and safety, there are good reasons to charge user fees for other services (like recreation, or water and sewerage).
With the above in mind, one hopes the Council has the good judgement to keep this program voluntary.
“ Many residents grow gardens and compost at home: they have no need for, nor interest in, having our compostables hauled away.”
That is our case. We are not interested (being retired and not rich) in addressing something like this when what we are doing is already the goal and convenient and affordable. Everything else is going up. Please keep it voluntary.
I think I have the worst of all current options. I pay a private company to take away my small amount of household waste and a lot of recycling. Pay for the town transfer station to take my yard waste and old electronics. Then get a face full of insects every time I open my compost bin. Please set up a town-wide collection system for waste and help our environment! This issue is trapped in the intricate, repetitive chambers of our new city town council stymied by town employees that just don’t want to do it. Will it take another 4 years to simply hire a company to haul trash, recycling and yard waste?
Thanks Renata!
Next thing will be yet more fees and fines to add to our burdens because new tenants have to be supervised annually or more often.
My reply to composting and further separating my trash—to say nothing about us old folks getting it to the street overnight for the teddy bear picnic if the raccoons don’t get there first:
When families go back to washing diapers, I’ll comply with new rules. I read that dirty diapers fill up landfills more rapidly than most other kinds of trash.
Zero Waste Amherst encourages our top waste reducers to support the proposal. Let’s take your good works on waste and emissions reduction town wide – so that the town can significantly reduce waste and include everybody in the program. Voluntary individual efforts can transform into a city-wide public service. Since 40% of our trash is made up of compostable materials that can be diverted, and since pay as you throw systems can reduce trash by another 40%, we stand to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce trash and emissions by implementing this proposal. And if you are already a waste reducer, your costs will be less. And the cost of the contract will be less because disposal of heavy compostable materials cost much less than disposal of trash. Compost bins will contain much more than what is normally put in your backyard compost, including meat, eggs, fish, bread, compostable containers, dirty paper and possibly plants and yard waste. That’s a lot of diverted compost. ZWA invites passionate waste reducers to become neighborhood block leaders who can help educate their neighbors on proper sorting and tips on compost collection. Let’s take advantage of the fact that we have a highly educated community ripe to meet the challenge of the new normal. Fun, fun, fun.
My household currently uses our waste hauler’s compostables pick up service. We use compostable bags to collect the compostable material from the kitchen, close the bag, and throw it in the compostables collection bin. Pretty easy, very neat, and our trash is reduced in volume and in smell! If we could put some yard waste in the bin as well, we would be very happy.