UNT Supervisors refuse to take ACT 101 seriously

Under ACT 101, every township has to collect data on recycling and trash disposal. Here is a summary of the facts discussed at the meetings on Recycling held on September 14, 2016, October 20, 2016 and April 6, 2017.


Good things about moving to a single-hauler Bad things about moving to a single-hauler
In 2013, we had 13 haulers working in the township. Now we may have over 30, but no one really knows because many of the companies aren’t registered with the township Subscribers lose the ability to choose their own trash hauler
A single-hauler would probably reduce the price per resident. In 2013, the average price per month was $30. A single hauler would have likely dropped that to $20. More expensive for a few residents – those who pay per bag
A single hauler would make it easier to enforce codes, control noise and respond to truck spills  
With a single hauler EVERYONE would be required to dispose of their trash properly which would discourage illegal dumping  
Less truck traffic equals less damage to the roads. It costs 1 million dollars to repair 1 mile of road and the township admits is doesn’t have the money to do this  
Recycling would be increased making the township eligible for $250,000 in grants every 2 years  
Less air pollution  


For over a year, UNT Supervisors have pretended to have a real debate on this issue. In reality they’ve done nothing but mock state law and lie to residents.


Recycling Meeting September 14, 2016: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2016/10/21/township-contemplates-moving-to-a-single-trash-hauler/

Recycling Meeting October 20, 2016: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2016/10/21/township-contemplates-moving-to-a-single-trash-hauler/

April 6, 2017-Presentation by the Recycling Committee which unanimously voted to move to a single hauler. Supervisors refuse to take a vote to put out bids because Donna Hirst is absent: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/04/06/supervisors-punt-on-recycling-issuestand-their-ground-on-land-development/

April 21, 2017-Again, supervisors again neglect to vote for the township manger to get bids on moving to a single-hauler: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/04/21/supervisors-continue-to-stall-on-garbage-hauler-issue/

May 4, 2017-After being called out on their lack of action, Mike Rinker claims the board is waiting for more information from the Recycling Committee: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/05/04/supervisors-continue-to-stall-on-trash-issue/

June 8, 2017-Mike Rinker lied. The Supervisors never requested more information from the Recycling Committee. I checked by attending their last meeting. They said they’d had no requests for information from the Supervisors: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/06/08/supervisors-punt-on-multiple-issues/

June 22, 2017—The Supervisors PLEDGE TO HOLD A VOTE on the topic of moving to a single-hauler at the November 15th meeting: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/06/22/supervisors-have-no-interest-for-a-prison-in-upper-nazareth/

September 21, 2017-Donna Hirst tries to force an unannounced vote on the single-hauler issue despite the pledge to take the vote on November 15: https://uppernazarethmeetings.com/2017/09/23/supervisors-questioned-on-multiple-issues/


November 15, 2017: The Supervisors refused to take a vote on just putting out a bid to see what a single hauler would charge per resident. Editor’s NoteThey probably don’t want to be on the record with their position when the township A) loses out on hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants or B) is stuck with an expensive bill for road repair.


Democracy dies in darkness.  I’m happy to do my part to keep shining a light on township politics.

2 thoughts on “UNT Supervisors refuse to take ACT 101 seriously

  1. I was at the meeting and was very disgusted when I left. After an hour of comments they wouldn’t even put the issue out to bid. I was on board with this issue the last time it came up and was optimistic that we might show that we are somewhat progressive when it comes to what’s best for our community. The survey results this time WERE a joke since it was not mailed out,but the same people who voted in favor of it last time probably still live in the community. With the look on most of their faces you could sort of tell that the Board members were just going through the motions to appease the audience and they all knew that it wasn’t going to move forward. Thanks to Scott for at least trying to get it in motion by voting in favor of a bid. I emailed all of the 4 supervisors that turned it down requested a response as to why they didn’t move forward on this issue. Rob Disbrow was the only one who got back to me. Mike Rinker was the chairman last time this issue got shot down and I can’t help but wonder if some of them were getting several calls from the haulers before the vote. Most of those who voiced their opinions against single-hauler were either uninformed or misinformed on the benefits. I don’t understand how some people seem to have an emotional attachment to their trash hauler. It’s like we are asking them to give up a child. I’m not sure if we have term limits for our Board, but I think that should be considered if we do not. Especially for the chairman position. This issue is probably something that will eventually be required and we are just putting off getting the best deal now. If we are forced into single-hauler someday, then we lose any leverage that we currently have. I spoke to someone in a neighboring community and they said that they can choose their own trash removal service, but have contracted one hauler for all of their recycling needs. I’m not sure if that helps us to step up our ranking as far as grant money, but I think it should be considered if it does.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s