ShareThis Page

Latrobe tires of garbage business

| Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2012, 12:02 a.m.

Latrobe officials want the city out of the business of operating a refuse transfer station and plan to turn it over to a garbage collector, city officials said Monday.

City council intends to advertise for bids in October for a refuse hauler to collect residential and commercial garbage in Latrobe. The bid specifications will require that the haulers bid on operating the transfer station, which consists of a scale and 40 rolloff boxes that are used by residents and businesses for dumping large amounts of refuse, said City Manager Alex Graziani.

Under a proposed schedule, bids for the garbage collection would be opened Nov. 9 and a new contract awarded during the Dec. 10 council meeting. The city would enact a yet-to-determined franchise fee for the winning hauler. The new waste service would begin in April. From January through March, the city would order and deliver garbage collection bins to residents, Graziani said.

Over the past few months, council has debated the issue of whether the city should continue to operate a transfer station, undertaking the cost of personnel to maintain vehicles and drive trucks to the Valley Landfill in Penn Township to dump what refuse is taken to the transfer station on Mission Road. It became such a divisive matter that council scrapped plans earlier this month to advertise for new bids for a refuse contract that expires Dec. 31.

“We're trying to get out of the garbage business,” said Deputy Mayor Ken Baldonieri.

The city does not want to lease the property or sell it, Baldonieri said.

By privatizing the operation of the transfer station, Baldonieri said, the city would allow at least two employees at the transfer station to be transferred to the public works department, thereby giving the city more employees for street repairs. He said none of the workers would be laid off.

Although the transfer station generated $757,297 in revenue in 2011 — a year of increased activity from the replacement of roofs damaged by storm — the operations netted only about $31,000 in a typical year, according to a study conducted for the city by Michele Nestor, president of Nestor Resources Inc., a Valencia-based consulting firm that specializes in the economics and policies of solid waste management.

But Nestor said that net figure does not account for all of the expenses that should be deducted for employee time spent at the transfer station or amortizing the equipment.

“It is the best we can do without manipulating the figures,” Graziani said.

While the city's sanitation department generates a “respectable cash flow” for Latrobe, it does so as a result of a generous mark-up to the garbage collection and recycling fees billed to local residents and businesses, Nestor's study found. Joseph Bush, public works director, restated his opposition to the plan to remove the city from operating the transfer station.

“I think we are rushing into something,” Bush said, adding that he has had “very little input on the study.”

Councilwoman Rosie Wolford said she thought the city might be moving too quickly on the matter, but did not oppose seeking bids for operating the transfer station.

Joe Napsha is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.