Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middletown panel says waste‑reduction program far short of claimed gains; staff to return with costs and options
Summary
Commissioners heard that the Save As You Throw program reduced district tonnage by about 8%—not the 30% previously reported—cited enforcement and staffing problems, and directed staff to produce a packet with vetted data, a six‑month extension cost estimate and funding options ahead of the October billing deadline.
MIDDLETOWN — Staff told the Sanitation District Commission that the city’s Save As You Throw waste‑reduction program has lowered annual district tonnage from about 6,000 to roughly 5,500 tons — a reduction of roughly 8% — far below the 30% figure that has been circulated previously.
"Currently, the actual waste reduction that the program has achieved is about 8% in our tonnage," said Lisa Leesner, a Public Works staff member who presented the data to the commission. Leesner said she could not find documentation supporting the earlier 30% claim and offered to share the charts and calculations with commissioners.
The commission’s discussion focused less on the program’s environmental aims than on staffing, enforcement and cost. "Right now, the sanitation district is not solvent," said Ivan O' Peterson, acting director of public works, describing a set of billing discrepancies and legacy arrangements — including free service to some housing authority properties — that have left the district financially strained.
Commissioners repeatedly raised enforcement and data‑collection gaps as major reasons the program has underperformed. Leesner said compliance letters were sometimes returned or delivered late and that staff capacity to verify who owns which cart and to conduct on‑the‑ground compliance checks is limited. "Mailing out letters doesn't work," she said, noting shared cans, multi‑family units and slow administrative systems have undermined enforcement.
The commission reviewed several possible paths forward: restoring higher flat fees, making the program optional (opt‑in) for households, offering smaller, higher‑priced carts for residents who want to reduce volume, neighborhood food‑scrap collection points, or an ordinance to require unit‑based pricing from all haulers in Middletown. Commissioners also discussed diverting yard waste and improving school recycling as complementary measures.
"It's a question of will," said Commissioner Ed McKeown. "We could make this work, but it will cost money and require a staffed effort to enforce and educate." Several members pushed back on abandoning the program outright; others warned that keeping it without clear, fundable actions would simply perpetuate the current deficit.
Commissioners and staff described uneven performance by the contractor and a loss of earlier pilot funding. Staff used the transcript name used in the meeting when discussing vendor and state links; the transcript referred to the vendor and state partner in shorthand. Commissioners reported evidence from drivers and photos suggesting the transfer‑station sorting and contractor performance have been inconsistent.
On timing, staff and commissioners said the October sanitation billing cycle imposes a deadline for any near‑term decision. To buy time for a thorough analysis, several commissioners proposed a six‑month extension of the program so staff can compile vetted data, price alternatives and estimate the cost (including staff time) of running the program or transitioning back to the prior approach.
The commission did not take a formal policy vote to continue or end the program that day. Instead, members asked staff to provide a written packet with the data presented, an itemized cost estimate for a six‑month extension (including program management and enforcement costs), outreach to the state funding partner to explore any available short‑term funding, and a vendor quote for a potential extension. The packet will be circulated in advance of a special meeting and used to form a recommendation the commission may send to Public Works and, ultimately, to the common council.
The meeting also recorded routine business: the commission accepted the June 24 minutes as written and adjourned after setting up follow‑up steps. The commission scheduled staff to poll members to arrange an in‑person special meeting so members can review the materials together ahead of the public works discussion.
Next steps: staff will distribute the requested packet and cost estimates, contact the state funding partner and the vendor about extension options, and coordinate dates for a special meeting so the commission can present a unified recommendation at the public works meeting.
