Town’s Rubbish Contractor Seeks 16 Percent Contract Increase to Offset Soaring Inflation-August 6, 1980

The town’s contracted rubbish collector is seeking an additional $48,000—representing a 16 percent financial increase—for the second year of his municipal service contract to offset severe inflationary losses that he claims are more than double that requested amount.

Joseph Nisby, president of South Shore Disposal Inc. based in Abington, appeared directly before the Board of Selectmen last night to explain the financial bind affecting his operations. Now in the second year of a three-year municipal agreement, Nisby stated that his net operating loss for the first contract year ending June 30 exceeded $100,000. He explained that his actual operational expenditures reached $373,225, far outpacing the $270,000 in base contract payments provided by the town. Nisby emphasized that he is merely asking the municipality to share the burden of regional inflation by absorbing slightly under 50 percent of his overall operating deficit, requesting that the board approve an additional $4,000 monthly allotment throughout the second contract year.

Regardless of the municipal decision, Nisby formally pledged to fulfill his contractual obligations to the municipality through the agreement’s conclusion on June 30, 1982. Selectman Walter J. Dempsey pointed out that even if the contractor were to default, the town remains financially protected because the agreement is secured by a formal performance bond.

Town Manager John J. Carroll stated that he found “some mitigating circumstances” surrounding Nisby‘s request, adding that the contractor had performed a “good job” in handling municipal waste up to this point. Carroll advised the selectmen to consider formally renegotiating the terms of the agreement provided that Town Counsel Justin C. Barton approves the legal procedure. The selectmen agreed to verify the appropriate legal steps before proceeding.

Carroll advised that any newly negotiated contract should contain a specific escalation clause governing operational cost increases linked directly to collected tonnage and fluctuating dumping fees. He explained that no such escalation clause exists in Nisby‘s original fixed-rate contract, which was scheduled to pay $270,000 in the first year, $290,000 in the second, and $310,000 in the third.

The board also requested detailed financial documentation regarding the $373,225 first-year expenses calculated by Nisby‘s corporate accountant. Selectman Martin J. Lydon asked that the itemized expense ledger be formally certified by an independent auditor, expressing concern that the stated figures appeared high.

Selectman John F. Kinnaly offered sharp criticism regarding Nisby‘s initial three-year bid. Drawing on his background as a businessman involved in commercial bidding, Kinnaly accused Nisby of “lowballing the bid” by failing to anticipate a substantial jump in per-ton disposal fees at the Braintree incinerator last year. Kinnaly characterized the vast discrepancy between the original bid and actual operating costs as “completely unbelievable,” speculating that the initial $100,000 loss could easily climb to $130,000 this year and $170,000 in the final year.

“This is totally preposterous,” Kinnaly declared, asserting that putting the entire waste contract back out for competitive rebidding—rather than merely renegotiating—was fully warranted under the circumstances. Nisby acknowledged that Kinnaly‘s projection of future losses was indeed a possibility. Nisby noted that he had been in business for over 40 years and had “made mistakes,” but maintained: “This is a mistake of inflation.”

Nisby explained that his initial bid was formulated in early 1979 before the national fuel crisis escalated dramatically. Diesel fuel that cost 61 cents per gallon during bid preparation now costs $1.05 per gallon. Furthermore, regional dumping charges have surged; the $7 per ton fee charged a year ago at the Braintree incinerator jumped to $12 per ton just two months later. Nisby described his current operations as being “like a gypsy,” forced to haul waste wherever disposal permits are available. He noted that the town of Randolph, where he had been trucking Norwood refuse, recently barred all out-of-town waste, forcing his trucks to utilize a disposal facility in Attleboro.

Defending Nisby against Kinnaly‘s charge of underbidding, Town Manager Carroll recalled that Nisby‘s original proposal was not significantly lower than the second and third lowest bids submitted, indicating that he had not intentionally undercut competitors. Carroll noted that all initial proposals had been competitively close and strongly recommended against reopening the contract for rebidding, warning that current market conditions would produce significantly higher bids across the board.

Carroll added that establishing a municipal trash collection department operated directly by town personnel would be exceedingly expensive. He submitted a detailed report compiled by Assistant Public Works Superintendent Martin Feeney, which estimated that establishing a town-operated collection system would cost between $350,000 and $436,000 in its first year, depending on the number of municipal laborers hired. Carroll noted that utilizing the local Norwood landfill—which has a limited remaining lifespan—would lower estimates for both municipal operation and South Shore Disposal Inc. if a local disposal site were granted.

Archival Note: This article has been dynamically reconstructed from the original public record print archives of the Patriot Ledger