Laserfiche WebLink
i <br /> i <br /> munieipal solid waste facility, accepting C&D waste as part of the operation. It was felt from <br /> conversations with the DEP that C&D waste would be accepted. recycling Solutions had also been in <br /> conversation with a processor.of C&D waste at a rail site, but further discussion with IEP was needed. <br /> The intent was that some type of recycling would occur at the site. <br /> Regarding equipment, recycling Solutions was in possession of the necessary vehicles. A truck scale <br /> and computer system would need to link with their existing computer system. llrfar. Murphy felt that the <br /> timeline for permitting was anticipated to be 96 days to become operational. rail side activities could <br /> include a salt operation or transportation of lumber or other commodity, although their focus was on <br /> solid waste. <br /> Mr. Mowbray described their philosophy as commitment to communication, establishing expectations,, <br /> identifying future needs, maintaining relationships and responding quickly to complaints. Recycling <br /> Solutions wanted to work with the Board in a team approach and provide a positive impact to the <br /> Upper Cape. <br /> Mr. Goddard inquired whether rail was the preferred option and truck as a back-up and the final <br /> destination for the rail ears. Mr. Mowbray responded that MassCoastal had of'f'ered rails ears for MSW <br /> to be sent to COVANTA or MSW would be bailed and shipped out of state. waste shipped out of <br /> state would be kick sorted and C&D would be shipped out of state. <br /> Mr. Tilton inquired about recycling Solutions" expectation for Board contributions for repairs in <br /> excess of$10,000. Mr. Mowbray responded that they expected to pay for a scale, push wall, pavement <br /> patching and landscaping. During the inspection of the building, it was noted that the roof could be an <br /> unexpected cost, which would create difficulty in covering the costs, as it would be something they <br /> would be unable to tale with them at the end of the lease. As a result, recycling olrxtions included �n <br /> their price proposal a buffer to quantify any necessary repairs. <br /> Cr. Jack stated that he did not believe the Board stated that they would assist in costs and that the <br /> facility was offered in as is condition. It was not the intent of the Board to incur additional costs for <br /> the proposers' business. Mr. Mowbray inquired about the extent of the roof repairs and its cost and <br /> Mr. Jack responded that it was not known. lam-. Mowbray stated that he read in prior meeting minutes <br /> than there was conversation about a roof repair and the Boar'd's acceptance of the responsibility but <br /> added that if the conversation had not occurred, they would absorb the cost. Mr. Mowbray added that <br /> they would intend to pay any costs associated with what they did at the site. <br /> Chairman Laurent inquired about the 96 days from signing the contract to initiating the operation and <br /> Mf. Murphy agreed. The Chair clarified that the operation would be MSW, C&D and recycling and <br /> Mr. Mowbray responded that initially the operation would be MSW then modified. The Clair <br /> q <br /> re uested that�Ar. Mowbray discuss recycling Solutions} responses to their questions, which had been <br /> provided in the file. <br /> Mr. Jack referenced question 2 regarding truck trips, inquiring whether Recycling Solutions felt that <br /> the numbers were realistic, particularly if MSW and C&D were not seat by rail. Mr. Mowbray <br /> responded that they considered 30,000 tons a small quantity for C&D waste and MSW, adding that <br /> kick sorting would remove materials not part of the waste bans shipping only the waste ban materials. <br /> Mr. Mowbray noted that part of the traffic plan would commit to using onsite equipment and <br /> coordinate materials to minimize traffic leaving the Cape. Mr. Jack referenced the incentive recycling <br /> 2 <br />