Deerfield Looks at Commercial Recycling
Village will begin by gathering information from the business community. Cost savings and environmental benefits could result.
Deerfield is taking its first steps this month to incorporating the inclusivity and convenience of its residential recycling program into the commercial community.
While the Village now has a contract with Waste Management for picking up most of the residents’ recycling and its garbage, businesses and other non residential users are free to choose any hauler they want. Any recycling at all is an option to these corporate citizens.
If everything falls into place, Deerfield could have a contract with a hauler to handle commercial recycling as well as waste removal in two years, according to Jenny Maltas, the assistant to Village Manager Kent Street.
The initial phase of the process is information gathering, according to Maltas. The Village will send letters this month to the Deerfield’s commercial citizens this month to gauge their interest and attitudes.
“We will look at their responses to determine if it would be beneficial to move forward,” Maltas said. “We’ll find out what type of (recycling) contracting they’re doing now and who is providing it”
Some communities, like Highland Park, already have a program while others, like Northbrook, do not. Highland Park’s program is more than two years old.
Should the program move forward to conclusion, the Village will enter into a commercial franchise agreement with a hauler and, just like the existing residential arrangement, all commercial users would be required to participate.
While Deerfield Sustainability Commission Chairman Matt Wylie recognizes there is a downside to removing the option of choice from commercial customers, based on the experience of other communities he believes there will be a financial savings.
“Our research on comprehensive programs has shown if they (commercial users) are compelled into a franchise agreement it will result in a savings for the customers,” Wylie said.
Wyle also believes the environmental benefits are too hard to pass up. “It will reduce what we have to send to a landfill,” he said.
After the Village has the opportunity to absorb the information it collects from its businesses, it would send out requests for proposal from potential haulers, according to Maltas. “We will be looking for ways to optimize the process,” she said. “We’ll find out what will work and what wouldn’t.”
Wylie wants to make the process as friendly for the commercial users as it is for residents. “We make it incredibly convenient,” he said. “All they have to do is take it to the curb,” he added about the recyclables.
For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
Deerfield Mom
8:15 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
Finally!!
Nancy M Glazer
8:38 am on Monday, June 4, 2012
So glad to hear it! Thanks to all who made this happen.
Beth
11:07 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Do your homework. This is beyond terrible.
Walter White
11:22 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Making recycling mandatory to business customers is way overdue. Bravo.
Beth
11:34 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Walter with all due respect it is imperative that businesses are required to recycle however not at the expense of what should be our right to chose where we as businesses do business. And let's not forget about the legal ramifications the villages may be subjected to when the waste haulers have gotten together to fight these contractors. Requirement to require with enforcement fines is responsible. Businesses however should chose who they want to pay for the job.
Walter White
11:41 am on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Great answer. Does your property management and family restaurant business recycle 100% of the time? I just may have to do a little trash inspection to confirm your answer.
RB
12:23 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I think recycling is a great idea and not enough households or businesses do it. My concern is the board deciding to pursue additional regulation/ordinances when they need to pursue additional retail business. Let's not give another reason for a business not to locate in Deerfield. Over regulation is considered when companies decide where to locate. This board finds busy work instead of sales tax revenue. Consider all the regulation and ordinances added in the past few years. Adding stop signs when paid consultants say they are not needed. Why pay for consultants? Tree ordinance that has no provision for emergency removal of a damaged tree, you still have to wait for the Village Contracted 'arborist' to decide whether you need to replace it. Calling out Rosebud about a sign instead of just quietly asking them to fix the problem. Outdoor fireplaces banned. Really? They are making busy work. Now, it's chicken coops.
Beth
2:20 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Walter, I am not sure if the restaurant recycles-not sure why the underlying sarcasm. Is this about who is recycling now or about moving forward to be more productive. I think the latter. If you knew me you would know that me/my family are globally recycle responsible. My business,( I urge you to come and investigate) brings all of the business debris to a Recycling facility in Northbrook and do so not by mandate. My point to this whole proposal is that it is misleading less focus on the requirement of recycling (which certainly should be done) and show the businesses the disadvantages of this proposal. Example; you have a business in Deerfield and you call the new contracted hauler who ends up being 200.00 more per month than your current provider but then, because of this proposed village exclusive contract you must use the higher priced contracted company? Its just ridiculous that the winner then is not the businesses who bring tax dollars to Deerfield. It is the village who gets rebates and the national haulers who get the revenue. Focus should be on freedom of choice for small businesses not less freedom if you chose to set up shop here.
Beth
2:21 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
RB,
I am standing and applauding you right now.
Walter White
2:27 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
OK, fine. Let me ask you this. If the result of this is 1) requires businesses to recycle, 2) financially neutral to businesses, 3) saves residential customers money, would you be for it?
Beth
3:21 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
All of your points can be achieved without the proposal of hauler exclusivity
1. Requirement of businesses to recycle Could be done without negative ramifications to businesses
2. financially neutrality can be achieved without the proposal but I prefer to allow businesses to shop around to find the best deal. The best service. Or whatever their personal choice is for choosing a vendor. Could in the least be a position to support a mom and pop and not a national franchise.
3. Money can be saved by residences current taxes without jeopardizing the freedom of our choices of the very businesses who bring in revenue and jobs to our village, spending less, making well thought out financial decisions as a village cutting costs...
I don't claim to know the ins and outs of all the finances of our village. I do however believe this (hauler exclusivity) is a quick fix and doesn't take in account what should be our constitutional rights as business owners. Drive around Deerfield and look at the vacancies in buildings & retail spaces . It's sad. Don't hurt those building owners/businesses by creating more financial burden when they should be filling up the empty spaces. Filling up unoccupied spaces will boost our revenue and if recognized and monitored pass that saving onto the residences.
So in answer to your question...
No I'm not for it but yes I'm for your points- just not this way.
Walter White
3:38 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
OK you say all 3 can be done but offer no way to do it. Yes there are vacant spaces and there were vacant spaces when I moved here 15 years ago. There's no complete proposal on the table so you could not know how it would affect vacancies at this point. In absence of a alternate plan that can make these things happen I'm open to hearing what the Village has to say. Maybe you should listen to the complete proposal before dismissing it entirely because you think it will cost you money.
Walter White
3:40 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Oh, and BTW since you brought it up how does the constitution figure into this? I'm curious.
Beth
4:17 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I meant more over our constitutional rights by meaning
The body of fundamental principles or if you prefer the established precedents according to which our village is run. Not the US Constition.
You definitely haven't walked the buildings in Deerfield as your claim they are what they were .... couldn't be further from the truth. 15 years ago these buildings were fully occupied and today there are complete floors vacant.
And for the record... My business is based in Northbrook. I haven't a benefit in this at all. I just want it clear and printed those underlying ramifications . Have you asked how much less in taxes you'll pay for your house ? Exactly? I don't have a dog in this fight except vocalizing the downside of this proposal. The freedom for businesses to choose who are their vendors. I am a business owner and for that reason alone I think our residents should push for fiscal responsibility without hurting another valid source. The proposal sounds great-until you hear the whole story. Unless you've chosen not to listen or choose to be self servant or what I call the "W.I.F.M. Attitude" which means; "What's In It For Me"... And if that's the motive- I choose not to engage.
Walter White
4:31 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Really. Let's run down the list of properties that have had multiple tenants over the years. Applebees/WaMu/Chase, the Abruzzo space, the Thai Thai space, the Wildfish space, Macaroni Grill/Bank/Peapod (supposedly), Zippys/Teddy Fabz, Bennigans/DC Sarnies, Star/Townhouse/Bobbys. The old Rio Bravo has been vacant for years as has most of Cadwell. it might be a little worse now but businesses come and go. Many businesses in MANY localities have to deal with local regulations more restrictive than this.
A concerned DHS Parent
4:39 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I had a business in Chicago for twenty years in which we could choose our refuse provider and when we moved to Skokie, which had a contracted provider, we saved 50% for the same service.
We always bid out our refuse service when the contracts came due and now in Skokie there are no contracts and the service is better and so much cheaper.
Until you know the pricing you are just arguing to argue.
Beth
4:50 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Lets talk more in lines with the 500 building , spaces on lake cook road, office space above pot bellies, office space above the leather store, office space by 294. Really white? Come on! Maybe if the office spaces filled up we'd have more $ going to restaurants you speak of.
Beth
4:53 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Concerned, as business owners I chose to negotiate for myself instead of a village/city making those choices for me. That's my argument. That plus supporting the integrity if local businesses instead of feeding the mouths of national companies. Call me crazy but I'd argue that point for small businesses all day long. ;)
Walter White
5:00 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Wow, Concerned. Actual data instead of conjecture and posturing? What a concept!
RB
5:30 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Walter, politically you and I agree on most things. My point is two fold and I may be wrong,mbut this board is trending toward over regulation. 1) as I've said adding restrictions when we need growth in retail may be wrong timing 2) the board is focusing on minor things while our sales tax base is in danger. I get concerned when I read a recap of what the board has been up to and it's chickens, battery chargers and additional business regulations instead of reports about searching for some good sustainable retail business. I do agree recycling is important, but if we dont have the business to recycle its a moot issue.
The board is coming up with stuff to do. Another one....they spent our money to research the idling ordinance when if they just tell the Park District and Village trucks to stop idling they could have accomplished a great deal through internal management. The Deerfield road underpass? Over $700k in our Village tax money and up to $2 million in our Federal tax dollars. Was this really necessary? They had to raise taxes due to a projected shortfall. Guess the shortfall? $700K!
I'd get real excited if they pursued cost savings (like combining the Park District with the Village and cutting overhead), and pursuit of sales tax producing business.
Walter White
5:41 pm on Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I don't disagree with you on focusing on the big issues, but you have to look at every savings opportunity also.
Beth
9:30 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Concerned: another "actual data" that white praises you for is Chicago refuge pick up is 35-65% higher then the neighboring cities. Reason, Chicago requires permits for all refuge which are extremely high. If a garbage truck wants to drive on the streets in Chicago - it's going to cost you eventually.
So, I'm not surprised once you moved your business to Skokie your trash pick up was considerably lower.
J.Lyn
11:09 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Having read all the comments...I am left a bit befuddled. One must look at the larger picture here. This is not a Deerfield issue...this is a planet earth issue. Looking at it from the largest possible perspective...this should not be a issue of who gets to line their companies pockets more...garbage removal firms or small business' but what will serve all that in habit this planet. Recycling is an incredibly important tool to keep this planet from becoming over burdened with refuge that can be put to other uses. The cost to the environment should be the focus of the exercise...for surely if ALL do not do their part...the price paid will be something no one living or future generations will want to pay. With all due respect to those responding...I know of many individuals and business' that do not have a conscience about this. It should be mandatory...and the companies should proudly advertise that they are now part of solution and not part of the problem.