Selectmen vote to increase the cost of a Transfer Station sticker

For many of you, getting rid of your trash – and your recycling – is going to cost more green next year. While reiterating the need to research long-term solutions for closing the gap in the town’s trash disposal budget, the Board of Selectmen last night voted 2-1 to increase the cost of a Transfer Station sticker from $140 to $175.

As they are now, second stickers will still be free, and seniors will get stickers at no cost.

The proposal to increase to $175 was put forth by Selectman Dan Kolenda who argued the town’s goal should be to make the Transfer Station self-funding within three years. Currently the town maintains a $250K annual shortfall in the trash disposal budget.

Selectman Bill Boland disagreed, saying tax dollars should make up the deficit. He argued that most towns do not completely cover their costs through service fess – even those with programs like pay-as-you-throw.

“I would leave sticker fees alone,” Boland said. “I think we’re doing pretty good with how we’re operating right now.”

Saying he had revised his opinion “nearly 180 degrees” from last week, Selectman John Rooney said pay-as-you-throw is exactly the sort of program Southborough should adopt. He said the objective was not only to raise revenue to cover operating costs, but also to encourage recycling and reduce the amount of trash the town has to pay to dispose.

Rooney proposed lowering the cost of a Transfer Station sticker to $100 and then charging $1 per bag in a pay-as-you-throw model. He estimated that the average family would throw away 3 bags per week for an additional $156 per year. Rooney said the additional revenue would cover the cost of the Transfer Station.

But Boland and Kolenda were not convinced. Both said pay-as-you-throw is one of the long-term options the town should consider, but they said they wouldn’t support it without further reserach. The two voted not to move to pay-as-you-throw this year.

With pay-as-you-throw off the table for now, Rooney joined Kolenda in supporting the $35 increase in the sticker fee. Boland voted against the increase.

The 25% increase in the fee follows a 27% increase approved by selectmen last year, when the cost of a sticker rose from $100 to $140.

31 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jerry C
12 years ago

I would rather go with pay as you throw instead of big annual sticker increases. Look at the stuff thrown in the Compactor. At least 1/2 of it is recycleable (it’s full of cardboard) yet some people won’t even make the effort to drive another 100 feet and recycle the stuff.

The bottom line is that people will often take the easy route and just throwing stuff away is the easiest.

I also believe that the transfer station should be self funding. It should produce enough revenue to pay it’s expenses. If that would cause big increases in the cost of a dump sticker then we need to look at addional cost reduction programs.

earl
12 years ago

Do the “rules” in place allow the dumping of construction related debris by the truckload by contractors with resident stickers?

If not, how do we address that issue?

It seems that more often then not when I’m there I see a truck or trailer being unloaded into the hopper.

K R
12 years ago

Lets just be clear that this is a tax increase plain and simple. I guess my budget can handle $35 another bucks, but I doubt I’ll still be using the transfer station if it were self-funded. So, the selectman better tread carefully next time this issue comes up. I assume that there is a relatively high fixed cost associated with running the transfer station and as the gap between sticker cost and the cost of private hauler closes, more people are going to make the switch which will eventually offset a sticker price increase.

With that said the sticker cost increase IS making me consider making the switch. What are the costs of the different haulers in town? I heard $400 a year thrown around. Does this include recycling or do people with private haulers still buy a sticker to do their recycling? Are there any pay as you throw haulers, or bi-weekly options?

If we ever move to a pay-as-you-throw option, I’m curious what the costs of enforcement would be, both monetarily and time waiting on busy Saturdays. I don’t really want to be bothered with that non-sense, but this morning as I watched a contractor dump his full pickup trucks worth of debris away, I was fairly disturbed.

I’m not convinced that pay-as-throw causing more recycling would save all that much since cardboard and plastic are relatively light, so they probably don’t account for that much of the costs. This also makes me wonder why we would run the pay as you throw based on volume when the cost of operation is based on weight.

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  K R

The lion’s share of the cost related to operaging the transfer station are disposal costs (approx. 75 per cent). Enforcement is not an issue, there are many towns with drop off that use pay per throw with out having enforcement issues.

kaysee
12 years ago

Looks like I’ll still be driving to my parents to get rid of my one bag a week!!

C. Nicholas Ellis
12 years ago

“Tonnage” is not the same as “tons”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonnage

Tonnage is a measure of volume, not weight. Tons are a measure of weight, not volume. The two are not interchangeable. (Isn’t English fun?)

If (part of) the costs of running the transfer station rely on “tonnage”, then plastics and cardboard (which take up much more tonnage, or volume, per unit of weight) actually cost more than, say, food. It makes more logical sense that the costs are associated with volume, rather than weight – thus the reason our waste is compacted before being shipped off.

As for enforcement of pay-as-you-throw, I doubt it would be any more than we already pay for enforcement of our current policies (or are they laws?). Pay-as-you-throw is typically “enforced” via a requirement to use specific bags sold by the town – often in conjunction with curbside pickup. If the waste is not properly contained within the specified bags, it does not get disposed of. Of course, this can muddy the waters a bit as to the “actual” costs associated with waste disposal, but it would shift the burden of payment from the collective majority (all people sharing the burden equally, minus those who choose not to participate) to a sliding scale dependent upon how much waste you produce (those who produce more pay more, and vice versa).

The real discussion, which must be researched, is precisely that: how much can be saved by moving to a pay-as-you-throw model versus the model we have now? That’s largely dependent upon our fixed costs versus our scaling costs (i.e. minimum costs for waste disposal, staffing, etc. versus pricing per tonnage). If the bulk of our costs are from fixed costs, I don’t see how we’ll offset the deficit through moving to a pay-as-you-throw model without also increasing fees at the same time. On the other hand, if the majority of costs come from tonnage of waste, rather than “overhead”, then a pay-as-you-throw model may be enough to offset the deficit, supplemented by the current (or perhaps lower) flat usage fee.

While it may be a tax increase, it’s no different than the tax increase we’ll get if it’s not implemented – it’s just one shared by a lower percentage of the population. The Board of Selectmen are trying to find ways to equalize the town’s budget and reduce the tax increases coming our way in the future. Whether they do so selectively (by making the Transfer Station self-funding, for example) or across the board (by raising the base residential and/or business property tax rate) is a matter of choice, but it still amounts to the same thing in the end. It’s just a question of who pays for it, and how much.

earl
12 years ago

You have identified the $250,000 question:

How much of the $550,000 is related to the variable costs which are dependent on the amount (by weight or volume)?

My vote would be to first address the construction/demolition debris issue.
From the policy on the website, limits appear to be:

1. Residential household trash only (“Only cars and pickup trucks (see vehicle definitions) registered to Southborough residents, garaged at a Southborough address, carrying residential household trash will be admitted to the town transfer station.”)

2. Construction/demolition debris, with each limited 3-32gal barrels

http://www.southboroughtown.com/dpw/dpw/TS%20Reg%202010%20voted.pdf

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  earl

FYI : There is not a problem with people not having stickers using the transfer station. The recycling committee did a survey of the cars using the transfer station that included over 200 vehicles as they pulled up to the trash compactor. Of the 200 vehicles only one did not have a sticker and that was a new resident in town. There were 3 who did not have their sticker properly attached, they either attached it to a place not easily seen or had it in the glove compartment. The high cost of waste disposal is a self inflicted injury.

Erin
12 years ago

I may be becoming a bit of a broken record here, but I detest the pay as you throw model. I lived in Ashland where we had to buy special bags for our trash. It’s a hassle to buy the bags. The bags are cheap and ugly and don’t necessarily fit into existing containers. Therefore, most people used their preferred trash bags and then double-bagged those in the special pay as you throw bag. This is such a waste. I know it sounds petty and small, but it was one more item to add to your to-do list, one more plastic bag used per bag of trash, and one more bag paid for by the resident.

Furthermore, there are things that just don’t fit into a traditional trash bag. We never knew what to do with these items and finally ended up calling a junk removal company and paid them to dispose of them.

There is another pay as you throw method that I have seen where you actually pay for each bag of trash that you have with you upon entering the transfer facility. I would be okay with this, except that I don’t know how we could make it work with our existing facility and limited hours.

I love the ability to go to the ability to go to the transfer station and I hope that does not go away.

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  Erin

Easy hassle free waste disposal is a modern day luxury. If you are willing to pay the cost associated, it is a method that can be used. Have you looked into having
private pick service?

Jerry C
12 years ago

Please tell me if I’m the only one that sees this. When I go to the dump I occasionally look for peoples stickers and don’t see stickers on some cars. I’m afraid we’re being taken advantage of. I know that there are many people that would drive a long way to dump a lot of trash if they knew the controls were weak. To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never seen anyone walking around verifying that people have a valid sticker. Anyone else seeing this?

C. Nicholas Ellis
12 years ago
Reply to  Jerry C

Erin:
I know people who have the pay-as-you-throw method described (buy the bags, etc.), and they echo your sentiments. Personally, I’m not a fan of the idea myself, which is why I stress it’s worth researching before making any headlong jump into the foray.

Jerry:
I know for a fact Chief Moran has in the past patrolled the Transfer Station to do just that, and she has stopped people to verify their status. I’m sure it’s immensely costly to have an officer stationed their during all open hours (at least compared to the theoretical savings caused by unauthorized dumping), but there has in the past been an officer on duty part-time to enforce authorized usage of the station. It does nothing to reduce the amount of waste going into the compactor instead of the recycling bins, but that’s another issue entirely.

One question I have is whether or not recycling storage bins for home use are available in this town (as they seem to be in other towns, i.e. Wellesley), or whether we have to supply our own. I’ve always just used whatever I happen to have handy (cardboard boxes, mostly) to sort and store recyclables, but if specific bins are available for free (or even a reasonable cost) I could see the value in it (I’d sure use them) – namely enforcing the mindset that we all need to recycle, not just for environmental reasons but economic ones as well. Getting the message to the public that recycling will help reduce their taxes could be a very strong motivator for those who are less than disciplined in following the law – as, if I recall correctly, recycling is a state-mandated law, and our numbers in that department are less than appealing.

CB
12 years ago

What about creating/selling advertising space at the transfer station? Considering how much traffic goes through that place on a weekend; it has to be considered a high-traffic area. On the side of the little trailer/office space…on the small connector road to the recycling center. Anybody with me?

Just saying…

Jeff
12 years ago

Construction debris is not allowed in the hopper and comecial trucks should also not be dumping.

The no sticker issue was addressed and the police monitored it for a while then they stopped. Chief Moran used to sit down there and the selectman would hand out fines. There should be more montering.

As for the sticker increase, again more taxes with no increases in services. The dump used to be funded 100% by tax dollars.

Jeff
12 years ago

7:20 AM,

I just had a garbage truck go by my house, I didn’t like it. Imagine if we all had to go to a pickup service.

Good job BRUINS!!!!!

7:29 AM,

Garbage truck just went by the other direction!!!!

M
12 years ago

Would you have any objection to writing down the license plate of a car or truck you see at the station that does not have a sticker? If there is no attendant on duty, maybe we could have a drop box for the “snitch sheets”. NO KIDDING. It may sound awful, but it’s the idea that everyone is checking out your truck that would discourage illegal users. A bit like the Neighborhood watch signs.

Anna
12 years ago

I am disgusted by the ignorant and lazy that can’t be bothered to recycle. So it seems that there is an opportunity to better monitor the items that are going in the hopper. I notice that the employees of the transfer station don’t bat an eye as people dump recyclables such as cardboard or pull up to the hopper with construction debris. Why can’t the employees be directed to watch for that? We could even issue fines or charges for this type of disposal abuse.

Pay as you throw worries me only because of the potential abuse of the town’s trash cans, dumpsters, take it or leave it shed, or our town’s roadsides. I recycle and compost so one bag of trash a week is usually about right for us.

Deb Moore
12 years ago

Sometime between 3PM yesterday and 9AM this morning, someone dumped a large bar-type table on Deerfoot Rd near the vet. One recent summer, there was a futon frame dumped on Northborough Rd near what I call a canal. On the off chance that any of you know who does these selfish things, can you please turn them in??

Is this done by people who don’t have trash stickers? It’s clearly not a transportation issue, since they can get these things away from their homes. The only thing I can think of is that a private hauler wouldn’t pick up this large object, but I thought the private haulers used the hopper and their customers needed stickers. Has that gone by the wayside?

I hate littering no matter what it is. (Why do people think it’s OK to throw coffee cups out of cars?) Dropping large objects off on the shoulder of the road is incomprehensible to me. If you don’t have a sticker, your neighbor probably does. Make them a plate of brownies and go ask for a favor.

John Butler
12 years ago

Those who support complete privatization, or making the transfer station self supporting on sticker fees, are not completely consistent in their “free market” beliefs. The reason why municipalities got into the business of taxpayer supported “free” trash handling was to combat illicit dumping, by making the unit cost of proper disposal close to zero. The long social experience with taxpayer supported, and hence “free”, trash handling has gotten people accustomed to the idea that they must dispose of trash properly, but free market theory would suggest that if the cost of proper disposal becomes high, at the market price, and the cost of improper dumping on the side of the road is zero, improper dumping will experience a slow resurgence. I don’t see how a “free market” believer could expect anything else. We cannot suppose that “enforcement” of littering laws will prevent dumping. The enforcement capability can never be adequate. I would be very cautious about believing that we can abolish socially supported trash handling without expecting social costs from illegal dumping to make a resurgence. Free market theorists never put much stock in “social conscience.” I would recommend monitoring municipal regions that have consistently adopted market priced trash systems for about 10-15 years to see the degree to which they experience a resurgence in illegal dumping.
The point about “tonnage” being a volume measurement is a curiosity, but the Town doesn’t pay based on “tonnage” in the shipping sense. It pays by the ton, the measure of weight. Which is one of the two problems with “per bag” based fees. Per bag fees are a volume measure while the Towns costs are a weight measure. Bag fees are an incentive for me to run everything through my kitchen trash compactor which saves volume in a 10-1 ratio but does nothing for weight. Furthermore bag based fees are incredibly annoying for users because things you want to dispose of don’t fit into bags in many cases. Point of pickup, or drop off, weighing systems, which would charge based on weight, are under development and have been deployed in multiple locations around the US and Canada. They at least allow for any shape, and match the basis of the Town’s cost. I’d prefer to never see the Town use bag based measures, but monitor weight based systems technology and consider deploying it when it is ready and after we have a better idea of the risk of a resurgence of illegal dumping.

Al Hamilton
12 years ago

John

Even if there was no fee for the use of the transfer station there would be a cost. Elsewhere I estimated that my cost of a trip to the transfer station cost $11.00 ($5 for mileage and $6 for my time) I live about as far as you can get from the transfer station so I will admit that my cost is high which is one of the reasons I use curb side pick up most of the time.

It is far from clear that using private haulers would cause of streets to be littered with trash. I agree with you that before we proceed we should gather that data to see if it is a problem in comparable communities that have private collection though.

Your argument about the utility of making the marginal cost of trash disposal $0 has its own down side. It means that the marginal economic benefit of recycling is negative assuming there is a cost to making the effort to separate and then dispose of recycling in a separate process.

I for one am a fan of pay per bag systems. For better or worse, it has low implementation costs and it begins to create incentives to recycle, limit trash and begins to put the costs on those that use the most, kind of like water. It really is the only game in town. Waiting for some admittedly better sounding weight based program seems to me like the old adage “Better is the enemy of good enough”.

The bottom line is that right now the trash subsidy is at least $250,000 and probably more if retirement obligations are taken into account. $250,000 I suspect that if it did occur the costs of picking up the occasional street side mess would be far less and we could use the balance for schools, fire, roads and police services.

Our choice is to ask the widow living on a fixed income that generates one small bag of trash a week to pay more in taxes or pay for the cost of disposing of her small waste stream. You already know which I would prefer.

Carl Guyer
12 years ago

John

I have been a member of the recycling committee for over 5 years. I am an engineer and I am very data driven. I have looked at data associated with pay per throw many times and each time I reach the same conclusion that it is both fair and effective. Effective in the sense that it curtails abuse and encourages recycling. Unless you believe town government must be responsible for waste disposal and the cost burden is a social responsibility we must all share equally, then asking each citizen to be responsible for their use of the transfer station services is a reasonable idea.

Jerry
12 years ago

Carl, I agree. People who consume less, and recycle more are being penalized with our current system. Pay as you throw may be unpopular, but if people had to pay the real cost of disposing of their trash, I think they might prefer it.

John Butler
12 years ago

Carl,
I am actually cautiously in favor of unit charges for non-recycled trash as a means of encouraging recycling of materials that are economically recycled, but I’d prefer a weight based system. However I think that the risk of encouraging illicit dumping is underestimated by its advocates. I can tell you that I had a business that was the largest tenant in a Marlborough office building off I495, near Northborough. Shortly after Northborough went to pay-per-throw, the dumpster at our building started filling up 5 times faster, and people could be seen driving up to it with bags as if it were a transfer station. I am not convinced that the responsible social behavior that was established as a norm with tax supported trash cannot be de-established over time, first as people start finding open disposal containers and then simply leaving it in public places. There is no engineering that can tell you that this won’t happen. Economically, the roadside is a “commons” and usually economic forces with respect to “commons” are ecologically unattractive and unavoidable. If people “have to pay the real cost” some people will find a way to cheat, when so many ways are available. I think we should be cautious.
I also think that we should assume that State support for recycling will not survive indefinitely for materials that are not economical to recycle. Recycling sounds great but isn’t always actually so for all materials. It is not environmentally free. With eyes open to the possibility of State policy changes, I’d support making access to the recycling center free, instead of requiring a sticker. If an analysis of long term pay per throw communities doesn’t show more public trash, then I’d support a weight based system that doesn’t require the public to buy special bags.

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  John Butler

John

There is no state support for recycling.

Not only does recycling sound great, it is great. It is not a panacea, but it is certainly better than sending it to the incinerator. If you think there is no economic value in recycled goods, you must think the owners at Harvey’s are fools for taking our recycling materials at no cost to the town. Some towns are even paid for their recycled materials.

Every time Pay per Throw is mentioned, the fear of trash lined streets surfaces. It you think that is going to happen you should visit the 100+ towns in Massachusetts that use Pay per Throw and verify your assumption. Take a ride to Groton, Ma, it has a transfer station just like ours and runs on a Pay per Throw system.

By the way, a weight based system only works with automated pick up systems which instrument on the lifting mechanism. It is easy to determine the average weight of bags since the number of purchased bags is known and the total weight of the waste is recorded. If someone is willing to take the time to stuff trash bag, they probably will find sorting our the recycled material more profitable.

John Butler
12 years ago

Carl,
At the very least you are overstating your case. “no state support” you say? Here is a quote from MassDEP web site “MassDEP Sustainable Materials Recovery Program (SMRP) Municipal Grants offer funding to cities, towns and regional entities for recycling, composting, reuse and source reduction activities ” http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/recawgr.htm. MassDEP works broadly to influence the market with tax supported financial incentives, and with regulation.

I didn’t say there was “no economic value” in recycled goods. Again, you are overstating. I said we should not assume that all recyclables will enjoy high market prices independent of tax based incentives applied at various points in the commodity stream. The future of those incentives is at least questionable.

I’m not sure why I should go to Groton when Northborough is closer. My business was on the border of Northborough when that town went to pay per throw, and I saw the effects in my dumpster. Despite that actual experience, I still think we should move to unit pricing, but with eyes open and with methods that aren’t too burdensome for the public.

Also, and lastly, the current T-station fee system is just a means for Selectmen to increase de facto taxes without the approval of Town Meeting. I think it has gotten large enough, in total, that Town Meeting should assert authority in this area. This could also have the advantage that it would ensure that any future decisions about unit pricing have the popular support needed for success.

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  John Butler

John

The Transfer Station sticker fee is a user fee. I disagree with the use of tax revenue to support the operation of the transfer station since it is not used by all the residents of the town. The fee should be higher to reflect actual cost and as others have pointed out, the actual cost is most likely higher the official value due to benefits not included in the stated number (I don’t know that for certain).

Let me relate a story about abuse I have. Two to three years ago when the Recycling Committee was proposing the Transfer Station switch to the Pay per throw method, we had meetings with other boards in town. At one of the meeting a member of that board expressed dislike for the PAYT method. When asked why he disliked it he told us that he was his family’s trash man. He was retired and every week he would pick up the trash at his friends and relatives and take it to the transfer station. He was being a “good” guy. I asked him if all these other households had purchased stickers and he looked at me like I was crazy and said “Why would they do that?”.

There will be abuse with any method used. We cannot determine policy in fear of those who will not fairly participate.

Dick Chase
12 years ago
Reply to  Carl Guyer

I haven’t used the services of our fire department since we moved to Southborough over a decade ago. Should my taxes be used to support it even though I’ve had no need for it? How about fire, police, water, schools or other municipal services? Should individual taxes be adjusted based upon the use of municipal services? Safe disposal of waste has been a municipal function in North America for well over a century, and for very good public health and environmental reasons. It’s not a service of convenience. Saying that taxes shouldn’t be used for the operation of the transfer station is like saying that the town shouldn’t be responsible for re paving Parkerville Road because not everyone drives on it. If the town doesn’t provide the service, then we all suffer negative consequences.

That said, for basic economic reasons we should definitely all be concerned with how much trash we generate. Anything we can do to push people to put less in the hopper is a good thing – our collective responsibility for safe waste disposal will be satisfied at a lower cost.

PAYT is inconvenient and the inconvenience will lead to changes in individual behavior that will be either for the collective good or ill. If the inconvenience leads to behavior that generates less of the type of trash that we have to pay to safely get rid of, great!, However, if it leads to people dumping their trash illegally, then, not so great. My gut agrees with you that the result will be more the former than the latter. I’d just like to see some more data to validate that gut reaction (I’m a data guy too). Do you have any links to any of that PAYT data you mentioned above?

Carl Guyer
12 years ago
Reply to  Dick Chase

You use the services of the police and fire department everyday. They are emergency serviices at the ready 7 by 24. Your question about the water department is a good exampe of individuals paying for what they use because the town needs to pay for the water it recieves.

Schools are an investment in the future unlike trash displosal.

I have made this point before and I will say it again, the transfer station needs to be run like the water department. Otherwise the the need for conservation of resources is
missing.

southsider
12 years ago

I wish our Selectmen had taken the opportunity to use some of the incremental fees to expand hours of Transfer Station availability. How much would 4 or 6 hours on Sunday afternoon actually cost? We’d still all have the same trash volume each week so I think the cost would be strictly labor related. Maybe providing some added value would take the sting out of the increase.
While we’re talking about the Transfer Station, has anyone noticed how downright rude some of these workers get if they think you may keep them from closing the Station precisely on time? I’ve been yelled at on several occasions when I’m there just before closing. Once we’ve been allowed in, there’s no reason to be so rude. None of us really wants to spend too much extra time there.

Mark Ford
12 years ago

Funny comment. I’ve been up there in the winter at closing, where they’ve let me in, but shut off the lights…I had to run my car’s headlights to see the recycle bin…not sure how that affected my overall carbon footprint…

John Butler
12 years ago

Southsider,
The money generated by the additional fees cannot be used by the Selectmen without an appropriation by Town Meeting. Unless they already had enough money in some budget to expand the hours, which I doubt, they can’t do what you suggest.

Any additional revenue from the fee hike ends up in Free Cash in June 2012 to be possibly appropriated by Town Meeting for FY2013. Thus there is no real connection between these extra collections and the operation of the Transfer Station. That is just chatter. This money goes into a “big pot”, with 98% of all the other money the Town collects from all sources, from which Town Meeting funds all the budgets.

Therefore, if you want to see Sunday hours (without a reduction of other hours), you’ve got to get that idea into the budget process, probably in November, and see it through to enactment as budget by Town Meeting.

  • © 2024 MySouthborough.com — All rights reserved.