ORDER-2022-65 : Amending Chapter 198 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance Update (Item # 9602)

Transcript (~38 min @ 12:48)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 12:48 Jen Grigoraitis: Have a good Valentine's day. You too. All right. Our next item before us is item number 1, and our agenda order 2022 dash 65. Amending Chapter 198 of the revised ordinances of the city of Melrose, solid waste and recycling ordinance update. Item number 9602, and since you're still. Under a suspension of rules, we could bring in from the administration. I believe it's director.

▶ 13:30 Jen Grigoraitis: Mr troop and Scott, I see Mr troop, but I don't. Oh, hello, Scott. I don't see Ms. are you joining us to be a video or just audio?

▶ 13:41 Speaker 6: Or is that I'm here and I'm, I'm just going to be audio. I'm not presenting. I'm just here for backup support.

▶ 13:47 Jen Grigoraitis: All right, excellent. Who is presenting? Lisa. Ah, okay. Hello, Ms. Scott. The floor is yours.

▶ 13:52 Speaker 7: Thank you. Thanks so much for listening to me tonight. Um, so the DPW has been working with the administration to implement the new trash barrel ordinance. And we've gotten a lot of feedback from residents in the community, and based on that feedback, we would like to make some slight recommendations for tweaks to the language. The 1st recommendation is to increase the barrel size from 45 gallons to 50. The 45 gallon number comes from our contract with, which dates back to 2012. 45 gallons is sort of a tough size to find on the market these days. So we'd like to increase it slightly to allow for a 48 gallon. Barrel and then the 2nd change we'd like to recommend is to remove the 2 handle requirement because there's. the one of the common styles these days is a toter that doesn't have 2 handles, but it has a lid and attach lid and wheels and we think this could be a compliant barrel without requiring 2 handles. And then the 3rd recommendation we'd like to make is to clarify the language to allow a resident to still put out 1 bulk item each week with their trash and not have it. Need to be in a container, um, something like a piece of furniture, um. Of that nature, um, and so those are my recommendations. Um. Thank you for your consideration and, uh.

▶ 15:40 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Scott. Is there anyone from the, uh, committee wishing to ask.

▶ 15:51 Ryan Williams: Thank you very much for joining us and for providing these really common sense updates to the regulation. I've heard some of the concerns that you've raised in these regulations from residents, so it's really great to see that it all just gets kind of presented to us on a silver platter. I had a question related to the purchase of toter cans. Funny enough, I've lived in a couple of places, and usually there's some kind of a purchase program available through the waste hauler for the cans themselves and those toter cans are kind of ubiquitous i've never actually lived in a place that didn't use those single handle big flip top durable toter cans is there any kind of purchase program that jrm um has or that or that the city of melrose has considered rolling out in terms of a procurement day or you know a bulk purchase or anything like that to help people who may never have seen one before and not realize how incredible they are i'm speaking as someone who owns four of them and they get thrown and beat to heck and uh they they just they never skip a beat so i can't recommend them highly enough

▶ 16:56 Speaker 7: it's funny that you should ask that today uh because i'm rolling out the the program for the sale of those today um we're the city is offering a 35 gallon toter for sale um we purchased we're purchasing them through cascade uh for a price of we're offering them to residents for a price of fifty dollars each um we we since we're still under contract with jrm for a few more years uh when we when we renegotiate a contract that would be when we would consider doing a bulk purchase with them um so we still have a few more years on that but the city is going to be offering a purchase option thank you okay next up i have counselor

▶ 17:58 Manjula Karamcheti: carm chaby hi thank you so much for being here actually some of my questions were related to what Councillor Williams had asked and that was really around how the community was going to be supported in the transition and the implementation of having these types of barrels. I've certainly gotten concerns from Ward 1 constituents who have used a variety of strategies to put out their their trash. Many are often putting their bags out in the morning to time with the trucks

▶ 18:35 Speaker 5: and have lost a lot of barrels in the past, particularly residents on Main Street and that

▶ 18:39 Manjula Karamcheti: kind of thing. So we're, one, concerned about the purchase, are concerned about the price, and then also concerned about getting new cans if anything happens to the ones that they have.

▶ 18:54 Cal Finocchiaro: Yeah, that's a valid concern and it's something we've heard about frequently at the DPW. The mayor did send a letter to JRM notifying them about this new ordinance and requesting, you know, that they treat new barrels respectfully and place them back on the curb instead of on the street where they could be hit by a car. You know, handle them more gently than just tossing them. So we have made that request with JRM. We communicate with them frequently about that. So let's hope that going forward they will continue to do better in that practice.

▶ 19:39 Speaker 4: Yeah. DR. Thank you.

▶ 19:46 Maya Jamaleddine: DR. Counselor Jamaleddine. DR. Thank you. And thank you for being with us, Ms. Clark. A few questions I received through constituents and I, you know, I wanted to have more information on the, you mentioned about the bulk items that would be, you know, by the curve. What about, you know, some of the questions were stuffed animals, toys, those stuff that do not go inside the barrel. Are these fine to be outside and still be picked up?

▶ 20:27 Speaker 7: Well, so the way currently as things stand, residents are allowed 1 bulk item per week. So, I guess it would depend how you like the size of what you're talking about and whether it could go in a barrel.

▶ 20:45 Maya Jamaleddine: I guess, I guess the direct question was what exactly should go in the barrel? Is it just the, you know, like the kitchen waste or. Or also anything that is not. Food or kitchen waste should go in the barrel.

▶ 21:07 Speaker 7: All the trash should go in the barrel, except for the recycling and the, the 1 bulk item.

▶ 21:14 Maya Jamaleddine: What about the items that are placed outside for free? Like, people would come and pick it up, for instance, toys. Oh, are you are you talking about, like, the simple recycling program with the used to have the pink bags?

▶ 21:22 Speaker 7: Um, so that program changed a little bit and, um, you don't need a pink bag anymore and you have to schedule your program, your, your pickup, um, and they pick up at your front door instead of curbside. So things don't get confused. Yeah, because before, when it was the pink bag program, it was obvious that that was part of the simple recycling program. But now that they're not requiring that bag. Um, there they can, you know. For that program, you can put things in a cardboard box or bags and so you put it at your front door.

▶ 22:04 Maya Jamaleddine: So that's just to distinguish. Yes, but I guess I guess this is different from the thing back. It is the ones that they have to put. Um, uh, they put just items outside, you know, any, any kind of item that is not actually trash and sometimes people as they're driving by or walking by, they just pick it up. I just want to make sure that they're not going to be.

▶ 22:30 Cal Finocchiaro: Getting any kind of feel or any, uh, or this is not a lot. Oh, I think I understand now what you're saying. Like, if someone leaves something out for a person to pick up. um yeah i um um oh you you want to make sure they're not going to be penalized for it um i

▶ 22:46 Speaker 7: don't know how um we'd have to we'd have to discuss that and figure out a solution okay so we

▶ 22:57 Maya Jamaleddine: will follow up on that the other question is you mentioned about you know the mayor uh sent a letter to make sure that those barrels are handled appropriately. Who will be following up on that and if anyone has any concern about the way that it's been handled, who's monitoring that and who the residents should reach out to?

▶ 23:24 Speaker 7: Oh yeah, I should have answered that in the previous question. Sorry about that. There are several ways to get in touch with JRM. On their website, they have a chat that you can communicate with, or you can fill out a contact form on their website, or email their customer service, or you can try calling them, but I wouldn't recommend that. I'd recommend one of the other three. And you can, in detail, explain what happened to file a claim,

▶ 23:58 Maya Jamaleddine: a damage claim okay if there is any form would that form be available online on the city website so it would be handy and more accessible for our residents i did on the new trash barrel um

▶ 24:07 Speaker 7: information page uh there is a frequently asked questions at the bottom and i do list that as one of the um frequently asked questions i don't know if that's apparent enough but um i do i list those four uh options there yeah awesome i appreciate your answers thank you thank you thank you next

▶ 24:38 Speaker 8: up we have counselor Obremski hi uh thanks for being here tonight um i have questions just regarding um let's say specifically if in the morning if i want to throw a couple of bags out is that going to be acceptable at this point or is that not acceptable anymore in terms of uh the new ordinance because i had a few questions regarding that with the spring coming up things like gatherings and you know graduation parties and things like of that nature you know people produce more trash on certain days than others and if they wait and throw it out in the morning

▶ 25:14 Speaker 7: would that be acceptable uh the way the ordinance was written uh it wouldn't allow for that um but that's something that could be explored and when the ordinance was written that that wasn't

▶ 25:33 Christopher Cinella: considered president sanella uh thank you madam chair um i think piggybacking off of of Councillor Obremski question. I would like to motion at this time for purposes of discussion to further amend the amendment under Section D. First line receptacles shall be tightly covered whenever refuse of any amount is contained therein up until 7 a.m. of the scheduled day of trash pickup. So folks put their trash out the night before up until the morning. It needs to be covered, but a lot of the feedback I've received has been, I put my trash right out at seven. Why do I need to have it covered in the bag issue?

▶ 26:20 Speaker 2: So that motion at this time.

▶ 26:28 Speaker 4: Councillor McMaster, we can't hear you.

▶ 26:30 Shawn M. MacMaster: Can you hear me? Yes. As the, I'm leaning in, cause I don't know what's wrong with the microphone. So that's why I may look close to the mic. As the co-maker of the order with Councilor Geraitis, I have no problem at all entertaining further motions, but respectfully, Mr. President, under Rule 36, any substantive motion has to be filed in writing, submitted to the clerk, and it would go before the Legal and Legislative Committee. A friendly amendment is a different thing, but that would be a substantive amendment, which has to be in writing and the public would have to be put on notice. So I just want to raise that as a point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 27:08 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Council McMaster, President Sinella. Do you wish to withdraw your motion?

▶ 27:13 Christopher Cinella: I didn't get a second, so I will withdraw.

▶ 27:19 Jen Grigoraitis: I'll second that. Councilor Cassidy?

▶ 27:24 Speaker 5: Well, I would second the motion because that is definitely something

▶ 27:28 Jen Grigoraitis: constituents at Ward 1 are also struggling with, but I actually had another question. Okay, so we have to deal with the matter that's before us. I understand that we have a motion and a second, but it is in violation of our rule. So if I will flag that and would like to rule that out of order, obviously the council has the ability to overrule me on that, but I would-

▶ 27:53 Christopher Cinella: I'm happy to withdraw and we can further visit it. That's fine.

▶ 27:57 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay, so the motion has been withdrawn and we will further revisit it so that there can be sufficient notice from the public, particularly if there is so much concern, I think we would want to give those residents opportunity to come directly before us so to return to the current three proposed amendments that are before us as a package counselor karmshady you said you had a question yeah just

▶ 28:19 Manjula Karamcheti: a quick question and i do apologize as i'm newer um to the city council but i'm wondering has the city considered arpa funds and or any other stream of free cash in terms of some continuity in terms of barrels and residents of Melrose having the opportunity to get a barrel instead

▶ 28:40 Speaker 5: of having to buy it. I've seen that done in other communities, so I'm just curious if Melrose has

▶ 28:47 Speaker 4: considered that in any way, shape, or form. Who wants to hit? Jim, do you want to

▶ 28:54 Speaker 7: address that or Elena? It's an interesting question,

▶ 29:01 Speaker 9: counselor and it's something that would probably require a a seismic change in the way that we do uh trash pickup right now and to be honest with you i don't necessarily know if we're ready for that so taking taking into consideration the ordinance as it was written and as it was presented to us we thought that it was best to uh maybe get some sort of a standard a uniform barrel make it available to all the residents and not use it as a revenue stream but more as a cost recovery we're only dealing with with a certain amount of funds in the solid waste recycling budget anyway so you know Lisa is fairly thin in what she has as discretion so we thought that in order to expedite putting this ordinance into play and setting it in motion we thought that this was this was a good a A good way to do it, and just kind of have a low cost, something we could buy off of state contract. And from a company that provides municipal barrels. Across the state to several municipalities now, that being said, the bigger picture here is. The contract is going to be up in about, let's call it 18 months. And I think that that gives us kind of a timeframe to look into a city wide barrel option. Uh, and then other other opportunities that we could, we could look into, uh, funding a wide scale purchase for the nearly 9000 customers that we have every day. But, um, I, I think to answer your question and to do it, we, we did consider something. But in order to implement this ordinance in a, in an expeditious fashion, I think we're choosing the best possible way. And I think it's something that's fair, reasonable and cost effective for for all of the residents. And I think we could handle a wide scale purchase. And I think that we're doing this in a way that's affordable to the residents.

▶ 31:04 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you so much for your thoughtful answer. I appreciate it.

▶ 31:07 Speaker 6: If I could just add one more item to that, that I don't think has been noted yet, but we are going to have discounts on those barrels that we're offering. So they're optional to purchase. And it's just 1 barrel that we're selling 1 style. But we will have discounts for those who qualify for the other trash discounts as well as a small discount for senior citizens. So we are offering. You know, something to help out with the people who might have had trouble purchasing a barrel from an economic standpoint.

▶ 31:44 Manjula Karamcheti: And that will be publicized and communicated and. Outreach will be provided. Okay.

▶ 31:52 Speaker 7: Yes, yes, it's actually already on the website. I put it on this morning, but there's a press release that'll be going out in the next few days.

▶ 32:06 Jen Grigoraitis: I'm sorry, are you all set? Okay. Vice Chair Migliorelli, followed then by Chancellor Williams and then Councilor Jamaleddine for the second time. And Councilor Garaffi, I'll put you in queue. Oh, your Councilor, okay. So, Migliorelli, Williams, and then Garaffi.

▶ 32:19 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you Madam chair. My question was already asked, but I do have prompted me with a follow up question. So. The contract is up in 18 months. Are we saying that there's a possibility to new when we renegotiate this contract to include an option that would provide barrels for the residents? So, 1 could say that this, the options that we're providing to residents right now, like, this is a temporary stop gap measure until 18 months from now when we could renegotiate and have what it seems that a lot of other cities and towns have is this other, you know. Different system in which which cities then and purchase barrels on behalf of residents.

▶ 33:00 Speaker 9: yeah you're absolutely right about that and what it does is it puts us in a position that we could actually leverage what we're offering uh through through the city right now as a municipal barrel option we could actually leverage that and listen we could go to something like an automated pickup and these barrels would be able to to uh handle that type of service and then already have them in their in their possessions so uh again i think that this is a wise a wise way to go about it it right now and it puts us in a position that in 18 months it opens up a lot of possibilities for us to explore and to use this leverage in negotiating a new contract and so and that would

▶ 33:37 Leila Migliorelli: that would be in your it sounds like this is a decision that would be better than using other resources within the city to then go and just buy in bulk right now for for all residents if we have this opportunity in 18 months to perhaps negotiate the purchase of these why do that now it's money now okay yeah absolutely okay thank you that's it counselor williams

▶ 34:03 Ryan Williams: uh i wanted to circle back on the original intent of the trash ordinance and after i'm done speaking anyone please feel free to jump in and correct me if i get this wrong but it was about rodents right it was about pest prevention was was a big part of it and um so you know i'm aware that within any system there's a few people who kind of just flagrantly violate the rules and there's some people who don't know any better what's the schedule and and the process for enforcement on this if we roll this out march 1st comes around and absolutely nobody wants to do it and we're still seeing giant bags of food waste left out and there's a couple of bad actors who are you know causing rodent problems how do how does the city find out about those those folks and and how do they handle dealing with them so do you want me to take that one sure that'd be great

▶ 35:00 Speaker 6: okay um so in the original writing of the order um the enforcement falls with three different city departments it's inspectional services health department and dpw and so the administration is still working on what the system will be for actual enforcement of the order So, that's a question that we don't quite have an answer to yet and, and, you know, it's not solely in the hands of DPW to figure that 1 out.

▶ 35:42 Mark Garipay: Councillor Garipay. Thank you Madam Chair. Just 1 quick question to Councillor Sineller's friendly amendment that he talked about. I think we've all had a number of calls from residents. So, um, regarding this, so, I don't know, does it make sense to maybe hold this in committee? And, uh, and and that way it gives us gives, uh, enough time to, uh. To to come up with a, um, substantive, um. Amendment and writing, um, so we can, uh, we can all vote vote on this. I think we've all had a number of, uh, concerned residents call us. So, um, you know, I'd. i'd like to make a motion that we hold this in committee um and then we can we can take it up

▶ 36:38 Jen Grigoraitis: uh at our next appropriations meeting so so we have a motion to hold made by councillor Garipay is there a second for that motion or any just a second made by councillor obremski is there any discussion on that motion vice chair Migliorelli thank you madden truman uh chairwoman

▶ 36:55 Leila Migliorelli: I think I agree with counselor Gary, but we've got a lot of questions about this. My only concern is, then if we, and the 1 question I didn't actually ask was, I'm concerned about the information that's going on to residents. So, you know, we talked about a press release post on the website, but I'm worried about people that don't check the websites are not going to read a press release. And that I think what I've heard a lot from residents is what I've been reading and seeing is that, you know, getting information in people's directly people's mailboxes and things like that. So, my concern with holding this is that are we postponing the rollout of when of when this would occur? Would that have to be done as well to give time for us to tighten up the language and then get it in residents' hands in a way that's a little bit more, might be more time intensive, but might be better for communication purposes? So that's my only hesitation in supporting that. Otherwise, you know, I'm fine to keep tweaking this because I think we have heard a lot of feedback about this ordinance.

▶ 38:11 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Dermaladin, on discussion.

▶ 38:15 Maya Jamaleddine: Second, Councilman McAleer on, you know, that we have to, from my understanding, that if we can hold it, because we are receiving a lot of questions that are still not clear and unanswered, just to make sure that everyone gets their answer and this ordinance is really clear and transparent, I prefer that we delay it, if I may say that, or postpone it.

▶ 38:54 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Carn, Shady.

▶ 38:57 Speaker 5: I also support the holding.

▶ 38:59 Manjula Karamcheti: That is my question. How do we ensure that it isn't us just holding in isolation in that it's a coordinated effort between communication from mayor's office and it all is happening together as opposed to us holding and yet other pieces going out. So they're not in line. Cause that seems to be the most important part for the residents that they get the right information at the right time with the right resources to be able to move forward.

▶ 39:41 Ryan Williams: Councilor Williams. So, like many of you, I've had a few, one or two phone calls from residents who seem concerned about the order. I've also seen residents who have kind of proactively made purchases based on the understanding that the order would take effect on March 1st. You know, I have concerns about holding the order uh only because i'm not sure there's going to be a point in time where the people who don't want to buy new trash cans decide that they're ready to buy new trash cans i i think that it's a it's a fairly straightforward thing to pick them up i bought four when i moved here and i use three of them and i keep one for a spare in case i have an extra load of trash like at a party that i need to throw out and i just don't know what kind of uh what kind of message we're sending if we're telling everybody something's going to happen on the first and then two weeks before it happens we tell them it's not happening and we're gonna we don't give them a date but we'll just wait for the next committee to talk about it that kind of takes away the incentive for people that have actually done the right thing and it sends a signal to the people who don't want to do the right thing which is my understanding was to prevent rodents which the primary one of the primary drivers of rodents is people leaving trash out um yeah i just i i'm not i'm not clear on on what it would accomplish to hold the ordinance other than to just delay it and potentially indefinitely

▶ 41:05 Jack Eccles: counselor eccles i tend to agree i think that um with counselor williams i i think that we have three kind of concrete amendments to the ordinance that are still within the spirit of the original ordinance so we could pass this through committee as is to at least give people a reference point of the fact that it doesn't need to be 45 gallons and the other two changes and then we could take another bite at amending it and and lessening it and saying okay if you put it out you put your trash out after 7 a.m you're good and we could do that in a separate process either through legal and ledger or something else but it seems like passing these amendments would at least provide some clarity with not a lot of time before the effective effective date of the ordinance but that's those are that's how i feel about this just to add my comments on discussion

▶ 41:56 Jen Grigoraitis: i want to agree with councilor williams and eccles i'm very open to further discussion of both the proposals made by my colleagues and i also have some concerns about what seems to be a lack of clarity by the city about enforcement if that's something we need to further clarify in the ordinance if it's causing confusion internally to have three different city departments named i think that's something we can certainly look at i mean i'm concerned that we put out in the public that we're not clear how we're going to enforce something that starts in three weeks um but i also just this was passed by the council on september 20th of 2021 so i feel like there's been you know we're kind of really right up against it march 1st is just a few weeks away and i you know the kind of this is in motion and i know many residents in my ward have gone out and purchased barrels and i think it's clear that this is going to be an evolving multi-phased thing but i'm not sure holding this in committee unless there's going to be a bunch of special meetings between now and march 1st are really gonna um get us to where we need to be and i'm also agree i'm very concerned about the communications and i do want to thank the city i thought the one pager mailer that went out with our census was really really well done and very clear um so i'm hopeful that we can have more communications like that so um unless there are other comments on this motion to hold i will call for a vote are there any other comments

▶ 43:19 Speaker 6: okay right can i speak for a minute is i'm not sure if that's allowed well we currently have

▶ 43:24 Jen Grigoraitis: a motion before us to vote so we need to take that i mean you're not able to speak on the motion because that's before the council. Councilor, I'm Chadi. So if I'm understanding

▶ 43:40 Manjula Karamcheti: correctly, just based on the discussion we had, we can approve the amendments and also at a later

▶ 43:51 Jen Grigoraitis: date through ledge, think about the trash bag piece of things at 7 a.m. Am I understanding that correctly? So what is before this body right now is a motion to hold order 2022-65, which is these three proposed amendments. So that is the decision that's before us. What comes up after that is up to a variety of players, including whether or not counselors are going to file future amendments, whether or not the city is going to seek future amendments, but in terms of what the action is right now, it is about whether or not to hold action on these three proposed amendments by the administration yes just my vote on this motion is sort of reflective in can we do something else later so i think i got my answer so thank you so are there any other counselors wishing to discuss the motion to hold Okay, seeing none, Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

▶ 44:59 Speaker 2: Vice Chair Migliorelli? No.

▶ 45:05 Speaker 2: Councillor McMaster? No.

▶ 45:10 Speaker 2: Councillor Nicholls? No. Councillor Garipay? Yes.

▶ 45:19 Speaker 2: Councillor Jamaleddine? No.

▶ 45:26 Speaker 2: Councillor Karamcheti? No.

▶ 45:32 Speaker 2: Councillor Obremski? Yes.

▶ 45:39 Speaker 2: Councillor Williams? No.

▶ 45:44 Speaker 2: President Cinella? Yes.

▶ 45:49 Speaker 2: Chair Grigoraitis?

▶ 45:51 Speaker 4: No.

▶ 45:59 Speaker 2: Motion fails. Seven nos and three yeses.

▶ 46:04 Jen Grigoraitis: Okay. So the motion to hold fails, so this matter is still before us. Ms. Proekes-Ellis, was there a comment that you wish to make about the order?

▶ 46:15 Speaker 6: I think, well, I think by the no vote, it's been addressed. but my my comment was just going to be generally that the um with the ordinance having already passed in the fall and as currently written the three issues that we brought before you tonight are three items that if it were to be tabled and not addressed tonight um Um, 1, the handle issue means that we're now selling it a non compliant barrel. Which I think would be very confusing to the public. Um, and 2, with the bulk item, we've been getting that question a lot and we want to be able to inform people of something that's consistent with the ordinance language. Um, so I just. Wanted to clarify that, you know, if we don't address those tonight, then we are. Proceeding with other items that are that would then be inconsistent with the language, which I think just adds a lot of confusion to the public. We're trying to address. Even even if it's sort of baby steps, we're addressing the concerns that we've heard through the survey that we conducted and just through all the phone calls we've been getting. So, it would be extraordinarily helpful to deal with these 3 items tonight, even if there's.

▶ 47:39 Jen Grigoraitis: Future conversation, thank you. Can I just ask a follow up question on that? Because I noted in item in the 1st. Section of your memo it references and I know this was brought up that the J. R. M contract says that that we have with them says that they prefer, or they recommend. Barrels that are no more than 45 gallons is there going to be an effort by the city to. Make sure that the language in our contract is consistent with what is in our code. Yeah, go to 50 gallons because I feel like maybe we. I guess I would have 1st hope that we could address that with. In a formal way, but because I'm a little concerned about that discrepancy existing.

▶ 48:21 Speaker 6: Yeah, interestingly, our contract doesn't say that we are not not allowed to put out barrels that are more than 45 gallons or 45 pounds. it just says that that's their preference and so we're not contractually bound to 45 gallons and we left the 45 pounds because that's really the the bigger concern for the worker safety is the weight but by going up just to five gallons really all it does is it allows 48 gallon barrels to now be compliant which is a very standard size the ones that we're proposing to sell the ones that we are selling are 35 gallons so those are compliant one way or the other but um we will discuss it with jrm in fact lisa might have already discussed it with jrm but we don't see it as really a major change it's it's more of just a nuance between 45 and 50 gallons

▶ 49:16 Jen Grigoraitis: okay i just wanted to confirm that there wasn't a con a concern from legal on contractual language

▶ 49:25 Speaker 7: but yeah it's not a requirement in the contract thank you the hard and fast requirement is 50 pounds it's so the weight of 50 pounds um but the 45 gallons is a recommendation

▶ 49:35 Jen Grigoraitis: okay thank you for the clarification are there any other uh councillor Eccles i was going to

▶ 49:48 Jen Grigoraitis: make a motion to recommend for passage you have a motion to recommend for passage made by councillor Eccles, is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Williams. Is there any discussion? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll? Vice Chair Migliorelli? Yes.

▶ 50:12 Speaker 2: Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Eccles? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes.

▶ 50:19 Speaker 2: Councilor Jamaleddine? Councilor Karamcheti? Yes.

▶ 50:31 Speaker 2: Councilor Obremski? Councilor Williams? Yes. President Cinella? Yes. And Chair Grigoraitis? Yes.