Mayoral Candidates:

GRIGORAITIS: I absolutely support greater municipal involvement in expanding access to food waste composting, and have publicly committed to doing so on the sustainability section of my campaign website.

The City needs to partner with the successful volunteer- and student-led waste-reduction efforts at Melrose Public Schools, including the composting program at MHS, to ensure that these programs have sufficient resources and support to become institutionalized in our school system. That means working with MPS leadership, our laborers’ union representing our custodial staff (which I am proud to have been endorsed by), the School Committee, and the City Council to seek funding to increase the number of custodians in each of our school buildings so that we have the human resources to make sustainability efforts part of what we deliver to our staff and students.

For residents, we need to partner with local composting services, such as Black Earth (which my own household has used since 2020), to offer incentives for more households to join the program. The City of Malden piloted such a project this past spring, so there is an opportunity to leverage their experience to bring something similar to Melrose. As mentioned in a later question, Melrose’s next trash contract will come with a significant increase in costs, and so we as a community must offer opportunities for residents to reduce their household waste for both environmental and economic benefits.

MEDEIROS SOLANO: I would explore adding composting at the curbside as an opt-in program for residents to buy into. For many years now, I have been using such a program at home. We put our food waste into a bucket that’s picked up curbside. I noticed a significant reduction in our actual trash since we started. Additionally, I believe this has made us all more aware of the food we were allowing to go bad. We now have significantly less food waste as well.

I ran for Mayor in 2019, and supported exploring a curbside composting program as part of my campaign. I am disappointed that the city has not begun this in the last four years. I support adding compost collection as an “opt-in” for residents with a fee. I believe if the city contracted with a private company, we could offer a cheaper alternative than what currently exists, and more people would choose to do it. We could consider offering a small discount on our trash fee for those who opt in to composting as an incentive to encourage composting.

For now, I propose doing this as an opt-in to ensure that the compost stays “clean,” meaning that things like plastic bags, fruit labels, etc., are not carelessly tossed in, which I think could be the case if this were mandated instead of being opt-in. Over time, this might be expanded. I also believe this may need to be a service bid on by a different contractor than our normal trash / recycling provider since it is more of a specialty.

COMPOSTING IN MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS

We should also be composting our food waste in our schools and at the Milano Center. A lot of education will be needed at first, but over time, this should significantly decrease the weight of trash generated in our city buildings. I would like to see us be able to expand food waste composting to at least be an option for functions being held at Memorial Hall.

RESIDENT EDUCATION

To increase home composting, the city should host neighborhood composting education meetings to help teach residents how to compost, what can be composted, and strategies to discourage pests.

Overall, increasing composting in our city should decrease our municipal waste, both that which is collected curbside from residents and that which is generated by our municipal buildings. This should help us improve our environment and also save money. Removing more of the food waste from our trash may also help decrease the proliferation of pests, especially rodents.

Candidates for Councilor-at-Large:

JAMALEDDINE: I do support greater municipal involvement to expand access to food waste composting in Melrose. I will always support and work to increase composting programs in our city that provide, educate, and encourage residents to compost. I will be advocating and supporting initiatives that increase food waste composting and pickup services and advocating for more compost sites in our municipal buildings.

LYLE: I’m in favor of composting food waste. Foodstuff breaks down fairly quickly and reduces the end cost to the city and taxpayers. [Options] to reduce the city’s disposal tonnage by one-third should be brought to everyone’s attention.

The program in Watertown is working, and I feel Melrose officials should evaluate the Watertown and Lexington models. There are many other programs Melrose adopted after reviewing other communities’ operations.

MIGLIORELLI: Personally, I participate in the Black Earth Composting service, which has definitely been eye-opening to see how much food waste we accumulate as a family of four. While companies like Black Earth do a sliding scale fee program based on how many residents are enrolled in the community, that cost can still be a barrier for many to enroll. I would definitely be supportive of the new administration’s efforts to explore the costs of offering free composting for Melrose residents, like what is being offered in peer communities. As a councilor, I value the expertise of community groups, like Zero Waste Melrose, to help provide and share what other peer communities are doing in this space. The role of the city councilor is to take in large amounts of information (i.e., environmental, budgetary, equity, and community impacts) and make what we believe is the best decision for the city — that is how I would evaluate the implementation of a potential citywide composting program.

O’CONNELL: I would support municipal involvement in expanding access to food waste composting in Melrose. Our community has a responsibility to do its part to help achieve the 2030 Massachusetts Waste Reduction Goals, and reducing food waste is an important step toward reaching our goals. With the foregoing in mind, I believe Melrose should seek partnership opportunities with a third-party vendor to support a system that would include both a curbside collection program and community drop-off bins. Watertown’s program, in this regard, is a model worth emulating, in my opinion. Going further, I would propose that we formalize our food waste reduction efforts in our schools — ideally combining same with opportunities for classroom teaching and learning (lesson plans, activities, special programs, etc.) — and engage our local restaurants in a stand-alone food waste reduction program (similar to but separate from a residential pick-up/drop-off system, again in partnership with a third-party vendor).

SULLIVAN: I support composting programs for Melrose. Specifically, I would recommend a weekly curbside program as a convenient and practical way to allow for a successful composting program with an additional plastic bin that would accompany the existing recycling bins that are available from the city. I also think this is an educational opportunity for school-age children where recycling/composting could be an addition to the curriculum. Also, getting kids on board will make all parents happy if they have some help every week taking the barrels/recycling down for pick up!

WILLIAMS: As a current city councilor, I’ve advocated for citywide composting for years. In council meetings, I’ve learned that our trash contract is up for renewal next year, and we will likely be facing cost increases. Removing food waste from our refuse stream is one potential way to reduce the volume of trash we ask our contractor to truck around Melrose. Hundreds of Melrose residents already compost through services like Bootstrap or Black Earth. Some of the ways the city could expand composting are to arrange a municipal bulk discount with compost providers, explore the role of composting food waste as a cost-saving measure with our trash and recycling hauler, pilot restaurant food composting programs with businesses to help them reduce their own trash costs while keeping thousands of pounds of trash out of landfills, and provide more citywide educational materials to promote home food waste composting. Composting my food waste through curbside pickup in a locking bin also keeps my trash barrel lightweight and free from rotting food that attracts rodents and pests.

Ward Councilors:

FINOCCHARIO (Ward 6): I currently pay for a private composting company for our household food waste. I would support greater municipal involvement to expand food waste composting in Melrose.

TRAVERS (Ward 6): I fully support community composting. We have been composting in our home for over a decade, and the first thing my kid asked when they got to school was, “Where did they put the composting?” To me, this is exactly the type of initiative where we should be looking both for the impact on Melrose directly and can hopefully help move the needle on solid waste in landfills and plastic. Composting can help us reach emissions reduction targets in long-term planning goals around sustainability that I would push for and support.

It can be a phased-in approach, much like Watertown, Boston, and Cambridge, among other cities, where pilot households made up the first year of operations in order to gauge the impact & costs before widespread adoption.

Melrose already has a relationship with Black Earth Composting (which we use), and they have experience implementing full-city programs. Bringing citywide composting to Melrose is not a matter of reinventing the wheel but learning from our neighbors and city partners on how to be efficient, effective, and sustainable.

I would like to see composting be a requirement in all city buildings, schools & departments as well, as options created for subsidized access for low-income and multiunit dwellings. As the contracts for our trash & recycling are coming up for renegotiation this year, I will be advocating for, as well as doing the research & work to support, the implementation of a pilot program for citywide composting in Melrose.

VANDIVER (Ward 5 Uncontested): I support Melrose trialing these programs. Currently my family uses Black Earth composting, the partner that both Watertown and Lexington are working with, and have been very happy with their service. I would support running a similar program; if we went down this path, I would talk with people involved in the Watertown and Lexington programs to find out what they’ve learned from running these programs and use that as a starting point for what we could do. In addition to curbside composting, we could look at subsidizing backyard composting as well. Apart from programs that subsidize access, I think awareness and education go a long way. We could systematically work on awareness in specific neighborhoods and measure the impact of the awareness campaign through uptake of the currently available private options, Black Earth and Bootstrap Compost.

Mayoral Candidates:

GRIGORAITIS: I think we need to consider all options to best meet our needs, which are to deliver great services (active recreation playing fields) to our community while developing infrastructure that is climate resilient for now and the future and works in concert with the surrounding environment. This conversation needs to be about all of our fields citywide and involve all of our stakeholders: the Park Commission, DPW, Planning, the parks superintendent, the recreation director, the Health and Human Services Department, our sustainability manager, Melrose Public Schools, and our youth athletic user groups; our economic development director as rentals of our fields can generate revenue for the City; our local advocacy groups for sustainability, open space, and recreation; and interested residents. We need to look at data for usage, field closures, and weather patterns so that we can make a data-driven plan that reflects our changing climate - wetter springs and falls, more mild winters, and hotter summers. We need to rely on best practices and successful processes and outcomes from peer communities — Newton, Lexington, Watertown, and Swampscott have all recently replaced turf fields and offer lessons on community engagement and procurement of cutting-edge infill materials that are more sustainable and create cooler playing surfaces, and have also implemented contract conditions with their selected vendors that added additional disclosures from component manufacturers to provide greater transparency and accessible to the City and the public.

We also need to pursue the Community Preservation Act as a dedicated funding source for preserving our open space — these funds can be used to preserve and enhance natural grass fields, which would open up a revenue stream for Hesseltine, Franklin, and the Common playing fields, all of which are seeing record-breaking usage and are also feeling the impacts of our changing climate.

MEDEIROS SOLANO: As Mayor, I will review all decisions with the health and safety of our residents, especially our youth, as well as our employees and our environment in mind. I hope to encourage healthy outdoor activities for our youth. On the campaign trail, I hear frequent frustration from parents whose children are frequently faced with canceled games and practices due to the conditions of the field. I would like to find ways to have more consistent use of this field.

I have concerns about the addition of turf to this location, especially its proximity to Ell Pond. In addition to the health concerns pointed out here — the negative effects of ingredients such as microplastics, toxic chemicals, and heavy metals — others have brought up the possibility that turf may contain PFAS chemicals.

Several years ago, while I was on the City Council, we voted to approve improvements to the drainage at this field. Perhaps these improvements need maintenance? I would like to see us explore other natural options to increase drainage, including the possibility of raising the field slightly, adding a sort of deeper French drain around the perimeter of the field, or exploring a different ground cover if one exists, other than grass.

In regard to grass, I would like to see us avoid pesticide and herbicide use on this and all fields. These are not healthy for children, employees, or the environment.

I believe this is an area that needs further exploration to find a way to increase the reliability of this field in a healthy way.

Candidates for Councilor-at-Large:

JAMALEDDINE: During this current term on the council, the city council discussed the renewal of the synthetic turf in one of the fields. I have strongly advocated for a natural grass field. I’m aware of the major negative effects of the synthetic turf, but in addition to these concerns, I had many conversations with the DPW dept, the administration, and the members of Zero Waste Melrose and learned how much the Ell Pond field is not feasible for the synthetic turf due to the flood issue during the winter. If this option is proposed to the city council, I will be asking the administration to have a more transparent evaluation of the field, sharing the evaluation’s results and having an open discussion with the committee to consider their concerns as the decision and proposal are being made.

LYLE: I’ve never been a big supporter of the material for a different reason. All sports played on turf have become much faster. The faster [the play], the greater the chance of a more severe injury.

I understand the city’s desire to have multipurpose fields because of the limited space. There should be a cost evaluation of a turf field vs. natural grass, including maintenance of each.

MIGLIORELLI: As the parent of kids who currently play on the fields at the Knoll, I can speak from experience the challenges facing our youth sports programs to be able to provide consistent opportunities for games and practices to occur on fields that are perpetually flooded. This issue was on full display this fall, with it raining nearly every Saturday over the last couple of months. Climate change is real, and we are feeling the impacts now. The overarching obstacle to this situation is that we simply do not have adequate field space in our 4.8-square-mile city, and therefore, are forced to have fields that are in frequently flooded areas, like the area around Ell Pond. This puts the city in a precarious position of having to balance the need for playable fields for our youth with the environmental impacts of synthetic turf fields.

While on the City Council, I voted to approve funding for the feasibility study for Ell Pond. The next mayor would have to determine whether to implement this plan and/or engage in a new evaluation of the fields, which would incorporate environmental impacts as well. There are also real costs (financial and environmental) to maintaining grass fields, including the heavy, fuel-burning equipment that is used to care for the fields. I would be weighing all of those factors, as well as the Parks Commission’s and Conservation Committee’s analyses, in my decision. As the body that has fiduciary responsibility for the city, the council would need to review the funding mechanism we would use to support this project — i.e., free cash, operating funds, or grants. And last, but certainly not least, I would be listening to the public and factoring in community input to determine my support.

O’CONNELL: I have followed this issue closely, both in Melrose and elsewhere (particularly with regard to the proposed turf field at the high school on Martha’s Vineyard, along with the public acrimony on both sides of the issue and the ensuing litigation). While I recognize the practicalities in favor of a turf field, including but not limited to durability, etc., the environmental concerns are greater, in my opinion, particularly given the field’s proximity to Ell Pond and in light of the most common user base (young people). I would instead support the installation of a first-class natural turf field, with the necessary maintenance and care to ensure its usefulness and longevity, and recognizing full well that resodding and other capital improvements would have to be made on a regular and continuing basis. If that’s the price to be paid for environmental responsibility and the health and well-being of our young people and other users, then I’m prepared to pay it.

SULLIVAN: My initial response is I would prefer to keep the field a natural grass field. I, however, temper that response with needing to get more information as I would like to see what the current issues are with flooding, quality of playing fields, and percentage of daily use, etc., to make a more informed decision. Also, I would like to know the cost of the installation for the field and for its long-term maintenance.

WILLIAMS: I was on the council for the last turf replacement discussion around Fred Green Field and asked a series of tough questions regarding the use, safety, and disposal of this material. I did not feel the answers I received support the further adoption of plastic grass to replace our natural playing surfaces. Despite manufacturer claims, the material will not be recycled, which means we will be adding thousands of pounds of synthetic plastic to incinerators and landfills every few years to replace the carpet surface. I monitored the installation of Fred Green Field and watched as mountains of microplastic particles in the form of carpet trimmings were washed into storm drains that empty into Ell Pond and the greater region’s watershed. The cost of this project could exceed $10 million in the first year, a level of investment the Melrose city budget can’t make without a debt exclusion or override. Finally, I have heard no compelling arguments for why our grass fields can’t be better maintained at a lower cost than a $10 million upfront investment with a $2 million annual maintenance cost. Plastic grass has been pitched to the council as the first, only, and easiest attempt at improving field conditions for recreation, without a counterargument or analysis of any kind from outside sources. Before we commit ourselves to an expensive, potentially toxic, and permanent decision that will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, we owe it to residents to actually try to solve our problems with less expensive, natural solutions first.

Ward Councilors:

FINOCCHARIO (Ward 6): I am not well-versed when it comes to synthetic turf. Before making any decisions to promote this project, I would want to learn more about how it affects the areas around it. Much like the chemical fertilizers that are used to grow and maintain grass, I’m sure the chemicals from the turf have their own list of health concerns for our environment. I would want to research the risks/benefits of the turf before moving forward.

TRAVERS (Ward 6): From a community perspective, there are a variety of factors in a decision like this. Personally — aesthetically and from a deep belief in sustainability as a guidepost, I am always going to be on the side of natural flora over synthetic anything. I believe things like turf treat symptoms (flooding, runoff, etc.) that are caused by overuse of manufactured petroleum-based goods, like turf. It always feels like doubling down on the problem to me. As a city councilor, though, I can’t make the decision from just one side. While I bring my own framework for decision-making, I hold the considerations of the community in each decision made. I would start a conversation with this by weighing the risks/rewards of any option on the table:

Pros of Turf:

- Durable against use & changing weather conditions.

- Less human resources needed for maintenance.

- It requires significantly less water and aids in drainage of groundwater.

- It requires fewer surface applications of chemicals — pesticides, fertilizers, etc., reducing the impacts of chemical use on pollinators & people.

- With excess rain this year, the outdoor fall leagues have had to scramble to cancel & reschedule games, which would have been playable on turf.

Cons of Turf:

- Turf is ½ — ⅓ more expensive to install than grass fields.

- Job force reduction.

- The feel and playability are different.

- Manufacturing of synthetic turf has significant environmental consequences, and the ties to the petrol market in all ways reduce money spent on environmental innovation investment, slowing our progress towards managing our climate crisis.

- Microplastics, PFAS, PEH chemicals leech.

- The heat island effect will raise the city’s temperature over time.

Pros of Natural Grass:

- Reduce carbon dioxide emissions instead of increase.

- Creates a natural cooling effect.

- Biodiversity — natural grass can create habitats for various species.

- Can sustain maintenance jobs that turf will reduce the need for.

- Pretty and easy to use when not in use for sports.

Cons of Natural Grass:

- Requires a lot of water to maintain.

- Has a higher requirement for equipment and costs, including machinery, fuel, and human capital.

- Forces closure of fields in a changing climate.

Acknowledging all of this, from a perspective of what we need ‘right now’ I think turf solutions answer a lot of our current problems. However, I also think if unexamined, they carry a big risk for the long-term health and well-being of the city. Being competitive as a city is not just something we can do in sports: we can become leaders in decision-making around sustainability, long-term planning, and environmental impacts. We should be researching numerous synthetic options if we decide to go that way to understand the options with the lowest impacts on the environment, but I would hope to make the conversation more about how we mitigate the soil & ground to be able to let grass root better and last longer.

VANDIVER (Ward 5 Uncontested): I would seek input from people supporting and opposing this change. When it comes to the risks mentioned above, I would look at the available research about the harms of synthetic turf to understand the magnitude of the potential impact. Where possible, I would connect people on this issue. Malden faced a similar issue recently with Roosevelt Park, and at one point hosted a joint meeting between Friends of Roosevelt Park and the sports families and coaches so that everyone’s interests and concerns could be heard. I think that any face-to-face discussion, if facilitated well so that everyone can be heard, would benefit everyone and make the issue less contentious.

Mayoral Candidates:

GRIGORAITIS: During the FY 24 budget hearings in June of this year, DPW staff provided an update to the Council on the City’s trash contract, which had already gone out to bid, and the City was negotiating with potential vendors. My understanding from DPW staff is that this contract is in the final stages of completion and may be fully executed prior to a new mayor taking office. Trash and recycling pickup is a key city service with health, safety, and environmental impacts. Some of my priorities for trash and recycling services would be: how do we make it as easy as possible for residents to take as many items as is feasible out of the waste stream? This involves maintaining co-mingled recycling pickup, offering complimentary programs such as food waste composting and dedicated recycling days for recyclable materials that cannot be placed out for trash/recycling pickup, and offering a recycling option for trash barrels when they need to be replaced. We also need to consider the health and safety of our residents and workers: automated trash pickup is in use by most major vendors to minimize injury risk; we need to educate residents on the requirement to store trash in lidded bins and enforce violations to minimize bags of trash on the street, which attract rodents and can contribute materials blocking storm drains and making roadways less safe for pedestrians and cyclists. Lastly, while not directly a part of the trash contract, we need to shift resident access to the City yard for yard waste drop-off to better reflect our climate reality — the more leaves we can get off the streets and keep out of the waste stream, the better this is for our infrastructure as it keeps leaves and other yard waste off our roads, out of our storm drains, and out of landfills.

MEDEIROS SOLANO: Since this is a contract that I would be responsible for negotiating, I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to comment in detail on this question.

Generally, this may be an opportunity to add composting (please see my answer above), although as mentioned in a previous question, it may be necessary to negotiate this service through a separate vendor.

Generally, as I have expressed in forums over the years, I am in opposition to a PAYT program:

It’s inconvenient for residents who have to buy special bags or stickers to throw out their trash.

It encourages illegal dumping (neighboring Malden had problems with this for years, and we have regularly had dumping along Swains Pond over the years.)

It makes budgeting very difficult as compared to a flat fee. With a flat fee, we know exactly what to expect to bring in quarterly through our solid waste fee. With a PAYT program, we would have a much harder time predicting when residents would buy bags or stickers or how many they would use. This would mean we also would not know reliably how much revenue we would receive nor when it would be received.

Also, generally, I believe a larger trash barrel will encourage more trash to be generated.

I think we generally need to increase education around waste reduction — recycling, composting, and specialty recycling — textiles, etc. Please see my answer around composting.

I also think we could reach out to our realtor community to help better educate residents who are planning to move and are downsizing on how they can clean out without simply “throwing” everything out.

Candidates for Councilor-at-Large:

JAMALEDDINE: As I mentioned during the League of Women Voters (LWV) forum, I will be including the multifamily recycling services as we discuss the new contract. As I vote on the new contract, I will be looking for the most affordable, sustainable, and equitable contract that will be moving our city forward and closer to our zero waste goals.

LYLE: Question one＊should be discussed as part of any program. Increased recycling locally equals less tonnage hauled.

Melrose should evaluate whether this service managed by the city services is more cost-effective than outsourced by private contractors.

The City of Malden went to a pay-and-throw program, and the Melrose Swains Pond area became a dump site along Penney Road.

＊Question one addresses composting.

MIGLIORELLI: The city’s negotiation of a new trash contract is probably one of the most impactful decisions we will make in the next year. As the DPW presented during its budget hearing this June, the city is in the final stages of negotiating this contract (please note that the City Council is not a part of these negotiations). The city will face some hard decisions about the cost of a new contract and the impacts it will have on residents in terms of potential fees for trash/recycling pickup. Many municipalities in Massachusetts have trash and recycling fees for residents, with recycling pickups not always happening on a weekly basis. These fees can be felt more acutely by our most vulnerable populations, such as seniors and others on fixed incomes. I think the way to lessen that impact would be to institute some type of sliding scale fee based on usage and/or other factors. Additionally, I will be looking and listening for ways in which a new trash contract could help us incentivize waste reduction and encourage recycling wherever possible.

Beyond the trash contract, we must consider how we can achieve our goal of being a Net Zero Community by 2050. I am proud to have supported the purchase of a new electric trash truck for the city and am pleased that the city was able to secure substantial grant funding to make this purchase have minimal impact on our finances. This EV trash truck will help lessen our impact on greenhouse gasses, and help Melrose do its part to mitigate the effects of climate change for now and into the future.

These are hard and complex decisions that face the council, and having the experience and ability to balance short-term needs with long-term impacts is crucial. Serving on the council these past four years, I have the experience in evaluating these types of decisions and have a proven record of deliberating issues while keeping the best interests of our community in mind.

O’CONNELL: I support the weekly pick-up of trash and recycling (with expansion to include compostables), with residents continuing to pay a flat fee for same. In advance of putting the trash/recycling/hauling contract out to bid, I would support a comprehensive — and public — review of our invitations to bid/requests for proposals to ensure aggressive performance specifications (and compliance measures), to avoid/limit disincentives to recycling (e.g., lump-sum pricing that combines [fees for] collection and disposal of trash), to include revenue sharing from recyclables, and to include performance incentives for increased recycling and waste reduction. I also think we should consider a regional contracting approach that could combine services, attract additional bidders, increase the value of material hauled, and increase our cost savings by saving time and effort with multi-community contracting and servicing. I would also look for hauling contractors to commit to educational and community activities to help raise awareness around zero waste goals and effective compliance with solid waste and recycling rules and requirements.

SULLIVAN: This is a question that demands a lot of information that, as a candidate, I do not have access to. Nevertheless, I would use the following approach.

1) What is the current cost of the contract vs. the projected new cost? What other bids or alternatives are available from competitors?

2) What is the level of satisfaction with residents as to the level of service received from the existing contractor?

3) What would be the additional cost for enhanced recycling/composting?

4) I would prioritize increasing the ability for residents to participate in a sign-up program (similar to Lexington’s program) and then re-evaluate the program in a year to see if it can be expanded.

What would be the manner of delivery for this new service?;

I would try and incorporate it into the existing recycling program with curbside delivery as described above.

WILLIAMS: First, to be clear, the negotiation of the trash contract will be the responsibility of the Mayor and the Department of Public Works. The council will be able to make inquiries into progress, and I hope the new mayor will also volunteer information sessions with the council as the scope of trash services are developed, for feedback and input from the council and the public. I would support any effort to reduce our trash costs or keep them stable. Our flat trash fee is one of the most unfair costs we ask residents to bear. A cost-burdened senior who generates 10 lbs. of trash a week is paying the exact same amount for services as a family of six who puts four barrels on the curb with 200 lbs. of trash every week, plus bulky items like couches. Residents should be able to opt-in to weight-based billing to incentivize and reward the hundreds of households in Melrose who diligently recycle and compost their food waste. Melrose, like all communities, needs an ongoing education program regarding recycling to ensure our single-stream recycling continues and is cost-effective. I would be open to reviewing our plastics recycling program with our waste hauler since a mere 9% of some plastics placed in bins actually wind up being reused nationally. We need to ensure that we are not greenwashing residents with plastic recycling programs that don’t work and result in higher costs for recycling other materials.

Ward Councilors:

FINOCCHARIO (Ward 6): I would want to review multiple contracts for cost and for the services provided. I also think we could asses flat fee vs usage-based fees and make sure the one we choose makes the most sense for our residents. I believe that incentives for waste reduction could be an excellent way to try to reduce the amount of waste while offering those residents some financial relief.

TRAVERS (Ward 6): We are about to enter into vendor negotiations. We have to hold a position of making sure the scope of work that is determined in this agreement includes a big-picture plan and acknowledgment and access for each individual. This is an opportunity for Melrose to shape our culture around waste, and sustainability points I will advocate for would include:

- Bringing the compost conversation to the table

- Options for public recycling bins throughout the city & parks

- Cleaner, streamlined garbage & recycling collection (automated, using bins, etc.) to limit truck idling on streets

- Goals set around percentages of the fleet is electric

Fees will need to be assessed based on the cost increase of the vendor. Opening up a competitive RFP bid process early, with a clear statement of work to attract the right partners for Melrose, will be critical in this process. Ideally, I would want to see the process be done by reviewing the vendors, proposals, and options prior to costs and being able to think about these decisions within the framework of where we are now, where we are trying to get in the future, and how we get there.

VANDIVER (Ward 5 Uncontested): If developing or approving a new trash and recycling program, I would try to incentivize reuse and recycling of materials by structuring fees accordingly, within the constraints of what vendors could manage. Ideally, it should be relatively less expensive to recycle than to put something into a landfill. One way to push in this direction would be a fixed rate recycling fee and usage-based fees for trash. Another question I would have for recycling vendors is how closely are they monitoring what goes into the recycling system for matches with what they can work with, and what are the consequences of sending inappropriate items into the recycling system. I don’t see any feedback loop or transparency there, and would like to address that so that people can recycle correctly and with confidence.

Mayoral Candidates:

GRIGORAITIS: Approximately 30% of Melrosians are renters, so this is an important sector of the community that we need to engage in this conversation. An initial step in that conversation would be to convene multifamily property owners and other stakeholders for a dialogue, framed around best practices from other communities that may be replicable in Melrose. The City can also actively engage in discussions with developers as they seek to add multifamily housing to the community to advocate for the implementation of recycling services. I would want to speak with the City Solicitor to further understand options as it relates to incentives and mandates.

MEDEIROS SOLANO: I think we need to start with having conversations with the building owners and managers to see what the obstacles are that they face around recycling, and if there are ways we can be of assistance as a city.

Similarly, more outreach to residents living in apartment and condo units about recycling, composting, and other waste-reduction services we offer (Bay State Textile bins, special recycling drop-off days) and the availability of drop off at the City Yard would be helpful.

I am open to hearing more ideas on how we can increase recycling and reduce the waste coming from these buildings.

Candidates for Councilor-at-Large:

JAMALEDDINE: As a current councilor-at-large, I’m aware of this issue and have been working with many multiunit residents who shared their concerns about not being able to have access to this service. During the past four years, I connected them with the Department of Public Health and DPW to work on different options and solutions while we wait to discuss the renewal of this contract. As a strong advocate for equity and accessibility, I have this issue as one of my priorities, and it will be one of the main key points that I will bring to the discussion as we make our next decision.

I will be supporting:

1- A new ordinance to mandate landlords to provide recycling pickup services.

2- Any efforts or solutions that would be sustainable and support residents in having access to this service.

LYLE: There are many multiunit residences in our city’s business districts. There should be recycling containers for occupants to use in the same vicinity as trash containers.

MIGLIORELLI: I would be interested in hearing from or seeing examples from other peer communities about what they do in terms of creating ordinances that would mandate recycling services for multiunit dwellings and what they do for enforcement. The city could explore a partnership with Recycle Works Massachusetts to help advise landlords on how to implement recycling programs at their buildings. However, it is important to keep in mind that in order for a new ordinance to pass, the council needs eight votes, so it’s imperative that voters listen to the candidates (and also those councilors who are not being challenged, of which there are five who will be on the council next term) to determine if there are eight councilors who would be open to approving an ordinance.

O’CONNELL: First of all, our zoning ordinance (and any related permitting processes) should be updated to require that each multiunit residential development provide and/or participate in a recycling program. Additionally, before our solid waste/recycling/hauling contract is put out to bid, we should assess, through a public process, the possibility of expanding our curbside recycling program to include those multiunit developments not presently served, and I would support a fee-based/subscription system to fund such an expansion. I would also support a city- or hauling-contractor-funded public information campaign targeting residents of multiunit developments not currently participating in a recycling program to at least encourage drop-off recycling opportunities.

SULLIVAN: This is an excellent question. Melrose is facing at least 7–10 new development projects that will have a negative impact with more traffic pollution and density that will put a strain on the city’s existing municipal services and, of course, the local environment.

The city’s building department, the Planning Board, and the Zoning Board of Appeals (to a lesser extent, as their review of a project is more limited) should be more proactive in recognizing these issues and compelling developers to be more responsible when possible.

WILLIAMS: Curbside recycling at multifamily buildings is not required by state law, but many cities and towns (notably Boston) require multifamily buildings of a certain size to participate in municipal trash hauling contracts and require recycling as part of that participation. A change in ordinance and review of zoning could help make that possible in Melrose. As part of this effort, new construction would need to ensure sufficient space for the collection of recycling materials, and existing buildings would need to be retrofitted for collection. There would need to be an education effort, including group discussions with property owners to identify barriers, explore incentives, and better understand how recycling can be implemented effectively in a way that meets residents’ needs, reduces trash costs for property owners, and achieves the goal of actually getting materials recycled.

Ward Councilors:

FINOCCHARIO (Ward 6): It’s important to me that all residents in Melrose have the opportunity to recycle. I believe that this responsibility should be put on the owner of the building/property. We can research what other cities are doing to alleviate this issue and see what works.

TRAVERS (Ward 6): Conversations like this should start with relationship-building. Reaching out to landlords, holding information sessions with owners & tenants, and sharing information with tenants to have the tools to advocate for systems they’re legally entitled to would be my first step. If the outreach worked, I would want to make sure we listened to the needs of the property owners and understood the barriers to change and updates — Is it cost? Can we help? (I don’t know — these are the questions I would ask). Is it space? Is there a way to move forward?

If outreach and information sharing do not yield the results required, then I would recommend following the rules for enforcement and accountability. As we talk about development, housing, and possible zoning changes, we have to be sure we’re building a culture of tenant / owner / landlord expectations throughout our city that people will be eligible for their needs to be met by the services provided despite being renters or homeowners.

VANDIVER (Ward 5 Uncontested): I would absolutely address this with the apartment complexes in my Ward. I would work with the building managers to make sure that they are aware of the requirements and to understand what we could do to design a program that works for their building. I would also work with building management to communicate with apartment residents in my ward to raise awareness of existing reuse options, primarily the very active local Buy Nothing group.