MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY
SOLID WASTE TASK COMMITTEE
June 1, 2004, COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Attending:
Michael Biddy, Owen Beauchesne, Andrew Knafel, Trevor Mance, Jim Mead, Karen
Mellinger, Bill Pennebaker, Forest Snyder and Mark Young
Absent: Barry Mayer
Public attending: Audrey and Harvey Rutheiser, Jim Serrao
The minutes of May 18, 2004 were discussed. Bill pointed out a typographical
error on page 1. The name Dan Prouty should be changed to Don Prouty. Mark
questioned whether Pownal owned two roll-off containers, as indicated in the
minutes. Trevor advised they owned at least two but exactly how many he was not
sure of. It will be left as “two” in the minutes. Mark made a motion, seconded
by Forest, to accept the minutes as amended. All were in favor.
The site visit to the Shaftsbury landfill prior to the meeting was reviewed.
Bill pointed out that the visit illustrated to the committee the fact that there
was limited space available at the present landfill. Several options for
Shaftsbury were discussed, including a municipally- run transfer station. Andrew
noted that another option would be for Shaftsbury to join a solid waste district
and utilize a facility that is not in town. He brought up the example of Windham
County, noting that Brattleboro has a facility that handles 1200 ton a year and
is open to people in the area. He also noted that there is capacity available at
the Casella- run transfer station in Bennington for Shaftsbury’s trash.
Bill asked Jim what the present status of Shaftsbury’s landfill is. Jim
responded that in order to officially remain open, we must bury trash
occasionally, which is being done. The last time was on Green-up Day. Once we
stop that process, we must officially begin the capping process. We are
maintaining our status as a landfill while the town explores its options and
determines the best direction to take as regards solid waste issues. Andrew
asked Jim: if we are looking at a two year maximum life span would it be best to
cap it now? Jim advised that Griffin International consultants recommend we
close it sooner rather than later. After additional discussion, the committee
agreed that it does not seem to make sense to keep the landfill open longer than
necessary.
Bill asked the question, for discussion purposes: Should the landfill be
converted to a transfer station along the lines of the municipally-run Pownal
station or something else? Jim’s response was that would be a question to put
before the townspeople. Trevor pointed out that the Pownal station seems
dependent on an employee who volunteers many hours outside of what he is paid
for. Costs were discussed and Trevor concluded that if all services are equal
(for various options) then perhaps the deciding factor would be cost. Forest
brought up the issue of community responsibility. If it is a municipally owned
and operated facility, wouldn’t the town have more of a stake in it? There was
some discussion concerning the traffic flow problem at the Shaftsbury facility.
In addition, Karen pointed out that at County Waste it appeared all plastics
were co-mingled: do we still have to be separating #1 and #2 from #3-7. Trevor
will look into this.
For discussion purposes, Bill asked the committee to consider whether Shaftsbury
should allow privately owned transfer stations in addition to a municipal
facility? Karen responded that if private facilities are allowed, we would need
to be mindful of any language changes to insure protection of the town. Jim
Serrao asked her if she was advocating for no private facilities. She responded
that she was not advocating one way or the other, but just pointing out the
importance of recognizing other issues will arise if private facilities are
allowed. She noted that we need to be aware of the consequences of allowing
private waste facilities, pro and con. This is information that will be
presented to the town eventually for a decision by the townspeople – we should
know the answers to questions that might be asked.
Andrew pointed out that the Baker/Casella transfer station in East Dorset has a
combination of commercial and private waste coming in. The station is permitted
to handle 10,000 ton a year. He noted that the operators are nervous to have
people come into the transfer building when equipment is being operated, because
of safety concerns. The committee agreed to conduct a site visit to the East
Dorset transfer station
Another question Bill posed: Will Shaftsbury allow future landfills in town? Are
there areas in town where permeation would be acceptable for such an operation?
Road/access issues were discussed as concerns the present area under
consideration for a private transfer station in Shaftsbury.
It was mentioned that numerous towns generate host town agreement fees from
landfills and transfer stations. Numerous other provisions can be stipulated in
host town agreements. Trevor questioned the fairness of charging a fee for a
business activity in town: how is his business, for instance, different from a
dairy operation which would not be subject to a host town agreement? Karen noted
that host town agreements are provided for in state statute. Bill pointed out
that the understanding is that any fees could counteract costs incurred by the
Town by such operations, such as increased road maintenance. Bill queried
whether having a reference to a host town agreement in the Town Plan implies on
its own that we are saying it is okay to proceed with these facilities.
Reference was made to several host town agreements (Williston, Coventry,
Bennington) and possible language that might be included in any agreement. Some
towns have stipulated such actions as developers funding studies to determine
impact on the town and paying for necessary infrastructure improvements. Trevor
noted that requiring special studies be done by a small facility would be
prohibitively expensive. Bill noted that the point of any host town agreement
would be to make sure that what eventually results should have a net positive
effect for the Town of Shaftsbury.
After discussing the question of what a town can and cannot allow in terms of
solid waste facilities, the committee agreed to pursue legal opinion with regard
to the following questions:
1) What does a “regional solid waste facility” really mean? (with reference to
state statute Title 24, Chapter 117, section 4409(a6)). If there are other
facilities, such as Bennington’s, in the region does it mean we don’t have to
provide for others?
2) Does every town have to provide for a facility within its own borders, or
just provide for managing its own waste? And does it have to take trash
regionally?
3) Can the town ban private facilities if a municipal facility is provided for
within its borders?
4) If you open up to private facilities, can you regulate the volume? If we set
a maximum volume amount, can we split that up between private operators? In
other words, if you set a maximum of 10,000 and one facility meets that, can you
then turn others away because the max has been met?
It was agreed that Bill will contact Secretary of State Deb Markowitz in an
effort to ascertain answers to these and any other pertinent questions.
Jim Serrao pressed the committee to keep in mind the deadline of November 2,
2004 set by the moratorium. Committee members acknowledged his concern, but
pointed out that it was important to have answers to any questions that may
arise at a town meeting. Work will continue to proceed as quickly as possible.
The committee agreed that a site visit to the Dorset transfer station will be
warned for Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at noon. Karen will advise Cyndi Hamilton, who
will send the public notice to the paper and Karen will have the notice posted
at the Town Hall and Post Office.
Mike made a motion, seconded by Mark, to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. All were in favor.