Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transfer Station topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grantham Board accepts Building Needs Committee report on Transfer Station after non-public presentation
Summary
The Grantham Board of Selectmen accepted a Building Needs Committee Transfer Station report after a non-public presentation Nov. 12; the report outlines building, traffic-flow and recycling recommendations and the Transfer Station reported a nearly 50-person food-scrap pilot and in-house hauling of paper and plastic.
The Grantham Board of Selectmen accepted a Transfer Station report prepared by the town’s Building Needs Committee after a non-public presentation on Nov. 12.
The committee—represented by Jeff Walla, Steve Bookless, Maria Dahlman, Nathan Demanche and David Beckley—reviewed site visits to nearby transfer stations in Sunapee, New London and Warner, the results of a townwide survey, and identified best practices for buildings, equipment, traffic flow and recycling operations. Committee members presented specific recommendations covering the swap shop, expanded hours, tire disposal, management of construction and demolition (C&D) material, and cross-department coordination.
Jeff Walla reviewed the committee’s process and said the report pairs operational changes with building and equipment recommendations. After discussion the Board moved, seconded and unanimously approved accepting the report as submitted. The presentation and vote occurred during a non-public session called under RSA 91-A:3; the Board returned to public session and later voted to seal the non-public minutes.
Transfer Station Supervisor Dana Ramspott told the Board the Transfer Station will begin hauling its own paper and plastic and that the town’s food-scrap pilot has nearly 50 residents participating. Selectman Peter Garland said revenues at the Transfer Station are up, and board members discussed potential operational changes identified in the committee report.
The committee’s recommendations do not appear to have been detailed in the public minutes beyond the topics considered. The Board did not provide a timeline or funding commitment in the recorded public action; the committee’s report was accepted and will guide future planning and budgeting.
The Board’s acceptance of the report, and the fact that the presentation and initial discussion occurred in non-public session, may shape subsequent public meetings as specific design, budget or operational proposals are developed.
