Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist
Journalist @baltimoresun writer artist runner #amwriting Md Troopers Assoc #20 & Westminster Md Fire Dept Chaplain PIO #partylikeajournalist

Wednesday, February 23, 1994

19940223 Carroll County Unified Municipal Solid Waste Management and Recycling Services Program

Maryland Municipal League's Award For Excellence Competition

Carroll County Unified Municipal Solid Waste Management and Recycling Services Program

February 23, 1994

Ms. Karen Liskey

Maryland Municipal League

1212 West Street

Annapolis, MD 21401

RE: Maryland Municipal League's Award For Excellence Competition

Dear Ms. Liskey:

Please find enclosed the City of Westminster's application for the Maryland Municipal League's Eleventh Annual Award for Excellence Competition. This entry describes a program the City coordinated among six of the eight municipalities in Carroll County which reduced the public cost in contracting services for the collection of solid waste and recyclables.

We hope that the Maryland Municipal League finds the Carroll County Unified Municipal Solid Waste Management and Recycling Services Program an innovative approach towards reducing costs incurred by small municipalities in the provision of public services. We look forward to hearing from you. If there are any question, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (410) 876-1313, extension 9002.

Very truly yours,

Thomas B. Beyard

Director of Planning and Public Works

TBB/KLT:klt

cc: Mayor and Common Council

APPLICATION

FOR

THE MARYLAND MUNICIPAL LEAGUE'S

ELEVENTH ANNUAL

AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE

Submitted by

The City of Westminster

for the

Carroll County Unified Municipal Solid Waste

Management and Recycling Services Program

Population Category: Over 10,000 population

Respectfully,

W. Benjamin Brown

Mayor

Contact Person: Mr. Thomas B. Beyard

Director of Planning and Public Works

(410) 876-1313, extension 9002

OVERVIEW

Seven of the eight municipalities within Carroll County provide solid waste collection and disposal service to the residents within their corporate boundaries by contracting with a private waste management company. In June of 1992, the contracts for five of the municipalities expired. Prior to renewing their individual contracts, the City of Westminster under the direction and guidance of Mayor Brown, coordinated a program between six municipalities to jointly solicit unified bids for the provision of municipal solid waste management and recycling services. The unified contract would cover a three year period.

The municipalities which solicited the unified bid included the Town of Hampstead, the Town of Manchester, the Town of New Windsor, the City of Taneytown, the Town of Union Bridge, and the City of Westminster. By soliciting bids for solid waste management on a multi-jurisdictional level this program reduced the total cost of providing solid waste and recycling collection services. In the "Request for Bids" the total number of units from each municipality were combined together. The guarantee of a larger number of units permitted private haulers to reduce their overhead costs, and, therefore, submit bids which were lower than those submitted individually to each municipality.

The waste management company which submitted the lowest sealed bid was awarded contracts with five of the municipalities. The Town of Manchester retained their existing contractor, after the contractor lowered their rate equal to the rate quoted in the unified bid. Each of the other five participating municipality executed a separate contract with the successful bidder. Therefore, payment from each municipality is forwarded directly to the waste management company, forgoing the need to create a centralized bookkeeping and finance effort between the municipalities.

SAVINGS

Evidence that the service could be provided at a lower cost under a unified bid scheme was available since five of municipalities had already received individual bids. The contract for Manchester, the sixth municipality, did not expire until the end of 1993, therefore, a separate bid had not been requested.

Specifically, the unified bid approach will save Westminster $10,345.00 in collection costs over the course of the three year contract. Combined with the four other participating municipalities whose savings are clearly known, the total savings over the three year period of the contracts will be $91,175.00.

Under this unified bid approach only Union Bridge would have experienced a higher per unit cost than it would have had under an individual bid. So the that the other four participating municipalities could enjoy the cost savings available under this unified approach, in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation they each agreed to pay a slightly higher fee to offset the increase that Union Bridge would have experienced. Therefore, Union Bridge retained their existing lower per unit fee, while the other municipalities were still able to save their taxpayers dollars.

Moreover, the cost savings did not end with the signing of the contracts. The bid specified curbside collection of recyclable products, such as glass, paper, and plastic. The contracts went into effect in August of 1993, and during Fiscal Year 1992-93 the combined curbside recycling rate averaged 18.7 percent. With the curbside recycling program, the five participating municipalities saved over $53,500.00 in avoided landfill tipping fees during FY 1992-93, in addition to the savings already described.

APPLICABILITY TO OTHER LOCALITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES

This type of unified bid scheme can reduce costs to small individual municipalities which must contract with private sector companies for municipal services. Enlarging the number of units serviced by joint approaches allows the provider to experience economies of scale, and offer the service at a lower cost. Small municipalities can then provide the types of services at a cost comparable to that which are typically only found in more densely populated areas.

Furthermore, a unified approach eliminated duplication of efforts, such as the cost of advertising a "Request for Bids" and the cost of supplying bid documents. With the unified approach these costs are borne by several municipalities, and, therefore, are spread equally among them. It is not necessary for each to publish a separate advertisement or prepare and supply copies of the bid document to every interested company. Staff time is also saved in the preparation process, since each municipality does not have to create and produce and individual bid.

This program does not add any additional costs to the process of requesting and awarding bids for public services which must be contracted out to private companies. When public services can be provided at a lower rate, the savings can be used to lower, or maintain, the tax rate. Ultimately, the taxpayer experiences the real savings.

####

Environmentalism Solid Waste Management, Westminster City Public Works Solid Waste Management

Thursday, May 07, 1992

18820506 Chinese Exclusion Act

Chinese Exclusion Act

May 6, 1882

(U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. XXII, p. 58 ff.)

See also: 18801117 Treaty Regulating Immigration from China

An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese.

WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the Untied States be, . . . suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or, having so come after the expiration of said ninety days, to remain within the United States.

SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and may be also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, . . .

SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title, or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities former and present occupation or profession and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the Untied States. . . .

SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper office of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. Any any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.

SEC. 13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and household servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 15. That the words "Chinese laborers," whenever used in this act, shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

Tuesday, December 31, 1991

19911231 Environmental Affairs Advisory Board End Of The Year Report

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD

END‑OF‑THE‑YEAR REPORT

1991

EAAB MEMBERSHIP

Mr. Franklin L. Grabowski,

Vice‑Chairman Dr. Arthur Peck

Mr. Richard Filling

Mr. Bradley Yohe

Mr. Neil Ridgely

Ms. Gwenn Bockelmann

Mr. Paul Hering, Chairman

MEETING STATISTICS

The EAAB held official meetings eleven times during the year (There was no record of a meeting in May).

BOARD MEMBERS TERMS

The EAAB was created by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners in 1991.

LEGAL/REGULATORY ISSUES

Forest Conservation Act

Due to this state legislation, the Carroll County Forest Conservation Ordinance was created. The EAAB held subcommittee meetings to write the FCO, for Commissioner consideration.

REZONING REQUESTS

The EAAB reviewed two rezoning requests.

ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AWARD PRESENTATIONS

Individual Citizen Catagory: Mr. Ellsworth Acker

Institutional Category: St. George’s Church

Business/Industry Category: Phoenix Recycling

COUNTY PROJECTS ‑ STAFF REPORTS PRESENTED TO THE EAAB

Tipping Fee (Presented by Mr. James Slater in February)

Stormwater Management Review Fees (Presented by Mr. James Slater in February)

Regional Four‑County Solid Waste Study (Presented by Mr. James Slater in February)

Clean Water Act ‑ Section 404 (Presented by Dr. Arthur Peck in March)

County Golf Course Proposals (Presented by Ms. Catherine Rappe in March)

Water Conservation Update (Presented by Ms. Catherine Rappe in March)

Wetlands Demonstration Project (Presented by Mr. James Slater in March & August)

Recycling Update (Presented by Mr. Dwight Copenhaver in March)

Forest Conservation Act (Presented by Mr. Neil Ridgely in April and June)

Water Resource Management Standards (Presented by Ms. Catherine Rappe in April)

Stormwater Management Ordinance (Presented by Ms. Kristin Barmoy in June)

Forest Conservation Act (Presented by Mr. James Slater and Mr. Neil Ridgely in July)

Waste & Hazardous Material Management (Presented by Mr. James Slater in August)

Solid Waste Management (Presented by Mr. James Slater in August)

Forest Conservation Ordinance (Presented by Mr. Neil Ridgely in August, October, November & December)

Reclassification of County Trout Streams (Presented by Mr. Thomas Devilbiss in September)

Nat\c:\wp51\text\eaab_dir.try\reports\rept.91

There was no Year End Report for 1991. This report was compiled 12/8/98 using meeting minutes.