Shaftsbury Solid Waste Committee
Minutes, September 6, 2005
Cole Hall, 7:30 p.m.
Present: Bill Pennebaker, Trevor Mance, Karen Mellinger, Forrest Snyder, Michael Biddy
Bill called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. He noted that the committee meeting of August 16th was not held due to a conflict of interest workshop. Although rescheduled to August 30th, that meeting was cancelled due to an anticipated lack of a quorum.
The minutes of August 2, 2005 were then approved.
“White Paper”: Bill had prepared and presented a draft for the committee’s review. He noted that the recycling piece needs to be added. The goal is to have a final draft ready for presentation to the Select Board in early October.
Bill noted that perhaps we should attempt to “price out” the alternatives. His opinion is that the option of Shaftsbury running its own full transfer station, such as Pownal’s, is not realistic. Forrest felt that it is important to present all options, even if some seemed to be “pie in the sky”.
Forrest asked what the future was regarding the present mobile transfer operation. Will the State allow us to continue to run it as we do now? Trevor advised that the State limitation is that we cannot handle more than 10 ton in a day. Shaftsbury has never breached that amount – the highest has been about 7 ½ ton.
In comparing costs of running a stationary transfer station versus a mobile transfer station the following costs were noted: Approximately $120,000 for a 14 yard packer truck; perhaps as much as $200,000 for the building itself (Trevor indicated this is what Pownal’s cost); labor would be somewhat comparable (2-3 people), although potentially a little more at an actual transfer station; insurance costs would be comparable. (These estimates were provided by Trevor Mance)
Bill noted that the costs of a truck would be lessened because its use would be shared (i.e., it would not be used 100 percent for transfer station activity). Its use could, perhaps, be subcontracted out (sharing costs with Pownal, for example).
It was noted that there would be few capital costs incurred with continuing as a mobile transfer station. The burden of state regulation is not the same – no transfer tax, no excise tax. We would have to pay these if we had our own packer truck. The permit process is the same for municipal operations as for private.
Forrest queried whether one was inherently more dangerous than another? What are the consequences for the public of a mobile transfer station? Downfalls? Obvious issues: Equipment needs – one truck might not be enough in the event of a breakdown. We sold our equipment to TAM and would need to buy baler, etc. Another issue would be if we exceeded the 10 ton daily limit. Trevor noted that it would be difficult for the Town to justify owning a packer truck. The problem with sharing one with Pownal is the conflict regarding who uses it when.
Pay as You Throw: A modified system was discussed that would include giving a set number of free stickers to Shaftsbury residents. Trevor noted a problem could arise with renters versus the property owner. What if people give their stickers away to out of town residents? A uniform charge per bag of $1 or $2 was discussed, with the acknowledgement that the Town would have to subsidize the remaining costs. The cost per bag, Trevor advised, would be too high if you attempted to cover all costs. It was noted that mandatory recycling would have to be a rule.
Forrest suggested the committee organize the various options based on cost, as the upfront costs represent the greatest difference between the mobile versus permanent transfer station.
The group discussed the political hurdles that would be faced even with a partial PAYT system. Forrest suggested that each year the cost per bag could slowly increase. Michael noted that a strong argument in support of a PAYT system was that people would consume less or recycle more to keep their own costs of disposal lower.
Members agreed to further study and expand upon the draft white paper prior to the next committee meeting.
Conflict of Interest: In view of the Town’s recent attention to reviewing its conflict of interest policies, Trevor noted that he does have a conflict of interest as a committee member. In discussing it, the rest of the committee noted that Trevor’s background knowledge is very helpful to the committee deliberations and the conflict of interest has not presented a problem in his committee work to date.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:40 p.m. The next meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m. in Cole Hall on Tuesday, September 20, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Mellinger