U.S. Job Losses Continue to Rise at Record Levels

The numbers of Americans without jobs has risen to more than 6 million and is reported to be the highest number on record since the government started keeping tracking unemployment in 1967. The U.S. Labor Department (as reported in the Boston Globe) reported that "... 4.78 million Americans claimed unemployment insurance for the week ended Jan. 17" and that when added to the "...1.7 million people receiving benefits under an extended unemployment compensation program authorized by Congress last summer" equates to nearly 6.5 million Americans without jobs.

The Globe article also reported that the "Commerce Department said new-home sales fell 14.7 percent in December to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 331,000, the lowest pace on records dating back to 1963. For 2008, builders sold 482,000 homes, the weakest results since 1982".

CNN Money.Com is reporting that "The steep annual drop in jobs marked the highest yearly job-loss total since 1945, the year in which World War II ended". The report goes on to state that "Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute" predicts that the current unemployment rate of 7.2% could exceed 10%.

In tandem with the escalating job losses is the increasing number of "under employed" Americans. The CNN Money.Com article reports that "A growing number of workers seeking full-time jobs were able to find only part-time work. Those working part-time jobs - because they couldn't find full-time work, or their hours had been cut - jumped by 715,000 people to 8 million, the highest since such records were first kept in 1955".

These are clearly times in which we must engage in the practice of restraint, review, and reason as it relates to our overall approach to the financial management of our town. Our elected and appointed leadership must clearly understand the challenges we face both nationally and locally, if they are to make sound decisions about the future of our community. The decisions made by our local leaders over the next 3 years, will have a profound impact on our community for the next 15 - 20 years. Those decisions cannot be made in a vacuum.
Read more!

The Challenges Ahead

Yesterday - January 26, 2009 - I made a decision to initiate the process of a candidacy for the office of Selectman in Sturbridge. I am driven by my concerns about the multitude of significant issues facing Sturbridge now and over the next three years, coupled with the present lack of substantive dialogue.

It's no secret, that nationally we face the most significant economic crisis since the great depression. On the same day I decided to initiate this process, 75,000 American jobs were lost (I assure you that I bear no responsibility for that) and predictions indicate a 9% unemployment rate by year’s end. This is unprecedented in recent American history.

Bankruptcies are skyrocketing, home foreclosures are at record rates and the bottom has still not fallen out. In 2008 alone, foreclosure rates rose 81% and have increased 225% since 2006.

These national issues cannot be viewed in a vacuum as though they do not impact Sturbridge. Job loss, salary reductions, foreclosures and or stressed mortgages are happening to and affecting every aspect of life here in Sturbridge.

We are all well aware of threatened service reductions and possible job losses here locally and our financial prospectus will only deteriorate as national cuts lead to state aid reductions, ultimately leading to more economic strain here in Sturbridge.

The decisions and policies implemented by our elected officials over the next 3 years will have consequences - good or bad - for residents over the next 15 – 20 years. It is imperative that those decisions be based upon pragmatic, deliberate, and comprehensive evaluation in order to best navigate the challenges ahead. We need to scrutinize every expenditure to ensure that our approach is in the best long-term financial interests of the town, while rigorously protecting and improving those vital services we deliver.

Town Hall/Center School Project

We have been considering a nearly $6 million dollar expenditure for the Town Hall and Center School - projects which I previously supported - while families lose their jobs and homes, and our community is faced with municipal service reductions and/or job cuts. Back in December when suggestions surfaced about reconsidering this project and reviewing it’s feasibility considering the current economic climate, there was initial skepticism expressed by appointed and elected officials about considering alternatives.

Recently however, in light of the growing concern among Sturbridge residents, we have learned of a possible alternative site now under consideration. This is certainly refreshing news as it demonstrates a deeper appreciation of the current economic climate, yet we should be cautious not to limit our options.

Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center

Our fiscal 2009 budget for our Recycling Center is $280,000 and we are now facing a $200,000 shortfall in our landfill cap fund, which will be needed this year in order to close cell #2. Yet, there has been some reluctance to undertake a study of our current landfill practices, which might provide insight and direction about a more financially viable approach.

As part of our financial review of the recycling center, we should also embark upon a course of proactive education in terms of energy and resource conservation. With reduced revenues and ever fluctuating energy prices, the importance of maximizing our energy efficiency while decreasing overall goods and energy consumption will become an important tool locally.

We need to consider these and all expenditures in much broader scheme, while applying greater scrutiny to the manner in which we spend taxpayer money.

Senior Services

Reductions at the regional level, have reduced elder bus schedules to the point to where many seniors are now forced to spend an entire day out of town at a doctor’s office. These individuals are forced to pack a day’s worth of supplies such as snacks, lunches, diabetic medications, etc., as we focus our attention on what may appear to some as non-essential expenditures. This past year has been instrumental in highlighting a range of issues our seniors struggle in silence with.
We must become more engaged in policy discussions with our seniors and more proactive in our approach to addressing their concerns.

Burgess School

Children and teachers at the Burgess School find themselves in less than “ideal” conditions that will only continue to deteriorate. Our educational system in one of the many highlights within our community and is recognized by all of us for its excellence. We must endeavor to identify resources with which to facilitate the construction of a facility that is more conducive to our children’s needs. Our children are our future and an investment in them and their needs, produces long-term benefits within our community and our region.

Financial Practices/Philosophies

In the 2009 Finance Committee Report, issued in April of 2008, the FinCom identified the need to “…search for additional revenue streams to meet our goals rather than spending our reserves or cutting back on services”. Publicly at least, there has been little comprehensive discussion or dialogue about any additional revenue streams being pursued, in order to help “…meet our goals”. Certainly, there may well be efforts underway to identify such, which should include grants as well and this would be welcomed news. If such is the case, then it is vital to educate, update, and include residents in that process.

The FinCom report also indicated that for the “…third year in a row…we come to Town Meeting unable to pay for our operational expenses without dipping into our reserves” and that “taking free cash to pay for operating expenses equates to our living beyond our means”.

This practice – though somewhat palatable for some as a short-term solution – will become ever more dangerous and detrimental to our economic well-being were it to continue. It is imperative that we actively embark upon a path of fiscal restraint, long-term planning, and revenue generation if we are to ensure the delivery of essential services while protecting our viability as a community.

Certainly, there are many dangers in the failure to implement a more fiscally pragmatic approach, not the least of which is the temptation to grasp onto any form of development as a means of increasing our tax base. Attracting and encouraging development will be an important instrument of our recovery, but it needs to be calculated in terms of the long-term benefit and/or detriment to the community.

Master Plan

We need to engage in broader discussions about the future of our community and the manner in which we approach growth. A new Master Plan will be critical in determining the direction of our journey as we move forward. Without such, there is no blueprint nor guidance with which to guide our decision making. If we are to properly position ourselves for economic resurgence, a commitment to an updated Master Plan must be made.

Comprehensive Policy Discussions

To that end we should take a more proactive and substantive approach towards engaging the Planning Board, Board of Health, EDC, Recreation, Trail, and Open Space committees, among others, in policy discussions and determinations. This will ensure that all matters concerning future growth are properly evaluated and vetted.

Vital to the future direction of Sturbridge, will be the input and guidance necessary from an engaged and proactive Board of Health. Determinations about sewer service areas and future needs for sewer and water access, should be based not upon politically ideologies, but upon engineering, health, and environmental concerns. When one considers the importance of our lakes and streams and their proximity to significant numbers of septic systems, one need be concerned about the dangers faced from failed systems. Equally so, the Board of Health has a broad range of responsibilities and challenges that need to be better integrated into our policy development. We need to actively solicit their engagement on a wide range of challenges facing our community.

As well, we must weigh heavily the counsel we receive from our Department of Public Works, recognizing the responsibility they are tasked with in physically managing our water, sewer, and other infrastructure systems. This however, does not alleviate the need for cost vs. benefit overviews of all expenditures.

Casino Gambling

We should recognize as well, that as the economy continues to deteriorate, there may be increased pressures to authorize casino gambling at the state level as an additional revenue stream. This will require a great deal of effort and focus by local municipalities who may be impacted in a manner inconsistent with the general wishes of residents. Sturbridge has previously indicated its opposition to, and concerns with what many agree to be the detrimental impact a nearby casino could have upon our community. Careful scrutiny by appointed and elected policy-makers in conjunction with exhaustive efforts among surrounding communities and state leaders, will be necessary in protecting and preserving the quality of life in Sturbridge.

The challenges we face both known and unknown, will require a strong proactive and pragmatic approach by our elected and appointed officials if we are to ensure the future prosperity of Sturbridge. It will require the willingness for us to take inventory of our approach in all manner of governance. It will require the need to recognize and understand the national trickle down effect in terms of economics and policy decisions, as we engage local issues.

Regardless of any final decision arrived at in terms of the submission deadline for any candidate’s nomination papers, it is critical that we engage in the practice of restraint, review, and reason as it relates to our overall approach to the financial management of our town. As taxpayers, we should recognize the need to more closely scrutinize our entire budge in terms of the larger picture.

It is my sincere hope that at the very least, the initiation of my candidacy will lay the groundwork for the necessary dialogue by others who may be inclined to seek to represent you as your selectmen.
Read more!

Are We Minding the Shop?

Recently, I've had an opportunity to briefly review some of regulations regarding the management of landfills. This review is sparked by concern about the current financial management of the Sturbridge Recycling Center/Landfill. The materials reviewed thus far have been both enlightening and somewhat confusing, albeit, they do raise some questions in terms of the financial portfolio of the Sturbridge landfill.

Several weeks ago, this writer revisited the issue of a landfill “study committee” that the Finance Committee - through their annual reports - have suggested over the past several years. The FinCom's most recent report released 04-28-08, specifically noted (beginning on page viii) that such a committee should be tasked with the following:

1. Cost of on going operations and budget
2. Land Fill Cap Fund
3. Fee generation
4. Cost Reductions
5. Town trash /recycling initiatives
6. Hauler recycling alternatives
7. Landfill closure
8. Future “Brownfield” options: After capping, some town’s landfills are recycled into community assets, using them for recreation areas.

Certainly, considering that Sturbridge provides its residents access to the recycling center and landfill at no cost, and that operating such is not an inexpensive proposition, a study makes perfect sense. Additionally, when one considers that 2500 stickers were issued last year (Board of Health estimate), which equates to approximately 1/4 of our population (and bear in mind these are individual vehicle stickers, not households) one would be hard pressed to argue against such a study.

Beyond the immediate benefits of such a study, as it relates to the who, what, when, and why’s of recycling center usage, which would help quantify our return on investment, such a study would enable us to financially plan and prepare for the expenditure of funds necessary for closing and maintaining the landfill.

Case in point. It was indicated at the most recent selectmen’s meeting, that it will cost the Town of Sturbridge $500,000 to “cap” or close cell number 2 at the landfill this year. However, it was also indicated that the available funds generated from the monies made on recycling over the past 10 -15 years have just now reached $300,000. This leaves us with a $200,000 shortfall that must be offset in order to properly close cell # 2.

With recycling revenues dramatically down worldwide, one can surmise that even with a turn-around over the next decade, we will still have a rather large financial gap to address when it comes time to close cell # 3, while simultaneously implementing the process of maintaining a “capped” landfill. Neither will come cheaply.

This specifically, is and should be cause for concern, as each of us has an obligation to ensure that we are not going to simply pass the buck on this to our children or our grandchildren. This specifically, is also an area of concern and confusion for this writer.

In reviewing the regulations, specifically 310 CMR 19.051, I was struck by the following paragraph:

19.051: Financial Assurance Requirements

(1) Applicability . The provisions of 310 CMR 19.051 apply to:

(a) landfills; and
(b) other facilities which the Department determines on a facility specific base should provide such financial assurance.

(2) Financial Responsibility for Closure, Post-Closure and Corrective Action .

(a) The owner or operator of a facility identified in 310 CMR 19.051(1) shall establish or obtain, and continuously maintain, financial assurance that is adequate to assure the Department that the owner or operator is at all times financially capable of complying with the provisions of 310CMR 19.000 governing the closure of the facility and its post-closure maintenance.

Now, to be sure, municipalities are often not held to the same standard as private entities, this perhaps due to the many options available to them for fund generation such as taxes, fees, bonds, etc. However, sitting idly by and allowing costs to increase while simultaneously witnessing revenues decrease, is a dangerous and foolhardy approach to government.

As well, this resident would like to at least be provided with some guidance and/or informative answers from our appointed and elected officials as to the following:

a) Are we required to be in compliance with 310 CMR 19.000?
b) If not, should we at least not use it as a guide or model for managing our own landfill?
c) If we are required to be in compliance, then what are we doing to ensure that we meet the regulations and become compliant?

This country is facing an economic crisis that most of us have not previously witnessed and we have an obligation to ensure that every dollar belonging to us that is spent by government, is done so in the most effective and efficient manner possible. To that end, we must remember that there is no level of government that provides us greater control over our money, than exists at the local level.

Each of us has a duty to closely scrutinize the use of our local tax dollars (which includes any fees we pay) to ensure that our money is being utilized in our best interests. We must be willing to question the manner in which our money is spent and to challenge policies and practices that seem inconsistent with the general welfare of all.

We hear talk of local state aid cuts, service reductions, and the possibility of job cuts here in Sturbridge, yet initially, there was great reluctance from our appointed and elected leaders to the suggestion of reviewing alternatives to the Town Hall/Center School project, or to even consider modifications to current practices at our landfill/recycling center.

Now, we learn of a possible $200,000 shortfall in capping a portion of our landfill, coupled with a nearly $2 million increase in the Town Hall project, along with threats of service and/or job cuts and there appears to be no sense of urgency in discussing and developing some long range approaches to better manage our affairs.

Make no mistake about it, this is not a responsibility that rests solely with the Town Administrator; it rests with every member of the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Health, the Finance Committee, and as well with each and every one of us who live in Sturbridge. We need to engage these issues, entertain open dialogue, and collectively and creatively find appropriate solutions. We cannot sit idly by while the economy continues to deteriorate.
Read more!

Shop Locally, Dine Locally, & Leisure Locally

There is an encouraging story in today’s Telegram about the 8 per cent increase in attendance at Old Sturbridge Village. When one considers the immediate decline in nationwide tourism and travel resulting from the events of 9-11 (which lingered for years by the way), coupled now with a disastrous economy, it is remarkable that OSV has seen a slight reversal of the national trends. No doubt, much of that has to do with OSV president and CEO – Jim Donahue – who since his arrival just 18 months ago, has implemented a wide range of program and management modifications that have reaped significant rewards.

We are very fortunate to have OSV situated in the midst of our community. It is, and has been recognized by nearly all residents, as perhaps the most integral and important component of our community. One need only consider the many instances wherein residents have identified the importance of maintaining our unique character as a tourist destination and the significance that OSV plays in such. In fact, 92% of the residents polled in the 2004 Dialogue for the Future indicated their belief that OSV “played an important role” within the community.

Clearly, a significant aspect of our community identity and our attraction as a tourist destination are fundamentally grounded in the character and prominence of OSV. One could very well argue that the very existence and presence of OSV among us, has given this community its distinctiveness, and we should be grateful for such.

My wife and I have lived here just over 5 years and have maintained a paid family membership at "The Village" since relocating here. We do so, to demonstrate tangible support and gratitude for the added-value that OSV brings to our community and to our lives. We consider it an investment in the town's culture. Similarly, recognizing the added-value of open space, we have always done the same with Opacum Land Trust, by means of annual donations and PAWS memberships for our dogs.

Regular trips to the OSV gift shop (to secure unique fabrics or “artifacts”), a visit to the OSV book store for something different to read, or an occasional lunch at the Tavern are other things we do to demonstrate our support for the Village

Continuing that theme, our support extends to the ongoing patronage of local businesses, both large and small. If we can purchase the needed or desired items in Sturbridge, then that’s where we purchase them. Our appliances (washer, dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, stove) as well as our gas grill, snow-thrower, lawnmower, tractor, weed-whacker, rototiller, etc., all have the Penny’s Appliance’s sticker on them.

Curtains, table items, lotions, and unique gifts are purchased at Susan’s Secret Garden. Country curtains carries a wide array of items one might not find at Susan’s and is a beautiful place to visit. Sure, it’s a chain, but so is Wal-Mart, Shaw’s, Stop & Shop, etc., and they all provide goods and services not found in other local establishments. Additionally, by virtue of their geographic location – within Sturbridge – they are part of our local economy, with a significant portion of customer expenditures in these “local” chains being reinvested back into the community via jobs, wages, benefits, etc.

Local jewelers and gift shops carry an amazing inventory of specialty items that accentuate the unique offerings of our community. So too, do our local restaurants, coffee houses, boutiques, and shops. The list goes on and on.

The point is, that supporting our local businesses and attractions requires tangible actions, and in some cases sacrifices on our behalf if they are to survive and thrive. Demonstrating support with accolades and words is nice, but it doesn’t pay the bills, feed families, or keep the tax man at bay.

If our local businesses are to prosper, then we must make every effort to shop, dine, and leisure locally. In some cases one might, (and I stress might, as most often it is not the case) pay just a tad bit more for an item, but the service one will receive in most cases from a local merchant (i.e. customer service, repair work, exchanges etc.) will far exceed what one might be privy to elsewhere.

Local establishments and business need our continued financial support – in addition to our kind words - if they are to continue to provide the “character” we so often speak of. We are all very fortunate to live in such a beautiful community and though we are struggling like many others, we do have the power to have an impact by making every effort to financially support our local businesses.

Oh, and by the way, OSV is a business and as such, that business depends upon paid patronage just like any other business. Sure OSV is “…a free option…” for Sturbridge residents, but that needn’t dissuade any of us from making a “contribution” via membership to this wonderful living museum. Membership is a great bargain and it helps to demonstrate our support and gratitude for this tribute to our community.

An individual membership for one year is $50.00. A one-year family membership is $80.00 and both carry some great benefits.

Let’s make 2009, a year that is all about dining locally, shopping locally, and participating in leisure and recreation - locally.

And here is the rest of it.
Read more!

Rethinking the Financial Management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center

Recently, (see Speaking of the Landfill) this writer raised the issue of the Finance Committee’s Fiscal 2008 and 2009 reports which recommended that the “…BOS direct the Town Administrator to appoint a study committee to review and make recommendations in regards to all landfill and recycling operations.”

The objective of that study committee would include the following:

• Cost of on going operations and budget
• Land Fill Cap Fund
• Fee generation
• Cost Reductions
• Town trash /recycling initiatives
• Hauler recycling alternatives
• Landfill closure
• Future “Brownfield” options: After capping, some town’s landfills are recycled into community assets, using them for recreation areas.

The purpose of such a study is perhaps grounded in the following taken directly from the FinCom 2009 Report: “Since 2004, total operating cost for the landfill/recycling station has gone up 44%. The proposed FY 2009 budget for the landfill/recycling center request is for an increase of 6% to $280,589.00.Revenue is generated by the landfill/recycling center, but it is not used to offset the increasing cost of running the center”.

Each year the recycling center is costing us more to operate and though we do generate some revenue from recycling, that revenue is used for the “Cap Fund”. Additionally, said revenue is down due to the flattening worldwide economic market for recyclable goods.

When one studies the approach taken by our community with regard to the Recycling Center, one is quick to recognize that we are one of the few communities that have no fee associated with general use of the facility. There is no sticker fee; there is no bag fee for disposal of household garbage. The only time one must pay a fee is when depositing certain bulk or controlled items.

I use the Recycling Center regularly for my papers, plastic, cardboard, etc., as well as for deposit of items in the Take It or Leave It shack. I also have my garbage picked up so that my trash is less of a burden on our landfill. Thus, I approach the issue of user fees or at least the study of, as an individual who would be affected by such.

During a very brief discussion during the most recent selectmen’s meeting (Monday -1/05/07 – audio tape in right sidebar), the issue of “illegal dumping” was raised as an impediment to user fees. Specifically it was stated, that previous Board’s of Health have expressed concern that a pay as you throw approach (paying per bag or a sticker fee), would result in a significant increase in “illegal dumping”.

I am completely unaware of, nor could I find any data or science to support this anecdotal and unsubstantiated argument, if in fact it was offered. Quite to the contrary, I was able - with very little effort - to find hard data and science that completely rebukes this argument.

In a DEP spreadsheet (available on their website http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/paytfact.htm) listing the 124 communities in Massachusetts that utilize Pay as You Throw or PayT, and or recycling/landfill/transfer fees, only 13 communities identified “illegal dumping” as a concern. Three others reported “little” dumping and one reported an increase in trash deposited illegally in dumpsters, but none on public or private ways.

Thus, it appears that we have based an entire argument against studying the merits of fee based stickers to offset operating costs or increase revenues upon a position that is completely inaccurate. In fact, we have situations with illegal dumping here in Sturbridge now and our service is completely free.

Last year, items found by this writer on the unpaved part of Leadmine Road were reported to local authorities who investigated, identified, and took action against the individuals responsible for dumping those materials. Additionally, abandoned vehicles on town owned open space were reported and appropriately addressed by local authorities. Drive down Main Street or any of a multitude of other streets and one will find scientific evidence of illegal dumping commonly referred to as litter.

To be clear, I am not advocating in support of or against fees, I am merely advocating that something which has been repeatedly raised as worthy of study has not received the attention it merits. In light of the economic strain we now face as well as the long range issues with capping and monitoring our landfill, it surely should be studied.

We spent weeks - in fact months - discussing the merits or lack thereof in terms of widening a road in town. We fast-tracked a plastic bag ban to Town Meeting with no appropriate pre-educational process to solicit buy in from residents or the business community, and did so without any appropriate study at the policy level.

We have extensively discussed the landfill expansion in Southbridge and have devoted time and resources to addressing that issue. These discussions were ultimately fruitful as they generated public participation, an important an integral component of democracy. Yet we have engaged in no comprehensive public debate, study, or education relative to the benefits or lack thereof regarding our financial management of the landfill.

If our current system in terms of the financial management of the Recycling Center is strong and full of merit, then a careful review of other options would only strengthen that position. One should not fear exposing a long held belief to scrutiny, if in fact it is based upon fact or science.

From an environmental standpoint, nearly all, if not all studies (as I haven’t read every study) indicate that communities implementing PayT or sticker fees have seen an increase in recycling. One has to be confused by the reluctance or hesitation in “studying” alternatives (again no one is suggesting changes, simply study) considering the position of government officials on other “Green” initiatives.

Should we not embrace such a study? Does it not provide the opportunity to put our current system to the test? Does it not allow us an opportunity for options? Does it not provide an opportunity for a community-wide green effort?

Consider this as well, the City of Worcester which (is significantly different in terms of socio-economics and types of housing – single family homes, multi-family structures, elderly housing complexes, rooming houses, and low income housing projects (of which I am a proud product of), has a significantly higher per capita rate of recycling in terms of tonnage from residents than do we in Sturbridge. The DEP website reports that Worcester recycles over 116 lbs. per person. Sturbridge, just over 94 lbs. per person. According to the DEP list, Sturbridge falls short of the 100 lb per capita recycling goal.

I certainly recognize that these figures could all be in error, but if so, then perhaps DEP needs to be brought up to date.

By the way, Worcester also reports no issues with illegal dumping as a result of their transition to PayT.

It is estimated by our Health Department, that last year we issued 2500 recycling stickers. To my knowledge there is no data which quantifies the what, where, when, why, and how as it relates to the usage by household or by sticker, in terms of recycling or trash disposal at our landfill. How are we to make sound business decisions about the cost effective management of a business operation by the town, when we are unable to quantify how we actually use the recycling center.

We dismiss a study of landfill/recycling operations based - in part - upon anecdotal fears of “illegal dumping” and stop there, yet we expend countless hours on discussions about issues of significantly less financial impact upon the community.

Let us not base our reluctance to study this matter due to fear of a possible $5, $10, or $15 recycling sticker fee. Let us instead challenge ourselves to ensure that we are getting the very best financial return on investment from our landfill/recycling center.
Read more!

Speaking of the Landfill

As we close out the 2008 calendar year, one is struck by what appears to be an absence of in-depth discussion, relative to issues raised in the Fiscal 2009 Finance Committee (FinCom) report concerning the landfill.

In FinCom’s Fiscal 2009 report (released in April of 2008), as well as in their Fiscal 2008 report (released in April of 2007), several issues were raised relative to the operation, maintenance, and capping of the landfill, which seem to be void of any significant discussion over the last 21 months, or at least any record of such.

To be sure, we’ve had discussions relative to manufacturer take-back of electronics, we’ve entertained in-depth discussions about the Southbridge Landfill expansion, and we’ve briefly discussed the merits of “zero waste”. Clearly, these are topics worthy of consideration by residents and even the Board of Health, as it relates to the health and safety of Sturbridge residents, as their role is significant in this arena. (The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below).

However, with the passage of nearly two years since the fiscal 2008 FinCom report, there appears to have been little discussion if any (or at least one can find no record of such) relative to issues we face with our own landfill. In April of 2007 the Finance Committee report stated the following:

“Fees generated from using the Recycling Center are accumulated in a fund whose purpose is to cap off the landfill when it reaches its capacity. Several years have passed since a cost-benefit analysis has been performed to determine the feasibility of continuing the operations as they currently exist or look for alternatives which may be more cost effective.”

The FinCom went on to recommend that “… a study committee be formed to look into alternatives to the current model which may include, for example, contracting with a private waste disposal company to pickup trash and recyclables at each resident’s
Home”.

The report went on to state that “We realize there may be some benefits to keeping the recycling center open which may be difficult to quantify. A survey of Townspeople should be part of the process posing such questions as:

• Do you recycle?
• If no, would you be more likely to recycle if the town could negotiate discounted curbside pickup of both your trash and recycling?
• If you already recycle, do you use the Town’s Recycling Center or do you hire a private hauler?
• If you use the town’s recycling center, do you also hire a private hauler for your trash?
• If you use the recycling center and also hire a private hauler for your trash, would you be interested in a town-negotiated contract with one private hauler to pick up both your trash and recycling curbside if the cost was less than what you pay now for trash pick up?”

As of this date, one can find no record of any such “study committee” or “survey” having been commissioned.

In the fiscal 2009 FinCom Report, the issue of landfill “Cap” funds were raised again as was the necessity of establishing a study committee. The report offered the following:

“Since 2004, total operating cost for the landfill/recycling station has gone up 44%. The proposed FY 2009 budget for the landfill/recycling center request is for an increase of 6% to $280,589.00. Revenue is generated by the landfill/recycling center, but it is not used to offset the increasing cost of running the center.

The fees generated from using the recycling center accumulate in a fund whose purpose is to cap off the landfill when it reaches its capacity. At the conclusion of FY07, the fund balance was $237,569.

This reflects a growth rate of 23% in FY06 and 17% for FY2007. The growth for FY08 is projected to be 12%. If the funds rate of growth continues at the projected 12% rate each year, the total fund value would stand at approximately $667,066 by the year 2016, when the landfill is projected to reach capacity.

Closing a landfill can cost between $80,000 and $500,000 per acre. The actual cost depends largely on the local availability of materials used to construct the cap, the topography, the ease of installation at a particular site, the design and there are other factors. In comparison, the town of Leominster paid 7 million for 25 acres at a cost of $280,000 per acre. The Town of Wayland has estimated $350,000 per acre to close their landfill in 2013. The good news is the Sturbridge Landfill is 3.5 acres and 2 acres are partially capped.

While a number of assumptions are made on these projections and costs, it is apparent that a significant shortfall could be faced when the Town of Sturbridge is faced with the cost of capping, and on going monitoring of the landfill site in eight years.”

The FinCom’s report goes on to suggest consideration of “upfront fees” or “pay as you throw” approaches used by other towns in the Commonwealth stating that “…Even if Sturbridge initiates a minimal $2 per bag and a $15 sticker fee, it will increase the funds going in to the Capping Fund helping to offset a significant fiscal problem later. We can either pay a little now, as we go, or pay a lot later.”

Again, the FinCom concluded its report with a call for “…the BOS [to] direct the Town Administrator to appoint a study committee to review and make recommendations in regards to all landfill and recycling operations. The group’s charter should address as a minimum the following issues:

- Cost of on going operations and budget
• Land Fill Cap Fund
• Fee generation
• Cost Reductions
• Town trash /recycling initiatives
• Hauler recycling alternatives
• Landfill closure
• Future “Brownfield” options: After capping, some town’s landfills are recycled into community assets, using them for recreation areas.”

Clearly, in-depth discussions about the landfill expansion in Southbridge have been essential in order to ensure that the appropriate measures are in place to protect Sturbridge residents and that federal and state regulations are adhered to. Those discussions have provided an opportunity for residents to voice concerns and to gain insights. They have also been fruitful in creating awareness about environmental issues. Such awareness can only benefit all of us.

There are however, issues with our own landfill that have yet to be discussed or addressed – beyond the FinCom - with any significant merit, or so it appears based upon the inability to substantiate such. Nearly two full years have passed and one can find no record of any discernable action being taken relative to the FinCom concerns or recommendations regarding our Landfill/Recycling/Transfer Station. Thus, the question is: When will that discussion take place or has it already?

Alternately, if in fact this issue has been addressed and not properly reflected in the BOS minutes, then my question stands amended as follows: What has been the outcome of these discussions and what action has been taken?
Read more!