MINUTES OF THE SHAFTSBURY
SOLID WASTE TASK COMMITTEE
JUNE 15, 2004, COLE HALL, SHAFTSBURY, VERMONT
Members present: Bill Pennebaker, Mark Young, Forest Snyder, Michael
Biddy, Karen Mellinger, Trevor Mance, Owen Beauchesne, Barry Mayer, Andrew
Knafel
Absent: Jim Mead
Public attending: Jim Serrao, David Mance, Charles Yoder and Rex Burke
Bill Pennebaker introduced Charles Yoder and Rex Burke, representing the
Bennington County Regional Commission (BCRC). Bill noted that, upon the advice
of Andrea Cohen of the State Solid Waste Division of the ANR, he had invited
Lisa Luke, Projects Specialist at BCRC to attend the meeting in order to give
the committee members background on the SWIP (Solid Waste Implementation Plan)
of the BCRC, of which Shaftsbury is a member. Lisa was unable to attend and Rex,
director of the BCRC, came in her place to discuss the SWIP and BCRC’s role in
solid waste issues.
Charles Yoder, Shaftsbury’s representative to the BCRC, gave some background
regarding the SWIP.
Rex advised that if a facility applies for a permit, the state considers various
site questions. It would be subject to Act 250 review, and the Town Plan has
status in Act 250 review. The District Commission, in an Act 250 review, has to
find that the facility complies with the Town Plan and zoning by-laws. The State
developed a SWIP guidance document and each town must prepare (whether
individually, or as part of district or group) a solid waste plan that meets
with that guidance. If each town in the BCRC district acted independently, they
would incur significant costs to prepare their own SWIP. Therefore, the BCRC
said it would help by doing it under a single contract and include the
participating towns. BCRC’s role is to facilitate a document, but not to
implement the provisions in the document. The State has been reviewing the BCRC
SWIP for almost a year now, and has recently submitted “suggestions”. According
to Rex, the BCRC must now go back to its consultant to prepare a response by
September 10, 2004. This will take a fair amount of work and additional expense.
With regard to any solid waste facilities, including the proposed Dailey c & d,
the town transfer station or the TAM private transfer station, the state
requires that prior to considering certification, the facility must be listed in
the SWIP. Rex indicated that the BCRC 1990 plan is still our operating plan
because the revised plan has not been finalized and approved by the State. Rex
believes the State rationale is “let’s get public reaction before a lot of study
is done” with regard to the certification process. The impression might be if
it’s listed in the SWIP then it is ok, because all the towns in the district,
beginning with the host town, have to agree. When the Dailey proposal came
before the BCRC, the BCRC held hearings and, in order for it to be listed in the
SWIP, the language had to be approved by the host town and all the other BCRC
towns – which did occur. The TAM proposal began the process with the drafting of
language, but it was not approved by the host town prior to the moratorium on
new solid waste facilities.
Forest commented that if a town does not have a state approved plan, the state
will not be able to certify a facility. What is the “punishment”? Rex responded
that he believes it might have something to do with where you then cannot send
your trash in Vermont. It was pointed out that now we are sending our trash to
New York State so that would not effect us. If the Shaftsbury facility were to
continue as a municipal facility, the certification would continue. Rex advised
that it was worth a clarification from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) as
to what would happen if Shaftsbury just said no to private facilities.
Bill advised that he has spoken with Andrea Cohen of ANR. He was surprised to
learn from Rex that there were significant suggestions made by the State re: the
BCRC SWIP. When Bill spoke with Andrea Cohen she had indicated the response
required was “no big deal”.
Rex noted that many of the suggestions that request responses are very costly
because a consultant needs to be involved. Under solid waste law, BCRC does not
implement the plan. He stated he would challenge them if they pressed. The State
pushes the establishment of solid waste districts. Forest asked whether the
State was basically saying they want us to form a solid waste district. Rex
responded “there is no question they would like that”. Presently, the five
Northshire towns have a shared contract with Casella. The other towns, including
Shaftsbury, are only in the BCRC SWIP for cost purposes.
Bill queried: In looking at the BCRC plan it looks like siting criteria was left
to the individual town plans. Is that true? Rex responded that the siting
criteria are taken from state criteria standards. It was used by the consultants
and put in as an appendix to the BCRC plan. The State does not want towns to use
the siting criteria within the document. He believes this is in order to gauge
public opinion. He thinks you can include the criteria in your town plan. He
also advised that in his opinion you can be as specific as you want in the town
plan; for instance, limiting where a solid waste facility could be permitted or
stating that it had to have a minimum of “x” number of acres.
Discussion continued regarding how much a town can limit or regulate solid waste
facilities. Bill presented information from an e-mail from Secretary of State
Deb Markowitz, in which she responded to questions raised by committee members
at the June 1, 2004 SWC meeting (pdf doc attached).
Charles summarized his observations by saying “You seem to have two concerns: 1)
what is the Town’s responsibility as far as waste generated in town?; and 2)
what ability does the town have in controlling a private facility”? Andrew noted
that we are looking at what we produce and how we handle it and also looking at
the question of private facilities. Bill added that we are looking at anything
coming to town as being a net asset.
Bill noted that in his conversation with Andrea Cohen, she advised that the SWIP
is a core document for solid waste management. As such, it can say a number of
things about facilities. She advised that a town can set even stricter limits
than the State. “There is a lot that the towns can do” she noted.
Bill asked Rex if he was aware of the status of the Burgess Brothers’ c & d
site. Rex responded that he did not. Mike said his understanding was that it was
shut down to outsiders because they are close to capacity. Trevor added that
they were trying to get a variance to open another cell. Bill noted that he
thought the site was just outside the Morgan Spring recharge area and this was a
problem for them. Mike commented that the soil is of very low permeability in
that area and this is in Burgess Brothers’ favor.
Bill then thanked Charles and Rex for their input and guidance before they left.
The minutes of June 1, 2004 were discussed. Trevor referred to paragraph 3 and
noted it was his recollection that during the site visit to the Shaftsbury
landfill the group had speculated, after observing the area, that we
realistically may only six months capacity left. The minutes should reflect that
point. Also, in paragraph five, he would like the minutes to reflect that the
question was asked “Can Shaftsbury ban private solid waste facilities if a
municipal facility is provided for within its borders?”
Karen requested the committee members in the future review the draft of each set
of minutes they are e-mailed after each meeting and submit to her any additions
or corrections they might have. She noted that it is difficult to participate
fully and take complete minutes also – help from other members would be
appreciated. It was agreed that this process would be followed and the resulting
draft would be considered by the full committee at the public meeting.
Forest made a motion to accept the minutes of June 1, 2004 as amended. Mark
seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Under old business, Forest presented to the committee his report on a
conversation with Bonnie Cook regarding New Hampshire Transfer facilities (see
text at bottom of this page).
David Mance asked Forest whether he had a sense of how much waste and recycling
is done in Peterborough. Forest did not, but said he will try to get those
figures. Barry pointed out that it is important to consider the demographics of
Peterborough – perhaps it is closer to Dorset than Shaftsbury. Barry questioned
whether roadside dumping would increase with a fee per bag system, such as is
used in the NH facilities. Forest responded that everyone he spoke with
acknowledges an initial spike which seems to drop off dramatically over a brief
period of time as people adjust to the new system.
David asked whether these stations accepted commercial waste. Forest was not
sure if Peterborough did. Everyone paid a per bag fee, and the haulers added an
additional fee. Everyone uses specific bags which are purchased at Hannaford
(Hannaford provides it as a free service); therefore, no money changes hands at
the facility. Jim Serrao asked Forest what the goal of the fee per bag was.
Forest responded that he believed it would increase recycling and it was a
fairer system; i.e., you pay for what you use. The report will be included in
the reading file in Cole Hall.
Barry asked if anyone knew what the level of recycling in Shaftsbury was at this
time and what we could do to increase it. Bill responded that we realized on the
site visits that if we can co-mingle plastics together it might increase the
recycling volume by making it more convenient. Trevor then commented on the
status of his contacts with County Waste regarding plastics #3-#7 and whether
they still have to be separated. He was told that they now can take all numbers
together IF they have a neck on them and are one gallon or smaller but NOT if
they are wide mouth. Forest noted that the New Hampshire plant that is making
decking will take all kinds of plastic. Trevor discussed the fact that we are
lucky Bennington Paper Board will take our corrugated cardboard together with
our paper.
Bill observed that there are two issues when considering recycling and they
conflict with each other: when you consider the value of recyclables, separation
is good; but to increase recycling volume, separation is not good. The committee
continued to discuss recycling issues. Karen commented that Casella (as observed
at the Dorset transfer station and noted in a previous meeting by Trevor) did
not appear to be recycling friendly. Barry asked whether we have a concept of
where our recycling stands in Shaftsbury. Are we meeting the 40% goal set by the
State? Trevor and others pointed out that it was hard to determine because of
the private hauling being done. Trevor thinks his clear bag routes are easily at
40%.
Bill brought the committee’s attention to the reports on the Dorset and Clifton
Park site visits. These will be attached to the minutes and available in the
reading file at Cole Hall.
He then asked the committee to consider host town agreement provisions. If we
put such language in the Town Plan, how would we go about it? Should we consider
language such as that used in the Barre Town Plan? Andrew commented that he
believes the Barre amendment is too restrictive. It looks at landfills the same
as transfer stations or incinerators. He believes, for instance, that to have
the same distance borders for each is not good. Bill asked if we would consider
size of facility as a factor in whether a host town agreement is necessary.
Forest noted, however, that a smaller facility could still have an impact. Barry
observed that Bill is referring to something that is quantitative, whereas
Forest is talking about something that is qualitative (as we talk about
contaminants).
Trevor noted that unlike a landfill, a transfer station does not have a long
term effect on a town. He said that the State already requires a bond. He does
not feel a host town agreement is needed because of the State requirements
already in place. Andrew wondered if we can make provisions for thresholds at
which certain things are triggered.
She wondered if instead of words such as “shall,” we could substitute words such
as “may.” Karen said that a host town agreement provides protection for the town
and can be tailored to meet the needs of specific situations. She agreed that It
does seem that a small facility could be burdened unduly by some of the
stipulations listed in the Barre amendment. She wondered if instead of words
such as “shall,” we could substitute words such as “may.” Barry advised that we
should avoid nebulous wording. Jim Serrao commented that he did not believe that
a host town agreement was necessary.
Bill asked if there is a site the committee should visit that shows a strong
recycling effort. Trevor asked why and Bill responded that it is clearly in the
Town Plan and State statute that efforts should be made to increase recycling.
Trevor recommended the committee review the Casella/Bennington contract as there
is language related to recycling in it. If Bennington finds a market for
recycling materials, they can inform Casella about it. Bill then commented that
perhaps recycling is an issue we should postpone, although he still believes we
should continue to look at ways to increase recycling. Mark commented that the
recycling market is always changing. We can certainly keep language in the Town
Plan which refers to the fact that Shaftsbury recognizes the importance of
recycling.
Bill asked the committee members to come to the next meeting prepared to rework
the Barre Town amendment (as regards a host town agreement) in an effort to come
up with wording that might be appropriate for Shaftsbury.
Mike then made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Owen. The committee was in favor
and the meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Attachments:
Cohen email (pdf)
Markowitz email (pdf)
Text of email from Forrest Snyder below:
Bill,
I was able to contact 2 municipal transfer facilities through the NRRA. I've
included my notes, below. I may be a bit late to Tuesday's meeting (no later
than 7:30). Make copies of my notes as you see fit. I'm CC'ing this email to
Karen.
Forrest
*****
Report on New Hampshire Recycling/Transfer Facilities
May 30, 2004
Forrest Snyder
Solid Waste Committee, Shaftsbury Planning Board
I was able to contact representatives from two New Hampshire municipally owned
transfer stations. These contacts were made at the
recommendation of Bonnie Koch at the Northeast Recycling Recovery Association (NRRA).
Peterborough, NH
5951 residents
Using a pay as you throw systems since late 1999.
Scott Bradford, Transfer Station Manager
603-924-8095
• 20 gallon bag costs 75¢.
• 33 gallon bag costs $1.50.
• Bags are available through local merchants, not at Transfer Station.
• In fiscal year 2003, Peterborough paid 85% of all municipal waste costs
(including equipment, salaries, insurance, etc.) through fees generated at the
Transfer Station. The town funded only 15%. Total cost was $228,000. Transfer
station generated $182,000 in fees and recyclables.
• Scott Bradford thought 2003 was a banner year. Typically, the cost split is
70% income generated and 30% from the town. However, he’s seenyears where the
income was 30% and the cost to the town was 70%.
• Mr. Bradford actively seeks out the best price per ton for materials.
• The per bag fees pay for all tipping, trucking, and costs.
• Station open Tues., Wed., Fri., Sat. from 8 am - 5:45 pm.
• Mr. Bradford says that customer service and consumer education is key.
• Transfer station is always kept clean, neat, and landscaped.
• Big, clear, signs with diagrams (examples) and/or digital images.
• The main building is 60’ x 110’.
• Equipment includes forklift, skid steer, 5 bailers, scale.
• Accept mixed paper, mixed glass/ceramics, mixed plastics (separated on site),
and mixed metals.
• No problems with road side dumping.
• 62% of Transfer Station users recycle.
• Employees include: 1 full time director, 2 full time employees, 1 part time
employee.
• They have a free goods area (the “Mini Mall”).
• The Mini Mall is 15’ x 30’ and completely volunteer run.
• The Mini Mall takes kitchen things, books, clothes, toys, etc.
• The Mini Mall does NOT take TV’s or furniture.
• EVERYONE gets a full tour of the facility when they pick up their sticker.
• Stickers are free. There are NO free dump days.
• Pay as you throw reduced property taxes by $60 per household on average.
• Construction and demolition waste is 9¢ per pound disposal fee.
• They have set fees for appliances, TV’s, furniture, etc.
• Tires are FREE because the town charges $2.00 per tire per vehicle when
registering the customer’s car every year.
• Waste oil is FREE. They have an on site waste oil furnace and have customers
who come to pick up waste oil.
• The Transfer Station employees are authorized by the town to hand out
citations ($100) to those sticker holder who are purposefully violating the
town’s solid waste guidelines (trying to sneak in black “no pay” bags, mixing of
unlike recyclables, etc.) since each sticker holder signs an agreement.
Sanbornton, NH
2668 residents
Using a pay as you throw systems since 1995.
Mary O’Neil, Transfer Station Manager
603-934-7173
dumplady1@yahoo.com
• 20 gallon bag costs $1.00.
• 33 gallon bag costs $1.25.
• Bags are available through local merchants (Hannafords).
• In fiscal year 2003, Sanbornton’s total solid waste cost (including equipment,
salaries, insurance, etc.) was $168, 700. The Transfer
station brought in $98,252 in fees ($68,188 bag sales, $24,593 disposal fees,
$11,470 recycling), a difference of $70, 448. The cost to the town was 42% of
the total waste cost.
• The actual cost for trash (tipping and trucking) is covered by the per bag
fee.
• There is a free items area, very heavily used.
• Mary has seen a family of 4 have only 1 33 gallon bag of trash per month and
recycle the rest. That’s a cost of $15 PER YEAR for trash disposal.
• Bailing recycling saves a lot of money (tighter packing and efficient
shipping).
• Less road side dumping since going to pay as you throw.
• 2 full time employees, 1 part time, fuel, maintenance, educational program
(schools), phone, all costs included in the town line item
total of $168, 700.
• Free brush and
leaf dumping. Everything is either reused or burned.
• Building is 40’ x 60, but could/should be 40’ x 100’ with full shower.
• Have backhoe, bailers.