SOLID WASTE COMMITTEE
25 MARCH 2008 MEETING
7:00 pm TOWN HALL
MINUTES
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
J. Constance
J. Federer
J. Sizemore
J. Cavan (Chairman)
OTHERS PRESENT
G. Cornett
The principle agenda was to develop Committee recommendations regarding the expanded implementation of Transfer Station user paid fees for the disposal of certain types of items.
After lengthy discussion, the Committee developed the following recommendations:
1. The Transfer Station Manager should develop (with the assistance on Committee members) a Long Range Plan for the Transfer Station. Such a plan would provide “educated” opinions about trends that may impact on any or all aspects of Transfer Station operations. Examples of “trends” are population change, changes in residential, industrial, and agricultural land use, technological changes (for example, the shift in 2009 from analog to digital TV), new waste disposal technologies, new or changed governmental regulations, changes in the local and worldwide demand for recycled materials, and, even, events like global warming. The horizon covered by the plan should look “forward” no more than three years.
2. If warranted by the projections contained in the Long Range Plan, conduct a complete overhaul of the methods fees are imposed, collected, and communicated.
3. Based on current volumes and costs, the Committee recommends against the complete elimination of fees. Instead, the Committee recommends implementing new or modified fees as approved by the Selectmen after review of the actual volume, handling, transportation, and disposal costs associated with the items. This cost information to be developed by the Transfer Station Manager. (If this recommendation is accepted, actual costs should be developed for mattresses and certain types of furniture.)
4. The Committee recommends increasing the steps taken to inform and educate Transfer Station users about the need for fees, how they are developed, and that they are not imposed as a means to create revenue for the Town. Regular New Boston Bulletin columns/articles, resident mailings, and increased signage at the Transfer Station are some vehicles for providing this information.
5. The Committee recommends the current practice of allowing small quantities of “fee” items be accepted by the Transfer Station without fee collection be continued. This practice is conducted at the discretion of the Transfer Station Manager and appears to generate “good will”. The only significant “downside” is the potential for a claim of “unfair treatment” from a disgruntled user.
6. Finally, the Committee recommends that, when the Selectmen are interviewing candidates for Committee membership, the Committee Chairman be invited to attend as, at least, an observer
An extended discussion has occurred regarding Joe Constance’s proposal for an approach to managing the implementation of fees for “extra cost to handle/dispose of” items.
The following is extracted (with minor editing) from an emailed note Joe prepared on the subject:
The operating cost of the Transfer Station is currently determined by the cost of labor and maintenance of the equipment and property, plus disposal costs, minus those monies the town collects for recyclables. At present, roughly one third of the operating costs of the station are covered by those monies brought in.
The issue raised by the proposed fees on mattresses and microwaves has again raised the question of why we need another fee, and what do one’s taxes pay for in terms of disposal and what they do not. We have fees for several different types of items now, because of issues related to their disposal. Clearly, new types of junk are going to be born [over] the next few years, and may cost us more to get rid of soon. What I don’t want to do in the future is simply have the TS manager say at some point, “Well we really are getting a lot of X deposited now, and I think we need a fee to cover the cost and to ‘deter’ people from [bringing] too much X up here in the future. All other towns charge for X and we have to as well”. We may have done that in the past, but I don’t think this
continue because circumstances have changed and we have enough empirical data on revenue and monies from current fees to now consider establishing a “threshold” at which point we might have to institute new fees if the situation warrants.
Given the performance of the station in terms of recyclable revenues, it seems likely that we can count on approximately 25-30% of our cost to be recovered by sales of recyclables. I would suggest that such a range perhaps form the initial threshold. If we dip below this because of new types of materials like TVs, mattresses or aardvarks, the, clearly, the TS manager and town would need to consider a recommendation for a fee on one or all of them at that time, but not until then. The market for recyclables, too, could dip and thus force the station below that range at which point the Town might also consider additional fees on the most troubling items.
I would also reject categorically the notion that such a structure changes the station into a for profit enterprise or business per se. I say this for two reasons.
First, the TS is, and clearly will remain, [a] taxpayer subsidized service that the Town cannot and will not let fail. Few, if any businesses, in the private sector have that assurance. This solution merely tries to put future fees on a more rational basis, so the taxpayer clearly understands what their tax dollar pays for, what the station can realistically bring in to help offset total costs, and when nerw fees might be necessary. Clearly, such an approach will take a good deal of strategic planning, but I am confident this can be done successfully by the station manager and town government.
Secondly, the success of the station, unlike a business is not based on profit but on the voluntary participation of the Town’s citizens. The more we participate in recycling efforts the more successful we will be in offsetting our cost.
Jim Cavan does not concur will Joe’s proposal for the following reasons:
· Committee Recommendation 3., above, provides a process by which the Transfer Station Manager is charged with developing the volumes, costs, and recommended fees associated with any new or changed item or material disposition. The authority for judging and approving the appropriateness of the Managers’ recommendation rests with the Selectmen. I do not think it appropriate to dictate to the Selectmen the criteria they should use in making their decision.
· Joe is correct that the Transfer Station cannot be changed into a “for profit” enterprise. Importantly, care must be taken to avoid management procedures that give the appearance the Transfer Station is using disposal fees to offset higher costs or less revenues elsewhere in its’ operations. Under Committee Recommendation 3., explanations to the taxpayer of why a fee was implemented, raised, or dropped will be simple and straightforward. But if taxpayers are told the disposal fees on certain items are being raised because the market for recyclables has dipped, they may well perceive the Transfer Station is being managed on a “for profit”
basis.
The Committee Chairman recommends Joe’s proposal be discussed with the Selectmen.
.
The Committee meeting will be held on April 15 at 7 pm in the Town Hall (location subject to change).
/S/ Jim Cavan, Chairman
| 
