Latrobe plans to adjust waste rates
Latrobe council plans another rate change for fees at the waste transfer station at 696 Mission Road to even out fee-schedule problems whereby dumping more would mean paying less.
Council will consider allowing loads of trash up to 260 pounds at the base rate, which was increased at the Aug. 12 meeting from $8 to $12.
Because the scales measure in 20-pound increments, if the base rate were increased without upping the base amount, someone bringing in 220 or 240 pounds of trash would find it cheaper than the cost of the first 200 pounds, said city manager Alex Graziani.
The next fee increment, previously between 200 and 2,000 pounds, gives customers a pro-rated per pound fee of $97 per ton.
Graziani said the proposal would mean each pound above 260 will cost less than 5 cents.
Councilman Richard Jim said the math was still slightly off once the weight reached 1,980, which would come to $96.06, only about $1 difference from the $97 for a whole ton.
If council members approve the changes at their Sept. 9 meeting, the scales at the transfer station will need to be recalibrated, Graziani said.
In a related matter, Graziani noted that the city has received two bids for a five-year garbage contract from Advanced Disposal Services Solid Waste of PA Inc., and Republic Services.
The bids were tabulated in the city manager's report to council with Republic Services, the apparent low bidder with a first-year cost of $743,676, increasing over the five years to $822,878, for a total of $3,894,897.
Advanced Disposal had a first-year bid of $775,816, increasing over the five years to $838,619, with a total of $4,034,384.
The contract would be effective Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2018.
Bids were rejected for a similar proposal in June, which included garbage collection and residential recycling.
Allied Waste Services of Scottdale, the city's current hauler, did not submit a bid as it did in June, Graziani said.
Compared to the current price and the proposed price for 2014, the city should see a slight savings, he said.
The contract will include use of 65-gallon recycling containers for single-stream processing, including cardboard and newspaper, as well as a 95-gallon container for trash.
All residents will either be able to use bags and stickers or, for an extra monthly fee, use the 95-gallon cart, Graziani said.
Jim asked if an option would be available for a smaller container, but Graziani and solicitor Jim Kelly agreed that the 95-gallon container was a part of the bid specifications.
Jim then asked if residents will be able to use their own smaller container.
“I would suggest anything that deviates from the norm is at a great price to the individual ... because we get the power-buying savings from locking in one size,” Graziani said.Kelly said the operation could be affected by a smaller or different container, which would in turn affect the bid prices.
“They submit a bid based on their cost to remove the container and put it in their truck,” he said.
Councilman Mike Skapura said if the city gave the option of a smaller container, they would have to be bought in bulk, losing the savings.
Graziani said before council considers the bids at the September meeting, a public hearing will be held for concerns related to the contract.
Stacey Federoff is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 724-836-6660 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.