Single hauler voted down

7-2 vote rejects bid to cover entire town with one firm

LANSDALE » After more than two years of debate and discussion on the future of trash collection, Lansdale residents and then the borough council delivered a clear message Wednesday night.

Council voted 7-2 against implementing a single trash hauler for all borough residents, putting to rest one of the town’s hottest topics in recent memory.

Councilman Jason Van Dame and fellow council member Carrie Hawkins Charlton cast the only votes in favor of awarding a contract to hauler J.P. Mascaro and Sons, the only firm that delivered a qualified response to two rounds of a public bidding process that spanned much of 2017.

“I try to keep as open a mind as possible, and that’s kind of what got me to the point that I am. I would encourage council to support it, but I am one of nine,” said Van Dame.

“This isn’t just an issue about you or me, or what we’re specifically paying. It’s about Lansdale as a whole, and what’s best for our roads and alleys, and for all of our neighbors,” Hawkins Charlton said.

“It’s easy for me to call and demand a lower rate. But not all people feel like they have that choice. They’ve been told ‘No,’ or didn’t even realize they were paying more,” she said.

The subject of trash haulers has been raised off and on since 2011, residents were surveyed in 2012-13, and discussions were held more in depth over the past two years, about whether a single contracted trash company would

make sense for all residents in the borough, instead of the current system of residents choosing their own haulers. Earlier this month, a council committee recommended full council award Mascaro the single hauler contract, after a first sets of bids came back incomplete and a second set produced only one responsible bidder.

More than 100 residents turned out to Wednesday night’s council meeting to make both sides of the argument: a single hauler could cut down on truck traffic, pollution, and wear-and-tear on roads, but would remove residents’ ability to shop for better prices or service.

Iain Campbell of Susquehanna Avenue said he would prefer a single trash company, having experienced something similar while living in Philadelphia.

“I’d love to have a citywide trash service. I think our alleys are very dilapidated, and there’s a lot of traffic,” he said.

Andrew Colvin of Perkiomen Avenue said the truck traffic “never even came into my mind” as a problem, and said he thought the wear and tear on local alleys could have been due to poor design or construction, rather than trash trucks.

“The borough getting involved in personal trash collection seems to me as ridiculous as you telling us which landscaper to use, or only allowing FedEx deliveries, because some folks think there’s too much noise, traffic or pollution,” he said.

Steve Corrado of York Avenue said, just in the past few months, he’s seen “countless trucks that go up and down my alley, spewing oil, racing up and down the alley, littering the area with waste,” and said he thought cutting down on that traffic was enough of a reason to support a single hauler.

Several residents asked why the single hauler question could not be put to voters directly via a referendum, and Council President Denton Burnell and borough Solicitor Sean Kilkenny said state law and case law from previous litigation clearly state that can’t be done.

“We even contacted the Montgomery County Board of Elections, the lawyer there for responsible for putting ballot referendums on the ballot, and they confirmed our legal analysis,” Kilkenny said.

Another frequently asked question was why the borough couldn’t ask haulers for more information or to clarify their bid packages, in order to have more than one qualified bidder, and Kilkenny said case law is clear on that question too.

“You would think we can go back and say, ‘Hey, we know you’re a good trash hauler, can you please submit” the missing information, Kilkenny said.

“Unfortunately, that is not the case. What has happened is, courts have repeatedly ruled that no, you have to stick to essentially the four corners of what you received,” he said.

Shari Bernstiel of Sycamore Drive said she was bothered by the roughly $40,000 in legal and engineering fees the borough has paid so far to look into the issue, and asked if the borough would pay her bill if it selects a hauler she had left for another one years ago.

“I don’t want Mascaro back. I had them; I don’t want them back. I like who I’m with,” she said.

Margaret Knoble of Shaw Avenue urged council to think of seniors living on fixed incomes, who may already have low prices or other arrangements for their trash to be taken by neighbors or family, but would be hit with a tax increase under a single hauler.

“I already struggle to make that tax bill, and now you’re going to make it how much better? And have me struggle that much more?” she said.

Bill Durand of Cherry Street said his biggest problem with the single hauler proposal was only one trash pickup per week, in one 65-gallon can, when he has neighbors now who have 95-gallon cans taken twice a week because of the size of their family.

“I just can’t imagine what it’s going to look like in Lansdale, when you’ve got one day a week trash cans, and piles of bags next to them on every street you drive down,” he said.

Ray Liberto of Richardson Avenue, the former councilman who has led trash hauler talks on the “Citizens for the Revitalization of Lansdale” Facebook page, said whenever he handles procurement and contracts at his job, he must have several qualified bidders, instead of the one Lansdale was faced with selecting.

“If it’s more than $5,000, I have to have two responsible bidders. If it’s $25,000, I have to have three responsible bidders. We have one responsible bidder, and we’re talking a several-million-dollar contract of taxpayer money. That’s just irresponsible to vote on,” he said.

Jeanette Herman of Walnut Street said the single hauler question seemed similar to her to borough regulations whereby residents are unable to shop for electricity providers, since electricity is bought wholesale by the borough and then resold through Lansdale’s electric department.

“You control my electric, and I can get cheaper electric. I can get (a lower rate), and I can’t, because you control me. You know what? I’m tired of you controlling me. This is becoming a communist borough,” she said.

Joe Lopez of York Avenue said the large turnout against the single hauler idea, and the many messages from residents who have gotten offers of lower rates since the discussion began, should be signals to council.

“We talk about a referendum — the referendum is right here, today. The people have spoken, and the borough council should act accordingly,” he said.

Aleen O’Sullivan of Crescent Circle said she thought the bidding process should have been handled by procurement specialists instead of the borough’s solicitor and engineer, and said she thought the frequent recurrence of the discussion meant residents have always been opposed.

“For 20 years, residents have felt that this was not a good thing, to just go with your dirt-cheap, terrible service. That makes sense to me,” she said.

Bill Allen of York Avenue said, as a resident and business owner with special trash arrangements for each, he felt the borough should not remove residents’ ability to shop for either.

“If you want to dictate to me who I am going to hire for my 30-yard Dumpster that’s picked up every three weeks, the first time I have an issue, I can tell you where that Dumpster’s going to be unloaded — its going to be in the parking lot here. I value service; service is important to my business,” he said.

“That is why people fight stuff like this: because if we give you an inch here, you’re going to want another inch tomorrow,” he said.

Kelly Haynes of East Second Street compared one trash hauler for the entire town to changes of clothes — “one size doesn’t fit all.”

“I feel that a one-sizefits-all trash hauler for Lansdale, belongs right in the Dumpster,” she said.

More than two hours of debate Wednesday night led to a clear and decisive result — council voted against awarding the contract to Mascaro, and again in a second vote to formally reject all bids received from firms seeking to become the single hauler.

“I’m a big ‘freedom of choice’ person. Whether it’s trash, whether it’s women, whether it’s taking the knee during the national anthem to protest. These are our freedoms, and these are our rights. Agree with it or not, whether I like it or not, that’s what this country is built on,” said council member Mary Fuller.

“The majority of the people in this room right now are very upset about this. I wish they wouldn’t get so upset. We’re here to serve them,” Councilman Jack Hansen said, adding that the overwhelming majority of calls and emails he had gotten in the past two weeks were against the single hauler.

Al DeGennaro, deputy general counsel for Mascaro, said his company deserved to be awarded the contract because they successfully produced the lowest-priced bid, following the proper procedures, and said 11 other boroughs in Montgomery County have gone with single haulers and Mascaro has won five of those contracts.

“You may be the last borough in this county that doesn’t have (a single hauler). I respect all of you people, but you’re not smarter than the 11 other municipalities that have already gone down this road. The only difference is they’ve done it, and once they do it, after the first contract, and second contract, everybody gets used to it,” he said.

Councilman Leon Angelichio said he spent many late nights reading thousands of pages of studies detailing the impact of trash trucks on local roads, and had heard from dozens of residents on both sides of the issue. He urged residents to keep from contacting family members of council members to share their thoughts, but said they were always welcome to share thoughts with council members.

“I love that this room is filled. I love all of the emails I got. This is fantastic; this is how government should work,” he said.

Several residents said they had been offered lower rates from other haulers than the quoted price of $18.64 per month that Mascaro would have charged under the single hauler contract. Angelichio urged residents to be wary of taking those discounts, calling it a marketing tactic, and said he received a call from his current company offering a deep discount to less than half of what they had been charging.

“My feeling is, if you could’ve been charging me at $17 a month, I’ve had five years of paying $120 per quarter. You want angry? That makes me angry. When a company offers a 65 percent discount, when the competition is themselves, ask yourself why that’s happening,” he said.

“For the people who have questions, ‘Why would we go through this process, for something that so obviously nobody likes?’ We found out that a lot of people don’t like it, because we went through the process,” Angelichio said.

Burnell said he supported the idea of a single hauler, but understood how residents felt there were flaws in the process the borough went through, as two sets of bids produced only one qualified response from Mascaro, and urged residents to be wary of discounted price offers they have heard from their current haulers since the single hauler question came up.

“Anyone who thinks they, as an individual consumer, can on a consistent, ongoing basis, negotiate a better long-term price than an organization bidding collectively for 7,000 people, I wish you the best of luck. Good luck, it’s not going to happen,” Burnell said.

“But the competitive bidding process that was somehow so complicated that only company got it 100 percent right, one time, that’s what concerns me the most about this. And it’s weighed heavily on me in making this decision. And I have to weigh that against my strong belief that a single hauler is a viable option,” he said.

And Mayor Andy Szekely, who had shared similar thoughts on his blog in recent weeks, threatened to veto the single hauler contract if it had been approved by council, and said he thought the long bidding, vetting, and discussion process was itself enough of a reason not to proceed.

“What is simple is getting on the phone, and calling the trash hauler, and a decision being made between me and the trash hauler, alone. No bureaucracy, no lawyers, no engineers, no government interference. That seems to work,” he said.

Burnell and Van Dame both said afterward that while they don’t expect the trash hauler talk to come up again in the near future, they plan to continue talks on the need for road repairs and infrastructure upgrades as the borough’s budget is finalized. “I think we need to explore creative opportunities to reduce truck traffic. Maybe that’s not single hauler. Maybe there’s other opportunities: maybe impact fees, maybe there’s licensing. I literally have no answers, but I’m not going to stop looking at options to help lessen the impact on our roads, and look for ways to creatively finance fixing them,” Burnell said.

Van Dame encouraged residents to stay engaged, and share their thoughts starting with the next round of council committee meetings on Nov. 1.

“Infrastructure is something that’s critically important to all of our property values, and it needs to be taken care of,” he said.