Resource Recycling Advisory Council

Resource Recycling Advisory Commission Minutes August 28, 2023 Regular Meeting Via Webex Present: Stephan Allison, Alison Johnson, Tisha Zawisky, Izzy Guy, Deb Stanley, Eleanor Nettleton, Krishna Winston, John Yarmolovich. Others Present: Mary Giglio, Kathleen Alderman, Kim Stevens Staff Present: Kim O’Rourke, Recycling Coordinator I. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. In view of the urgency of action, she asked the Commission to adjust the agenda to make discussion of the Sustainable Materials Management grant- funded pilot program the first item considered. I. Guy made a motion to that effect, seconded by S. Allison. With a quorum present, the motion was adopted unanimously. II. SMM Grant Pilot Program—Phase 2 K. O’Rourke reviewed the program. She explained that the first phase of the pilot would end in November, and the Common Council resolution under consideration would move the pilot into Phase 2, in which the Sanitation District flat charge to property owners would be reduced, but residents would be required to use the orange and green bags. The resolution had been approved by the Public Works and Facilities Commission and the Sanitation Commission. In preparation for Phase II, the City would reach out to all segments of the Sanitation District, including businesses, landlords, and the Housing Authority. The new phase would begin only if DEEP provided bridge funding to ensure that the Sanitation District would not lose money during the transition. K. Winston made and S. Allison seconded a motion to support the resolution, a prerequisite for receiving bridge funding from DEEP. K. Alderman asked how mandatory co-collection would affect her, since she already composted her food scraps. K. Winston responded that she would not have to buy green bags unless she had food waste not suitable for composting, such as bones, dairy products, and fats. The price of the bags would include the cost of the bags themselves and the cost of disposing of their contents, so bag prices would vary depending on their size and color, with the green bags costing less. Unlike in Phase I, bags of different sizes would be available, and more locations would stock them for sale. The vote in favor of the resolution was unanimous. III. Public Comment on the Swap Shack Kathleen Alderman commented that the building was too crowded and people were not taking items. She had also noticed people leaving inappropriate items. She felt the only way to manage the situation was having the Shack staffed whenever it was open. As for children’s things, a daycare center might be a better site, so only certain items should be accepted at the Shack. If it was to be staffed, she thought that might be difficult with no heat in winter and no facilities. She suggested using the Remington Rand building. K. Winston explained that the Remington Rand complex was a business incubator, and the City derived revenue from it. It had areas that had not been renovated and the City lacked the money to do renovations in anticipation of a renter and sometimes required a tenant to pay for renovations. She agreed with the suggestion of staffing the Swap Shack and acknowledged that with too many items children’s things tended to get buried. With too much stuff being dropped off and not put in its designated place the Shack had reached a crisis point, which was why it had had to be closed while the Commission considered next steps. Kim Stevens said she also went to the Swap Shack often. She saw clothing and food as the biggest problem. She thought better signage as to what was accepted and not accepted would be a better solution. She offered to go three days a week to clean and organize. Once clothing and food were removed, there would be plenty of room for household items and toys. Mary Giglio said she was attending for informational purposes, but she would be willing to help with organizing. The Shack, in her view, was worth keeping open, and she wanted to help. K. Winston replied that much better monitoring and communication was necessary. She said she was not yet convinced that clothing should be eliminated, as many people did come looking for clothing. The quantity and condition was the problem, elements that could be controlled. I. Guy said she supported finding a new location, one not associated with “trash.” A. Johnson said it would be helpful to know how many hours a week would be necessary to keep the Shack viable. An estimate would help the Commission know whether the capacity to ramp up monitoring existed, and whether it was realistic to maintain the facility. K. Alderman noted that many people pitched in without recognition. She herself often straightened up and brought items to the e-waste container. A. Johnson pointed out that this information indicated the contribution of many uncounted volunteer hours. Discussion ensued as to how some people seemed to use the Swap Shack to avoid waste charges. K. Winston proposed that if access to the Shack were controlled, it would be possible to keep it neat and organized. To keep the Shack useful to the community, the Commission would need to adopt changes to make sure it could be maintain.. That would probably involve restrictions on when it was open. J. Yarmolovich voiced his objections to keeping clothing. K. Alderman mentioned the Swap Studio at Reboot Eco as the ideal destination for usable clothing. K. Winston commented that the North End was more convenient for residents of the neighborhood. Commissioners discussed the clothing issue at length. Suggestions included limiting items accepted to clothing and shoes for children’s and babies. I. Guy felt Amazing Grace might be able to take children’s clothes for its clients. T. Zawisky said she liked the idea of staffing the Swap Shack and partnering with other organizations to identify repositories of items not accepted at the Shack. She thought signage alone would not solve the problems. A. Johnson asked whether there was sufficient volunteer staffing to have the Shack on a limited basis. If limited hours were tried, the experience of those staffing the Shack could be assessed. K. Winston suggested having a schedule of Saturdays for a couple of hours and one morning or afternoon during the week. She proposed trying to put together a schedule to see if enough coverage would be available. S. Allison suggested installing a camera to deter people from leaving items, and enlisting the hidden volunteers who had been helping. Members acknowledged the difficulty of being there in excessively hot and cold weather. K. O’Rourke said she would reach out to the volunteers from whom she had heard to see who might be interested in signing up for a shift at the Shack. She said the Commission would need to schedule time to clean the Shack out. In response to a suggestion, she commented that placing a trash container outside the building would convey the wrong message because the Recycling Center did not accept regular trash. She stressed that all the Commissioners should know where items in the Shack that had to be disposed of should go, e.g., metal articles in the metal pile or broken non-recyclable items in the bulky waste pile. K. Winston suggested asking the attendants whether they had preferred times for the Shack to be open. K. Winston advised committing these ideas to writing and ascertaining who was available to help. She thanked the members of the public for coming to speak and said she looked forward to developing a plan to re-open the Swap Shack as a useful community resource. IV. Adjournment E. Nettleton moved adjournment, seconded by S. Allison. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Kim O’Rourke Recycling Coordinator