Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Composting Contract Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause on composting-contract renewal over alleged contract failures and long-haul hauling
Summary
Public commenters told council that the borough’s food-scrap collection contractor failed to process material locally, triggered a formal notice of default, trucks organics long distances, and reports participation below 33%; commenters asked council to scrutinize the contract before renewal.
Several residents used the public‑comment period at the July 6 Swarthmore Borough Council meeting to press for closer scrutiny of the borough’s food‑scrap collection program ahead of contract renewal.
A resident who said they had reviewed internal records told council that within weeks of the program’s launch the borough’s solicitor issued a formal notice of default to the contractor for failing to perform agreed actions. The commenter said the contractor lost access to the intended local processing facility, forcing organics onto an approximately 80‑mile round trip to a Pottstown facility, and that the borough currently has no direct way to measure household participation other than contractor‑provided figures. "These figures show that fewer than 1 in 3 eligible households participate. This program cost a $150,000," the commenter said.
Other speakers at the meeting raised concerns about transparency, potential contract violations, and whether borough funds should go to a contractor currently involved in litigation with a local processor. Erin Hartung, who said she is a longtime Kitchen Harvest customer, asked the council to ensure taxpayers are not funding a company that "is not acting responsibly." Joan Urban and others offered to bring independent experts to testify about program operations and environmental impacts.
Council amended the agenda at the start of the meeting to add an update on the food‑scrap collection program to the Public Works agenda, signaling the matter will receive committee consideration. No formal action to renew or terminate the contract was taken at the July 6 meeting; council members asked for additional information and for staff and committee review before any renewal decision.
The council did not resolve the factual claims during the meeting; the contractor and program records were not reviewed in public session and litigation involving Kitchen Harvest was referenced but not discussed in detail. The added agenda item means the Public Works committee is the likely next forum for staff briefing and questions from council.
