INFO-2024-3 : Information Item Updating City Council on Solid Waste & Recycling and Disposal Contract Negotiations

Transcript (~1 h 2 min @ 14:38)

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

▶ 14:32 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Next up is Info 2024 dash three. Information item, updating the city council on solid waste and recycling and disposal contract negotiations. Tonight we have with us Mayor Broder, director Elena Pro Ellis, and Deputy Director of DPW Jim Troop.

▶ 14:54 Paul Brodeur: Good evening. It is good to see you all. And I'm, uh, excited to be here with our partners Department of Public Works. Uh, I do wanna say a quick thank you, um, to the DPW for the amazing work they did around home for the holidays. The, the lighting has never been better, and the cooperation we get from them every year is, uh, is exceptional as well as our partners of the Chamber of Commerce and everyone else that, uh, steps forward to make that a terrific event. Uh, so with that, we are talking about trash. Um, as you may or may not know are, uh, are longstanding and extremely favorable to the city. The solid waste and recycling contract is expiring as of June 30th, 2024. Um, so I asked, um, DPW with, with, uh, particular kudos to, uh, Jim and Elena and Allison Busler for their work, um, in putting together an really, an amazing amount of information. Um, their charge for me was rather simple, get me proposals, um, that represent, um, the best combination of value and affordability. Um, for, for my consideration of, for the chief executives, uh, consideration already. It could clear the deal has not been signed yet, but it is extremely close. Uh, it doesn't require, the contract itself does not require approval by this council. Um, but there are gonna be some challenging decisions the next six months about how to pay for whatever the choice is. Um, to be, to be clear in, in a nutshell, just to put the, probably the most important things out on the table, what I think is the best combination of price and value is, uh, essentially moving from recycling every week to recycling every other week. The savings from that on a yearly basis is somewhere between 500,000 and $600,000. Um, which pans out to probably somewhere between 65 and maybe 85 bucks a household on a, on a year by year basis. Um, there are other, certainly other possibilities, but that is the one, again, I respectfully suggest, um, has the most value. We can go into that in more detail. Um, but I am gonna turn it over to Jim and Elena to take you through, uh, you know, a little bit more about that charge, uh, the process they went through, uh, the incredible amount of detail that is, uh, available to us in making decisions like should it be, uh, automated collection, how frequent, what is the frequency of various collections, should we continue on with, um, yard waste? And if so, under the contract, uh, or in-house, uh, Jim will be able to speak with authority to all of that. And I'll certainly be here, um, to the extent my input is needed or wanted. Happy to do that. With that, I will thank you too and invite Elena up to the Table.

▶ 18:27 Speaker 6: Thank you. And happy holidays to everybody. Um, I think it's important to understand that this process is not anything that we've either rushed into or rushing into making any decisions. This process actually started in 2021 when JRM Republic asked to execute the contract extension. That brings us up to the, uh, June 30th, 2024 expiration. Uh, they were fairly unwilling to, uh, uh, accept the terms of the contract as were written because of some very seismic shifts in the industry. We can cite changes in the recycling, recycling, uh, markets. Uh, we can cite changes with the pandemic, and we can cite changes with, uh, the labor markets as well. And those three things have cost, uh, cities, towns, uh, across the state, across the country, uh, a lot of money, uh, because of these seismic shifts. Uh, as the mayor mentioned, the city was in a very, very advantageous position in 2012 when, uh, sorry, 2014 when this contract was entered. None of these things that I just alluded to had occurred in the, in the industry, uh, or affected the markets themselves. Um, so knowing that and knowing the price tag that we would be facing, uh, we started the process by trying to collect as much data and to try to put the city in the most advantageous position possible and to keep the most leverage in terms of negotiations. I've been through this before, when the haulers have had all of the leverage in the world, because quite frankly, the city waited until the last minute to start this process. So this has been basically a three year process. Uh, in 2022, uh, Ms. Ler and I, uh, attended some contract writing and some specification writing workshops that were designed specifically by DEP to put cities and towns in the best possible position when it comes to soliciting services, uh, for curbside collection and disposal. Uh, I also have, uh, family in this industry as well as other contacts that we've established. And I ask them for their advice, what should the city be doing? And they gave us some very valuable information, uh, and the fruits of all that came from when we did select haulers. And they said that this process was as thorough as they've ever seen it. So I have to credit, uh, all of the people that put that information in front of us so that we could solicit a valuable and, uh, a continued service to the residents of Melrose. What we asked the haulers to do, since this is exempt from 30 B, we asked and invited haulers to come in, and we invited haulers that would be able to handle a city the size of Melrose. Uh, we identified five, three of them expressed interests in, uh, obtaining our services. We asked for a number of combinations from traditional, with a labor at the back of the truck, picking up cans and throwing at the, the conventional, uh, collection of both, uh, recycling and trash collection. We ask for automated services because that's really the direction that this industry is going, and we ask for every possible combination of that, including every week, trash every week, recycling every other week, uh, recycling. The one thing we did not consider, and this is something that cities and towns are moving towards, is every other week trash collection. I just don't think that Melrose is in a position to undertake that big of a change at the present time. It may be something we might want to consider as a cost savings measure moving forward, but unfortunately, I can't recommend that at present time we have enough to do as it is, uh, moving forward. Uh, the three haulers that expressed interest and had the capacity to service the city were waste management, Cosella and Republic. All three were asked to submit financial bids as well as what they would do to help us transition into the future. And to put it bluntly, none of the haulers were willing to propose having the conventional pickups the way that it exists right now, with a laborer on the back of the truck, picking up the cans and throwing 'em into the hopper. Thus, we were left with having to explore automated services. And it's pretty much the standard around this, the municipality right now. Um, I gave to everybody a, uh, PowerPoint and it basically sums up the position that we're in right now. Uh, where the current contract shows us $825,000 per year for hauling disposal is $68 a ton. Recycling processing as it exists right now is $61 and 20 cents per ton, and a total contract value of $1.574 million per year. That hits our operating budget. The current trash fee for the city, which was set in 2005, is now $200. And that pretty much covers our sanitation budget as it exists in the DPW. We talked about the workshops that we, uh, attended. We talked about the industry experts that helped us craft our bid. Uh, we identified the haulers and we prepared the bid forms for hauling only

▶ 23:49 Speaker 6: the three bids that we got. The lowest possible bid was cosella at 1.95, $5 million per year. That's hauling only. Um, it also assumes, uh, every other week recycling at this point. Um, and, and that, uh, that cost to go from every other week to every week, recycling is $500,000 a year approximately. We're gonna assume that all in, uh, the hauling only piece from Cosella is just under $2 million a year. And I, I, I wish it was better. But this is a number that, uh, we had communicated to the administration at times, uh, with various, uh, conversations, uh, with some of the counselors. We did indicate that this is a number that would not be a surprise. Our disposal, uh, currently $68 a ton. Uh, I factored that current rates are somewhere around $120 a ton. Uh, the bids came in at, at roughly $110 a ton, but we also have an ace in the hole with our transfer station in Medford. Waste Management operates that on a lease. There is language in the contract that protects the city, uh, and offers us a significant discount. And thus at $95 a ton, that's where we will direct the hauler to deliver the trash. There are a lot of great benefits for that. The trucks are in the city all day long. The trucks are not hauling trash up to Haverhill or to Peabody or to Lynn, and thus they're on our streets more and we're paying for them to be here.

▶ 25:36 Speaker 6: Um, so the baseline cost for recycling processing, which is something fairly new since the last time that we entered into a contract, is just under $300,000 per year. The price is affected by the commodity value. It's a, a market, uh, set price, and it's something that we can drastically affect by putting the right products into our recycling. The better Melrose recycling, the lower that number is. So our task, knowing that we're gonna hit this, have this cost increase, is to do our job to promote better recycling and to get our tonnage in the right buckets so that it gets to the right places. Um, a side-by-side co compar comparison shows that the current contract as it exists right now is $1,574,360. Bottom line, the city's looking at a new contract with every other week recycling at $3 million, 56,000 and and $6. So it's roughly twice as much as our contract right now. Uh, from a financial standpoint, this would be the recommendation that we would propose, uh, to the mayor. And it's financial only understanding that people might perceive this as a reduction of service to go from every week recycling to every other week. Recycling, we want to note that based on volume, it's not a reduction, it's just a matter that they're picking it up every other week. And we would be providing containers that would handle that volume. The next slide that's in your packet shows that the cost to stick with every week recycling is approximately $500,000. That would be an assumed number, and it would vary based obviously, on the commodity that we would re uh, the price that, uh, we would share, uh, with the hauler for, uh, anything that they would be able to sell the recyclable materials. Um, what we wanted to also show is maybe the rate impact. Now we're trying to study, uh, and work with, uh, the current administration. We expect to work with the new administration, uh, with the CFO. Uh, we want to come up with a strategy that'll help us fund this contract. If we look strictly as a rate and a fee implication. The current contract right now, at $200 per customer every other week, recycling would be a $370 and 30 cents per customer. Uh, e equivalent if we go to every week recycling, that's $427 and 78 cents. That would be the cost per customer, uh, for the city. So clearly it's, it's significant. Um, the next strategy outside of the financials would be for us to roll this out. What we're really excited about, uh, in, uh, looking to Cosella to propose this services is that they are very, and they want our business. They have, uh, chased us for years. They were aggressive in their pricing and their proposals really blew us away with all the bells and whistles that they have from an, an app that'll tell people what to put out, when, when is their trash day, when is their recycling day, when is a yard waste day, bulk service fees. They're very user friendly, which I think would be a drastic improvement from where we are now. And that's not to to downsell or say anything bad about Republic, but I think that there would be improvements. They've expressed interest in educating our residents in terms of what the trash service will look like, come July one, and have just pledged all of their support for outreach and education. Um, so, uh, we will still service, uh, public barrels and school dumpsters. We will still service park and municipal barrels. We will still service metal goods. There'll be no changes to the mattress program. The one shift in terms of, uh, how it will exist is there will be a bulk item that will be outsourced, and that will be a fee-based service that the, the hauler will undertake. We will direct our residents and our customers to the hauler for that. But, uh, in some, uh, between our rollout strategy, the education materials that are available to us, and I'm really confident in the team that we have at the DPW to get this information out and to really try to focus now on the execution, uh, of this contract transition. I know that this is challenging and I know that ultimately it, uh, affects our residents most likely in the trash fee. And we want to do our best to add value, um, you know, to this contract and this service. And the bottom line is it's a basic service that our residents expect from not only A DPW, but also the haulers on a day-to-Day, week to week basis. Uh, I'm excited to recommend cassela. I'm excited to consider the two options and, and the funding strategies. And, uh, we are very confident that we presented to the mayor the best possible financial and service-based options available to the city. Thank you very much for the consideration. I'll ask, uh, Elena to fill in any holes that I might've left out.

▶ 31:00 Speaker 7: I really don't have anything to add. That was fantastic. Um, the one thing I will say, and not to be a correction, but Jim said Medford at one point and met Melrose. So the transfer station, we own the land where the transfer station is, where Waste Management has their station number, route 99, and we lease it to them. So as part of that lease contract, they're required to give us a price that's 10% lower than their lowest price. So that's how we get that advantageous, uh, disposal cost.

▶ 31:28 Speaker 3: Thank you. Um, so far I have Councillor Sella in Q.

▶ 31:33 Christopher Cinella: Thank you Madam Chair. Could you just add a little clarity around making sure, uh, residents are recycling the right things and how that affects the price? Because I know over the years there's been a lot of education in the city. They've come, spoke at Rotary Chamber and sometimes they, the numbers on things. Sure. Sometimes pizza boxes are recyclable, they're not recycle. It kinda, it's just kind of changing. People get confused. So I mean, if, if all of a sudden the pizza box is no longer recyclable again, does that mean that if your neighbor's throwing those out, the whole truck is essentially contaminated in a sense? Or

▶ 32:11 Speaker 6: No? What is that? It's, that's not necessarily true. It, it's funny, I was always told you can recycle the pizza box. You can't recycle the pizza. So, um, you know, unfortunately it's such an ever changing industry with what these, uh, people that are selling the recyclable materials, uh, what they're expecting. And what I can say is we put out a calendar every year and the first thing we look at are changes in the recycling materials. And that's where I say it's our job to stay on top of. Now what is good recycling material? What needs to go in the recycling bin? What needs to go in the solid, in the solid waste bin? I have to tell you, I think, uh, the next goal for us would be to explore an organics program because of the sheer weight that organics lend to the, to the tonnage. And we're paying a premium when we could drastically reduce our tonnage costs if we can get organics out of that stream. So I, I don't have a direct answer for your question other than it's very challenging for us to get that information out. 'cause it's always changing. Mm-Hmm. But what our, what our priority needs to be is to get the right materials into the right buckets, but also for us to get that information out on a regular basis. Gotcha.

▶ 33:32 Speaker 7: I have two quick things to add to that. And yeah. Do, um, the, the website, Allison has done a fantastic job putting a lot of information up on the website as to what is and is not recyclable. And she also has links to places where you can type in a certain type of waste that you're trying to dispose of. And it will tell you, it'll recommend places where you can dispose of it, recycle it or whatnot. Um, and then the new app that Sela will have, I believe, will also have information where you can look at what is or isn't acceptable in their recycling waste stream. I think the biggest offenders, honestly, I mean the pizza boxes, yes. You know, if they're greasy, really greasy, you shouldn't throw them in. But those aren't the big offenders. It's plastic bags. Mm-Hmm. That's a huge one. If you go to the recycling processing facilities, so many people are still recycling their stuff in plastic bags. And I don't know how anyone doesn't understand that at this point, but plastic bags can't go in the recycling and then anything with excessive food waste. And I think that's probably the two biggest offenders of contaminated recycling. Gotcha. Um, so that's my one PR plug

▶ 34:39 Speaker 6: And I'll be happy to show what the app looks like to anybody, um, that would like to see it. I have the exact version of how it's gonna look for Melrose

▶ 34:47 Christopher Cinella: Too. Thank you. And one last question too, and you may have mentioned this, but, uh, will people have to upgrade obviously their trash barrels or, or, correct.

▶ 34:54 Speaker 6: Okay. That'll be, that'll be part of that. The city will be purchasing, uh, the automated totters size to be determined. Obviously based on the service that we're going to sign the contract for, they will be distributed. And again, that'll be part of the education and transition process that Cassela has pledged to, to assist us.

▶ 35:12 Speaker 4: And then can we recycle our old barrels?

▶ 35:15 Speaker 6: Correct. You can. Our, our

▶ 35:15 Paul Brodeur: Plastic is, so just to flesh that out a little bit, 'cause one of the things Jim said, which is absolutely true, is this is the, uh, rapidly changing industry. And we move this contract, we've tended to go into longer contracts. This is a five year contract. I think that's wise because of the nature of the changing marketplace. Um, so a couple of things have happened. DEP is now, um, they will find at, as I understand it, at, at the tipping center, wherever you dump your stuff, if it isn't, what I'll say is pure isn't the right mix or runs a foul of some of our laws that are very hard to enforce, then the city is gonna get, potentially get penalized at the tipping station. Uh, the other thing that's happened is recyclables are much, well, there's the, there's no place to put real trash anymore. That's a, that's kind of an evergreen that we've known that for a long time. But the nature of the recycling market has changed. And y'all probably went as, as there's a significant economic downturn. The main buyers of these recycled materials are China and India. Uh, the need went down and they insisted on a much pure product, if you will, more usable things because the cost, the cost, the value proposition didn't work anymore. The way they were taking everything and not worrying about, uh, some of the garbage, if you will, that that doesn't work. This is a commodity almost like, you know, oil or agriculture or whatever the case may be. So it's very challenging to try to respond to that in the way Jim was describing. We, we definitely, to kinda, um, from an educational perspective, it almost has to be a permanent commitment to education. 'cause I do expect this market is gonna continue to change and evolve.

▶ 37:14 Speaker 3: Okay. Councillor Stewart,

▶ 37:16 Robb Stewart: Thank you Madam Chair and thank you all for being here this evening. It's very helpful, informative, appreciate this.

▶ 37:25 Robb Stewart: Um, so, um, this is a lot to take in when you talk about it's roughly gonna be roughly double the cost and I understand that, um, is the intent to pass all of that cost on to the community?

▶ 37:43 Speaker 6: Well, that's the strategy that we're discussing right now. Currently the fee, the, the, the rate, uh, of $200 covers our sanitation budget. If you continue with that model, then the answer would be yes. Uh, so it's just, it's what we'd have to figure out with the CFO and, and have his input as to what we should do, how the rate should be set, uh, any type of subsidy from the general fund for this. I mean, the challenge obviously right now is to work this into our fiscal 25 budget and how, how will it be funded? Uh, will it be straight from the rate or will it be straight from, or will it come from a number of sources?

▶ 38:24 Speaker 7: I just wanna add to that one, one thing we've been talking about is the possibility of down the road developing an enterprise fund similar to water and sewer for solid waste and recycling. And so that's something that in the long term is certainly on the table where our, our costs would be, um, you know, fully reconciled with our, our expenses and our income specific to solid waste and recycling. Right now, it all goes via the general fund. So the trash fee doesn't go into a dedicated fund for trash. But the reality is that our paying for our trash contract right now, plus a bit of additional services in our sanitation budget, eats up the entire trash fee and then some. So, um, you know, the trash fee, if we were to go toward an enterprise fund, that fee would become even higher than the numbers that we've quoted in the PowerPoint. What we're showing in the PowerPoint right now is just the incremental change from the existing contract to the new contract. And then if you divide that by the number of users paying the trash fee, those are what the fees would be. So the, the intent with the numbers we've presented is that the trash fee would cover the difference of, so that there, it would be sort of budget neutral within the, within the operating budget. Um, but there's so many ways to slice and dice it, and that's a discussion, you know, for down the road in terms of whether to try to do a full enterprise fund or not.

▶ 39:53 Robb Stewart: Yeah. You're touching upon the, the concern that I've, I have with this is because the, the model is it is variable. It's not just a fixed price. And so you have to accommodate for that. And if we have a fixed, uh, fee to our community, then you have to absorb the difference positive or negative. Right. Right. And so that enterprise fund, I think is probably something you wanna get set up sooner rather than later to buffer that variability. Right.

▶ 40:25 Speaker 7: Yeah. And the reality with the trash fee that was set in 2005 is that over the years, oh, 2002, um, over the years, the, um, the fee has stopped covering the entire sanitation budget. And so we're in that situation right now where each year we have, you know, salary increases and such that we, we cover as an increased expense within the operating budget where the fee has stayed at that fixed $200 a year for 20 years. So, um, we're, we're kind of already in that position. And so our thought with presenting numbers that just absorb the difference in the trash fee is that we can kind of stay status quo if we bring the trash fee up to cover the difference, but certainly should be talking at some point about an enterprise fund so that we're not subject to those ups and downs within the operating budget. Sure.

▶ 41:20 Paul Brodeur: So if, right, just a, a couple things. There's one thing that you said that's important to kind of take off the table when you do a fee. Um, the most you can take in within the bounds of reasonable expectations is the cost of service. That's what differentiates a fee from a tax. So when you say we might be the beneficiary or not, we can't be the beneficiary. Like we can't essentially create a funding mechanism that would run, essentially would run around proposition two and a half to fund other things. Doesn't mean that that that can signify the need. And if you, I'd be happy to send around, this is the letter that Mayor Dolan sent out in 2002 about why we're originally doing a trashy, honest to god, I stumbled upon this like a week ago. This this box of stuff in my office. Um, I'll just go on the, in order to balance the budget, we reduced non salary expenses by five to 10%. Um, this will cover the cost. We maybe will look at paper throw, et cetera, et cetera. So it was, it was a budget balancing tool back in oh two, but it was calibrated so that it didn't overcharge, essentially saying it started out at 1 25 annually. It fairly quickly went, I want to say from to one 50 and then to, um, 200 the current fee maybe two to three fiscal years later. And interestingly, um, you know, there's just the city council, the board of ultimate at the time, um, required the city to move to paper throw within 18 months. The city did take a very careful look at that with roughly 2005 numbers. Um, and it led the mayor to conclude that that was not a great, uh, model for us right now and filed an order to eliminate that requirement. And so there was a fairly deep lift into that. And, but the, the ordinance was changed back, I think on a, on an eight to three vote. I know about it. 'cause it was my thing. They, they do the paper throw naive perhaps that I was, um, and one of the things that Mayor Dolan said when he said, uh, we're not gonna do paper throw is a promise not to increase the trash fee over fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. I am pretty sure, but I'm not positive that that has been true over time. So there's very, there, there is kind of good analysis of that enterprise model. And the virtue of it is it does you a lot like with water and sewer ate something a a reserve fund so that a, if you miss the mark one way or another, you have a cushion. And it also allows you to, uh, offload certain other capital expenses that now flow through free cash, a contract stabilization or whatever the case may be. The only thing, the only other thing I would say about, and I don't mean it to to Pope fund, but one of the things that we said in 2002 to justify the trash fee was, um, we, the conclusion of the time was, um, it will not save money or improve service to privatize trash collection. We have of course, privatized most trash collection. We don't, we still do, um, the yard waste and some of our dumpsters, the main street barrels, but everything else has been privatized. There's not a lot of creative thinking on that, on that piece of the pie that's left. In terms of big other models, I would suggest it'll probably take a couple years to get to that and socialize it in the community if you wanna move towards a, you know, a bag, paper throw system and it's a million ways to do it. Um, but that is one that is what gets you closest to kind of a, an operating cost model in

▶ 45:37 Robb Stewart: Real time. Yeah. Okay. Great. Um, so Mr. Mayor, you did mention the five year contract. Um, what is Cole on that, what's, I'm just interested what the growth rate that you're looking at over the five years.

▶ 45:50 Speaker 6: It worked out to be about 4%. It's

▶ 45:52 Speaker 2: Not bad. Okay.

▶ 45:55 Robb Stewart: Um, and you had talked a little bit about cassela actively, um, educating the community. What does that look like?

▶ 46:07 Speaker 6: So it's gonna be using, uh, every possible media platform, whether it's social media, uh, digital, uh, print media. They have PSAs that they could put out. We could, uh, hold public, uh, meetings at, uh, strategic places throughout the city. Uh, they have a number of resources that we plan, uh, on utilizing, because I think that's gonna be the key to this. Uh, we're gonna leave, uh, no stone unturned when it comes to, uh, how we're gonna reach our, uh, 25,000 residents here. So.

▶ 46:38 Robb Stewart: Okay. And you, you talked a little bit about the penalties at the tipping station. I really didn't understand that.

▶ 46:49 Speaker 6: So, uh, I guess to to, to basically summarize what that would be is there are waistbands things that aren't allowed, uh, to be, uh, put into the trash or put into the recycling. Those penalties are more at the transfer stations or where we're dumping the solid, the solid waste portion of it. If there is a percentage of, uh, band materials, uh, we're gonna see, uh, we're gonna see fines. So whoever's uh, operating those facilities will pass that back onto the municipality. The same goes for the recycling. If there's non-recyclable materials in, in the recycling haulers, uh, they will pass those fees and fines back onto the city.

▶ 47:29 Robb Stewart: What kind of fees, what, what kind of fines are they, what's like what size?

▶ 47:32 Speaker 6: Well, quite honestly, I haven't, I haven't had to absorb a fine, we've had the threat of the, of the fines. So, uh, it's, it's probably a cost per ton for them to get rid of it plus a, a small penalty on top of that.

▶ 47:46 Speaker 7: Okay. And I think the big items right now, the DEP is really hot, honored the mattresses and the textiles because those are their recent bands. So construction, textiles, uh, construction materials, so mattresses, we have a robust mattress program. We have curbside pickup. We take them at the yard on certain days. So people should have an easy time now disposing of a mattress. Plus if they buy a new mattress, usually the company who's delivering it will also take away the old mattress for a fee and dispose of it properly, hopefully. Um, so, um, you know, that should be totally doable for people. And in terms of textiles, there are bins at all the schools, the Baystate textiles bins, there's a bin at the city yard. Um, there's still the simple recycling pink bags except you need to schedule them to come now. They don't come automatically. Um, but there, and then there's, you know, big brother, big sister and epilepsy, new England and all these groups that will come and collect it at your house. So there are ample opportunities to properly dispose of these items and we just need to make sure to get the word out to folks that they are not allowed. And, and I think those are, my guess is those are the ones DEP is gonna be looking at the most closely because they're the new bands. Sure.

▶ 48:57 Robb Stewart: Sure. So I don't have any more questions. I just have a little bit of feedback though. Um, uh, I understand the, the challenge that it is and I think you've done a lot of great work. So thank you. Um, my suggestion is get in front of the community as soon as you can. There's gonna be a lot of outcry about this, you know, from one, from, you know, the, the barrels that people just bought like a year or two ago. Right. So there's gonna be a lot of, a lot of noise about that. I think there's gonna be a lot of concern about the fact that the cost is doubling. Um, and I think we need to explain clearly and cogently why this is happening, uh, what our plan is, uh, and, and put a face to it. Uh, you know, I'm happy to support you and uh, that's, you know, I think something that uh, if we get in front of now, it's gonna be less painful than if we wait until April may to start doing this. Oh, it won't work. We can't for sure that that will not work.

▶ 49:50 Speaker 8: Exactly. We need to sign this thing a

▶ 49:51 Robb Stewart: SP. Exactly. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, thank you.

▶ 49:53 Paul Brodeur: Here's, here's the good news councils. McMaster and Eccles and Ella have volunteered to be point people for this. They can't quite cut the cord yet, so we're gonna task em with this.

▶ 50:05 Speaker 3: Excellent. Thank you Madam Chair. Councillor Williams.

▶ 50:07 Ryan Williams: Thank you. Um, I'll try to be quick 'cause I know we're already a little late for our important legal and legislative committee meeting. Um, the trash bills, you guys are talking about the cost of this trash to residents. You're talking about the annual cost. Right. Okay. So we're billed for trash quarterly, correct. Right. Okay. So the difference between these two options of recycling every other week or recycling, um, every week comes out to about a $14 per quarter difference. Correct. That's what I'm looking at. Right. So, um, you know, as a person who recycles a lot, I often have my recycling bin more fold in my trash bin. 'cause I actually take a lot of time to clean and I take the labels off and I'm kind of, you know, I'm kind of obsessive about it and I know a lot of folks who put a lot of work into it as well. Um, I, I don't see the cost benefit of taking away a weekly service for $14 a quarter. Um, I worry that we're gonna see more contamination because you're gonna have more people kind of frustrated with their recycling or you're gonna see more people dumping their recycling into the, the trash bins. Um, you know, I believe it's you guys to, to make that decision. I don't even think I have enough space to hold, recycle more recycling, like I'm overflowing every time I go out there. But I'll get off my, my soapbox on that. Um, is there, uh, there's buried in this somewhere, there's a, there's a overall weight limit for us. Is that true or no? Like with this contract we're unlimited with the amount of trash we can dispose of. Right. Does it ever, does the price ever increase if we dispose more trash? Like way more trash?

▶ 51:41 Speaker 7: No, it's a per ton. It's on a per ton basis.

▶ 51:43 Ryan Williams: Okay. And we don't like the

▶ 51:45 Speaker 7: No, I mean the, the difference I suppose is we're looking at on the solid waste end, the standard for a community like Melrose is the 64 gallon toter. Yeah. And so, um, I suppose you could put very heavy material and the 64 gallon toter. So, but since it's all being collected automatically now, we no longer need to have the weight limits on the barrels. Yeah. Um, or at least if there is a limit, it's gonna be very high. It's whatever the, the arm can lift. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. So, um, you know, people will be a little more restricted, I suppose, than the, than the four bags per week. Mm-Hmm. That we currently, or four barrels per week that leak we currently allow. But you can fit a whole lot into those 64 gallon toters. True, true,

▶ 52:26 Paul Brodeur: True. And we actually have just a, a, a part of the analysis of this was increasing the recycling toter size since we're at a, you know, kind of at a starting point. Yes. So, I mean that's a little bit of a customer management decision because I don't think that you to be, you can get to, what is it, 96 96, Which isn't as imposing as as you might think. Yeah. And you can, you think that would take care of most

▶ 52:54 Speaker 8: of, of that issue? It's possible. Never, Always. But that's the,

▶ 52:58 Ryan Williams: I happen to have just bought a 48 gallon total recycling bin two months ago. That will now be my backup. Mm-Hmm. Total recycling bin. Yes. Um, okay. Um, how many waste customers does the city have?

▶ 53:13 Speaker 1: Residential? Like 12,000 households, Probably 11. Yeah.

▶ 53:16 Speaker 6: So our customers are about 9,000. 9,000. Okay. It's just under. Okay.

▶ 53:20 Speaker 7: Um, and then in terms of if you're, if you're kind of running numbers in your head on things, we do have folks who qualify for a hundred percent discount on the trash fee and a 50% discount. So we're a little under 8,000 customers who pay.

▶ 53:33 Ryan Williams: Got it. Okay. And do the, um, large multifamily buildings pay the same fee? So we as residential,

▶ 53:40 Speaker 7: Anything over six units, we don't collect curbside. It's six

▶ 53:43 Speaker 8: And over or over six Doesn't matter. I think it's over

▶ 53:46 Speaker 1: Six. They contract their own, they get dumpsters

▶ 53:48 Speaker 8: or whatever. Yeah. Okay. Got it.

▶ 53:49 Speaker 7: Got it. Okay. And they, they are permitted, anyone who's a Melrose resident or business is permitted to bring recycling to the city yard. Yeah. 'cause we want to give everybody a place to recycle. So if a 10 unit building say isn't providing recycling on site curbside, then people can always come to the yard. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Um, and they don't pay for that.

▶ 54:09 Ryan Williams: And, um, is there any change in materials accepted particularly around plastics with this contract?

▶ 54:15 Speaker 7: Not at this time, no. Okay.

▶ 54:17 Ryan Williams: Alright. No changes. Okay. And cassela, they're gonna do yard waste as part of this? No, no, they're not. We're,

▶ 54:21 Speaker 7: I thought I heard continue you say that to No, we are gonna continue yard waste. You'll

▶ 54:24 Ryan Williams: Continue yard waste. Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. And a big plug for, for composting, it's like 30 pounds a week for us. Right. It's 50 pounds on holidays, you know,

▶ 54:34 Speaker 1: Do you, do We do Black Earth. Black

▶ 54:35 Speaker 7: Earth. Yeah. I mean that's, You see 'em everywhere. Yeah. That's a huge benefit. And the city's considered doing a contract specifically with one of the haulers. Yeah. My only hesitation on that in the past has been, I, I think competition in that market is a good thing. Yeah. And so by contracting with one specific hauler, we're kind of pushing the competition out and I'm worried that drives the overall prices up.

▶ 54:58 Ryan Williams: We might wait a while 'cause I feel like the only but barrels I ever see for compost are black, are

▶ 55:02 Speaker 7: Blacker. There are about three companies who it's couple other

▶ 55:05 Ryan Williams: For Bootstrap for sure. I know, but I, I only black.

▶ 55:08 Speaker 7: Yeah. So that's my concern though. I, I don't think we should all be as municipalities forcing out the competition. Yeah,

▶ 55:14 Ryan Williams: That's, I have no, no more questions. I appreciate your responses. Thank you. Councillor

▶ 55:18 Speaker 3: McMaster. Thank you

▶ 55:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: Madam Chair. Good evening Mr. Troop. Thank you for that overview. Where exactly are we in the, in the bidding process? So what stage are, what does the timeline look like?

▶ 55:30 Speaker 7: We, We required bids to be submitted by last April

▶ 55:35 Speaker 6: May. Yeah. So, uh, if we go back to the beginning of the process, I told the, the administration that we wanted to sign this contract before January 1st, 2024. We are right there. We have final numbers from cassela. We have the pen literally on top of, uh, you know, the paper. But obviously, uh, you know, with the pending change, we obviously wanted to make sure that everybody was on board and up to speed with exactly what we are. So we're ready to, we're ready to sign this contract right

▶ 56:05 Speaker 7: Now. So, and the unknown really is the every other week recycling versus every week that kind of needs to be ironed out before we can sign. But with, with the bidding process that we did, we brought in all the consult, all the three companies, the vendors. Um, we did sort of pre-bid meetings with all three individually. Um, then we gave them an opportunity to come in and give us a presentation after our request for proposals. And then we also offered them a second opportunity to sharpen their pencils and, and get us better pricing. So that process took probably six months start to finish. And then Cosella was selected. So we have, we have narrowed down, oh, and we're, I think Jim also presented, we're splitting the contracts now too. We're hauling and disposal are two separate contracts where before they were together. So we're prepared to sign a contract with waste management and for disposal and a contract with cassela for hauling and recycling.

▶ 57:00 Speaker 6: I was gonna say, I think it's also important we've committed to cosella. Yeah. It's really all the fine print. Like what are, what are they gonna be responsible for in terms of bulk items? Uh, it's, it's very minute things right now that are in the details before we finish signing. And obviously this every other week thing is a, is a decision that we're not taking by.

▶ 57:20 Paul Brodeur: One thing that I really is important to make clear, 'cause you touched on it, Jim, but, um, some, the, the words can be technical and we don't always use 'em that way because this wasn't under 30 B, we didn't do a bid process the way the bid process would work as we would've, we were prepared in our fp I know y'all know, we were prepared an RFP and said everyone submit a bid and then we would pick amongst those bids. Um, not going through that process allowed us to do what Elena just described and what Jim described earlier, which is here's a bunch of things we're thinking about. Give them a little bit more wiggle room in terms of you present us with options. What would, um, automated collection versus staff collection or once a week versus twice a week. All these things that we, you know, we essentially wanted to cherry pick or wanted to narrow or isolate the cost for. Um, and then we were able, unlike in a bid process to say, all right, this is what we got, who can do better? And we learned a lot through that process. And a couple things, both improving the proposals and quite frankly sniffing out a person or two who started off the process. Um, and quite frankly not that engaged, not looking in my opinion, to win the business or be competitive. And that was, that was very helpful to see along the way as well.

▶ 58:45 Speaker 6: And, uh, what will the life of the contract be? So it's a five year contract with a five-year option, that would be, uh, at the discretion of the city, the city would hold the exclusive right to exercise the additional five years. Okay. And can you just, um, talk a little bit more about the, the transfer station and Melrose and, and, and how that works and Mm-Hmm. Just the interplay of the different, the different parties of the public is clear on that? Sure. Go, go ahead. No, you, I was gonna say, so the city owns that asset. We lease out the management of that transfer station out of Route 99 and Waste Management has that contract up until 2029. Uh, as part of that agreement, they can offer the city that 10% discount off of their lowest, uh, paying customer. Uh, they are committed, uh, to us. Uh, we talk about, um, uh, adding language that if they choose not to take trash at that location, we would still receive, uh, that, uh, low price. Uh, should they, uh, direct the hauling to go elsewhere. We would still pay the $95. But ultimately, this is our asset. The transfer station is our asset. Waste management has been leased, uh, given the lease to operate that transfer station for us.

▶ 1:00:02 Paul Brodeur: That gets, that provides us with two benefits, what Jim just described, the kind of discounted rate for the tipping fee itself. But it also saves us on the other contract. 'cause the transport is typically up to Ral or a couple other, a couple other places. And obviously everything gets passed along in some way, shape, or form. So we do save significantly on fuel and downtime of the vehicles as they go, you know, up

▶ 1:00:28 Speaker 8: to, they stay close.

▶ 1:00:30 Shawn M. MacMaster: So to, to that point, if, um, waste Management decided not to operate out of Melrose anymore,

▶ 1:00:38 Speaker 6: who assumes that cost then? So of transporting to Haver or Wherever? Exactly. So that's going now turn on to Waste Management because they are obligated for us. We've directed the trash to that facility. If they direct somebody elsewhere, there'll be language in the contract that they'll have to honor that pricing.

▶ 1:00:57 Shawn M. MacMaster: That contract is till, but it's already till 2029.

▶ 1:01:00 Speaker 7: 2029. Yeah. It covers more than five years. Yeah,

▶ 1:01:02 Speaker 6: There's two, there's two. There's the lease agreement for them to operate the transfer station, and then there's the disposal piece. Okay. So if they transfer their lease agreement, we're still directing, uh, the, the disposal, the tonnage to go to the transfer station, and they would be obligated by the terms of the lease agreement to honor that price. So these two contracts are essentially correct. RL Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's all. I have

▶ 1:01:26 Leila Migliorelli: Counts or vice chair Aldine. And I just wanna actually point out that we have about 15 minutes until we have to gavel out for legal legislative committee.

▶ 1:01:34 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you Madam Chair. Um, thank you for, um, this excellent work. Um, before us. Um, you mentioned, um, few minutes ago that there is some customers will, um, uh, residents that are excluded from this fee. Do you mind clarifying and just naming that for the sake of folks?

▶ 1:01:57 Speaker 7: Yeah. So we have discount programs with the trash fee and the water and sewer bills and it all, it's all through the same billing. Um, and I don't want to misspeak on the exact requirements, but there are elderly discounts and low income discounts. And there are two different, on the trash fee, there are two different tiers. One is a 50% discount and the other is a hundred percent discount. And I don't remember off the top of my head what the qualifying requirements are for those two programs, but they are, um, there's something that anyone can call, uh, Lisa Patterson, our water and sewer billing clerk. She is well-versed in what qualifies residents for those programs. Mm-Hmm. And is happy to help walk people through the process. We also do it at the, um, the senior fair every year too. We advertise and help people sign up for those

▶ 1:02:45 Maya Jamaleddine: Discounts and um, uh, residents will need to request that for them to be, um, eligible. Like they need to apply for it, right? Yes, correct. Okay. Um, uh, so, and also I wanted to name that this year and not very long time ago we discussed and ask every residents to or household to have, uh, to replace their barrels. And now we are asking them. So I just wanted to name that it is on us. Um, and, and we probably should, um, we, like, we should apologize, uh, because we, uh, should know that if this is not something that they can use it for at least a year, we should not ask them to, uh, to push us that and, uh, accept that. And, um, so they put the trust in us and, um, I think this is something that we owe, uh, them,

▶ 1:03:46 Speaker 7: um, through this meeting. I believe at the time when we were selling the barrels, we were saying that our hope was that they could be used with any future automated program. Um, we've been told by the haulers that it's possible that the size of the arm has to be calibrated to the size of the barrels it's picking up. So if we're using 64 gallon barrels and now we've sold 32 gallon barrels, they might not be able to pick them up with the same equipment. Um, that said the city is, is gonna be purchasing through most likely a bond and partially a grant, the totters. So we'll be providing those. So we won't be asking residents to pay an actual fee for the new toters so that Oh, I know. So we're not asking them to pay twice. But it is true that they might have a barrel that they can now only use for yard waste or, you know, another use on their property. But, uh, they would still be able to use them for yard waste by sticking a yard waste sticker on them.

▶ 1:04:40 Maya Jamaleddine: Yeah. Thank you for clarifying. It's just that, you know, it's, we still owe them that apology. So, on my behalf, I, I wanted to apologize because I did participate in that and I didn't pay attention to this specific, um, item. Um, the other one, just to be clear, so, um, residents will be paying part of that increase, like they will, um, this increase, they will feel it in a way that with the way that they're gonna pay, um,

▶ 1:05:10 Speaker 7: Yeah. Not for the, for the barrels. And if that's bonded, it's kind of, it's gonna fit within our bonding capacity and it won't be like a, a change in that regard. But the, um, the increased cost of the trash contract, presuming that we use the trash fee as the way to collect that increase, then yes, residents would be experiencing a roughly doubling of the, of the trash fee. Um, the $200 per year would go up to something in the region of $400 per year, depending on the question of every other week versus every week recycling.

▶ 1:05:47 Speaker 8: Yeah. Okay.

▶ 1:05:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, it includes with the, uh, that, uh, it's exclusion that we are also residents are also going to feel. So I, I'm just wanted to be more transparent that there is, it is just piling up on our residents and on taxpayer. And this is something to take into consideration. Who are we pushing out of this city? The people that are living on, uh, fixed income and they are living, uh, from, uh, paycheck to paycheck. Um, so we are pushing them out of this city. I, I understand you did your best to find the best, um, contract available. Um, and this is now news just on us to keep that in mind, uh, and be aware of what's, uh,

▶ 1:06:38 Speaker 5: how we are forming our city. Um,

▶ 1:06:41 Speaker 7: And, and I do hope that anyone who, um, feels they have trouble with the fee now or the fee in the future, uh, that they should contact Lisa Patterson and find out if they qualify for the discounts. Yeah. 'cause we do have a lot of people who do qualify and it's a, it's a great program to get either a 50% or a hundred percent discount on your trash fee and also potentially a discount on your water bills. So we, you know, we're trying to be in, not just on this, but in all of our programs, mindful of that and, and helping the folks who can't afford it.

▶ 1:07:11 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Finally, we know the current contract we, um, does, is excluding multifamily, uh, properties from, uh, recycling. And I'm sorry if you have mentioned that, and I didn't pay attention, but with this new contract includes, um, those multifamily, we

▶ 1:07:30 Speaker 7: Would keep the same requirements. So six units and under, um, or qualify for our solid waste and our recycling programs. Again, anyone qualifies for recycling at the city yard. It doesn't matter what type of building you live in, it doesn't matter if you're a renter, you can go and recycle at the city yard for free. Mm-Hmm. Um, but in terms of our curbside program, the larger commercial buildings and such are expected to have their own dumpsters and their own programs.

▶ 1:08:01 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Um, are, is there any plan to dis to no negotiate or work with, um, the, those building owners or the properties to see how, um,

▶ 1:08:14 Speaker 5: how we make that as a requirement, um,

▶ 1:08:18 Maya Jamaleddine: and available for their residents?

▶ 1:08:21 Speaker 7: I mean, I think part of the issue there is, is just one of space and logistics. If you have say a 50 unit building, 50 units worth of trash on the curb every week is not really practical from a logistical perspective, I'm not sure we'd put it all, you know, it'd be like New York City every day. Um, so, you know, that's part of the reason why larger buildings are required to build in space for their own dumpsters. I know having done a lot of planning review, um, projects, you know, we always make sure that any new buildings that are required to have their own trash and recycling, that they have space for recycling bins for trash dumpsters. Same with for snow removal and The traffic for that. Yeah. Right. So, so that's always a consideration with any new building. Um, perhaps some very old buildings maybe don't have those accommodations, but we make sure that every new building that's built for multifamily has space for those needs.

▶ 1:09:19 Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you Councilor Carm Shady, uh,

▶ 1:09:21 Manjula Karamcheti: thank you so much for your presentation. First of all, it's just very clear, it's transparent. I love columns with comparisons and really thank you for taking us through. Most of my questions have been answered so I won't ask them again. Um, I just do wanna quickly double click on the availability of financial support. Um, and just to ask, will the range of who qualifies shift, because the price is almost doubling, so just making sure that the requirements expand because the price is going up. So more people might be impacted and affected by the increase. So then more people should be able to apply. Don't

▶ 1:10:07 Speaker 8: Hold me to this, but I think it's up to you guys.

▶ 1:10:09 Speaker 7: Yeah. And we can look into that. I mean, I think it is per ordinance, so yes, I think it is up to the council. Traditionally, I think we have matched the, the income levels that are in the, the states, the, the states, um, tax mm-hmm. Um, exemption thresholds. I think we've tried to match those. But again, I, I don't know the exact numbers and it is possible that what's in the ordinance right now might not match those because maybe those have gone up and we haven't always actively, um, uh, reflected that in the ordinance. So it's certainly something we'll look into and if

▶ 1:10:45 Manjula Karamcheti: Yeah. And so hopefully as a collective we can make sure that we don't lose that detail. 'cause I think that will be important and might help address some of the concerns. We never wanna raise the prices of anything and when we do, making sure that we're taking care of the constituents who it impacts the most.

▶ 1:11:02 Paul Brodeur: Um, I don't wanna speak for the next administration for sure, but I know that it is something that is, I don't wanna say high on the list, but it's something that is being actively kind of looked into for, you know, what are the best ways to wrestle with a very, very, you know, I've heard my lecture about two and a half in the prompt, but re doing as much as we can under the law to make those kind of things a little bit gentler on some of the folks that are gonna strong.

▶ 1:11:27 Speaker 7: And I will also say that there will be ordinance changes that come out of this contract change. There have to be, because right now the contract has specifics on what size barrels you can use and how much weight you can put in. So we will be back before you sometime in, before July 1st with a, with an ordinance change. Mayor Birder won't have to be here. Uh, some of you all won't have to be here, but I'll

▶ 1:11:51 Speaker 8: Be the cranky guy complaining about the price, the resident.

▶ 1:11:55 Speaker 7: But we will certainly be before you for that. And that would be an excellent time to consider. Anything else that's within the ordinance that you'd like changed.

▶ 1:12:03 Manjula Karamcheti: Right. And I tried to google it real fast, but I couldn't find it. Um, do you have a sense of what the average like cost, um, is per residents in like our surrounding towns? Because if I heard you correctly, we've been paying $200 since 2002,

▶ 1:12:21 Speaker 7: 2005 I think maybe.

▶ 1:12:23 Paul Brodeur: Yeah. When I started 1 25 then went up fairly quickly up to 200. Med stopped

▶ 1:12:28 Speaker 3: In 2005. So we have been paying, so we've been paying that since 2005.

▶ 1:12:32 Speaker 9: Yes. Yes.

▶ 1:12:33 Speaker 7: And, and so what I can say for surrounding communities since I live in one of them, um, is that I know some communities have done more of an enterprise fund type structure and others have a trash fee like we have and then still others, like Wakefield just absorbs it in the tax rate. So I don't pay a trash fee, but I'm paying a trash fee. Right. I'm paying it in my taxes instead of as a separated out fee. So it becomes very hard to compare.

▶ 1:13:05 Speaker 8: Everyone should throw their stuff away in Wakefield. That's what, that's what I'm hearing.

▶ 1:13:07 Speaker 10: Well, but it, it becomes very hard to compare

▶ 1:13:10 Speaker 7: what one community's actually paying. You'd really have to dig into their budgets more so than into their fees

▶ 1:13:16 Paul Brodeur: And their systems. Like Winchester still, I think Winchester does, you bring it to the transfer station. Mm-Hmm. And their, there's still a charge that they're essentially no dump model. So it's very hard to do an apples to apple comparison.

▶ 1:13:29 Manjula Karamcheti: Yeah, totally appreciate that. It does help sometimes just to have a better sense of like, what is this average Mm-Hmm. Um, and I definitely don't know. Um, and

▶ 1:13:40 Speaker 7: The other thing is that the reality is there are only a handful of haulers in this area who are the sort of the big players and all the surrounding communities are using the same haulers and they're paying these same prices.

▶ 1:13:53 Manjula Karamcheti: Yeah. So it's the same price. It's just more of how cities and towns decide to charge their residents Exactly. And what the residents and what they provide. Yeah. Okay. And just with that said, um, I don't recycle anyway the way Counselor William does, but the change of service I do think really needs some time, energy, and effort. I will speak for myself and just say that I don't know that I've noticed $14 per quarter, but I would definitely notice like our trash and recycling or are recycling every other week, just 'cause then if you forget, then it's a month. Um, so just

▶ 1:14:36 Speaker 8: Everyone's got a different price point. Right.

▶ 1:14:38 Leila Migliorelli: Yeah. So I'm just more curious about like, how, how will you make that decision? I Just wanted to interrupt. We have like three minutes before we have to gavel into another meeting. So if this question could be answered within a minute, then we can wrap it up. I'm sorry, I, or we can motion to hold, we can,

▶ 1:14:55 Paul Brodeur: I'm inclined to sign it. And then if the council or, um, the new mayor wants to shift that, um, we have certainly talked to Cosella. There, there is an opportunity to do that. The longer we would wait, the more it would cost because there is a, there is a truck procurement they have to do. So there might be a little bit bit of exposure and close that loop.

▶ 1:15:22 Speaker 7: And we have to decide on the size of the toters ASAP. So that factors into That decision. Totally. I would

▶ 1:15:28 Manjula Karamcheti: just be curious like what the residents of Melrose would prefer more, um, an increase or actually still having the same services. I don't know how we

▶ 1:15:38 Speaker 6: Very informal. It's been 50 50 with the people that I've passed. Okay.

▶ 1:15:41 Speaker 8: I have hoping that Mr. Les gets his

▶ 1:15:44 Leila Migliorelli: Question. Yeah, I was gonna say we're gonna have to motion to recess and then come back. Sorry if, unless Councilor Eccles, your question is a minute long question. It's

▶ 1:15:51 Speaker 1: Probably not. Try it.

▶ 1:15:55 Speaker 8: No, no. I'm gonna have them stay here. Motion. I

▶ 1:15:58 Speaker 11: Don't have motion to gather.

▶ 1:15:59 Speaker 3: Motion to adjourn or do you No motion to, I mean place on file. But are you do or do you wanna recess and then come back? Motion

▶ 1:16:08 Speaker 1: To recess? I would like to ask this

▶ 1:16:08 Speaker 3: question. Yeah. Motion to recess. Motion. Recess.

▶ 1:16:11 Ryan Williams: Motion will just out motion gavel in recess. The legal legislation

▶ 1:16:14 Speaker 3: Continue. So someone motion to recess. Just, okay. Motion to recess. Made by Councillor Stewart. Second. Seconded by Councillor Williams. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Recess.