Transfer station complete; recycling may return
By Thomas P. Caldwell
BRISTOL — The final payment has been made on the contract for transfer station improvements and selectmen now are looking at a return to recycling.
Selectman J.P. Morrison had won the contract for the transfer station upgrades, underbidding United Construction Corp. by $32,987.48. When some residents questioned why the other selectmen awarded the contract to one of their own, Morrison commented, “If we were $1 less than the next bidder, it might be something to think about.”
However, when the project was complete, Morrison submitted a final bill seeking an additional $41,700, most of it ($35,900) for “time and materials” that put his cost above United’s bid.
Town Administrator Nik Coates said the town did not pay Morrison’s excess, which also included $2,200 for additional railing around the compactors, because the contract stipulated that it would be a lump sum price covering all labor, materials, and equipment necessary for the project. That included metal railing, backfilling, loaming and seeding, site restoration and cleanup, “and all other work required to fully construct the project.”
The town did pay $3,600 for additional gravel for the through lanes, which was an additional request not in the original bid specifications. The final check included the $4,350 remaining on the original contract, Coates said.
At the Aug. 5 selectmen’s meeting, there was a work session to discuss a return to recycling — something that had been suspended after the market for recycled material collapsed, making the cost of single-stream recycling twice as much as the $65 per ton the town was paying to get rid of regular household trash.
In designing the new transfer station, selectmen had discussed separating the recycled material to avoid contamination. There is a market for clean recyclables, making it more cost-efficient to separate material, but at Monday’s meeting, they faced some unwelcome facts: Even with the new traffic flow, there is not enough space at the recycling center to store the various materials. Additionally, there are unplanned costs for balers and other equipment necessary to handle the recyclables.
Coates said the consensus at the end of the meeting was to return to single-stream recycling because “it’s the right thing to do for the environment,” even though it costs more than simply throwing recyclables in with regular trash.
There is another consideration prompting that decision: By throwing everything together, the bins fill much more quickly, and the town has had to shut down the transfer station a few times because there was no more room. To add an additional bin also would require the equipment to move the full bins out of the way — another cost to the town.
Coates said no final decision has been made, as they need to discuss the situation further over the next month to figure out the actual costs and benefits of recycling versus not doing so.
