Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center - Point 4 of My 7-Point Plan

4) Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center

The Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center has been identified as an asset by our current leadership; few would argue to the contrary. In fact, Sturbridge was once a leading statewide innovator in its approach to recycling when it first developed and implemented the recycling center. Sadly, with the passage of time, we have become a spectator, watching numerous communities take the lead on recycling and green initiatives.

There are perhaps many reasons for decline in our once prominent position, but some may well be related to the manner in which we conduct the financial management of this valued asset.

Currently, the Town Administrator indicates that we have a $200,000 shortfall in our landfill cap/closure fund, which must be addressed this year in order to close cell #2. To that end, Article 34 of the upcoming Annual Town Meeting Warrant requests a debt issuance of $200,000 specifically earmarked to tackle that shortage.

Our FY 2009 operating budget for the landfill/recycling center is a little more than 280,000, which when added to the cap shortage amounts to a nearly ½ million dollar budget for the year. This is a somewhat disproportionate figure when one realizes that less than ¼ of our population utilizes the landfill/recycling center. Last year the Health Department issued 2500 stickers to Sturbridge residents. Bear in mind that these are not households, but rather individual stickers and that some households – mine for example – have multiple stickers due to ownership of multiple vehicles.

In April of 2007 and 2008 – concerned about the return on investment from the landfill/recycling center - the Finance Committee recommended the implementation of a study to review landfill and recycling operations. The purpose of the requested study is to:

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 landfills are recycled into community assets, using them for recreation areas.

One can certainly argue that such a study is warranted considering that recycling center operating costs have increased 44% since 2004. The FY 2009 budget for the recycling center reflected a 6% increase over 2008 and the numbers for FY 2010 are pending. Though the recycling center does generate some revenue (via recycling of some goods) the flattening worldwide market has resulted in significantly reduced revenues. Even in the best of financial times the revenue generated is less than substantial and must be dedicated to landfill closure, not center operations.
Sturbridge is one of the few communities that does not charge for general use of the facility. There are no sticker fees, nor bag fees for disposal of household garbage. Fees are only imposed when depositing certain bulk or controlled items.

When one considers that the vast majority of households pay between $285 - $400 annually for contracted trash services, the imbalance of taxpayer costs associated with maintaining the current financial practices at the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center become more pronounced. The tax burden on residents increases each year – even if only modestly at times – while many are seeing their discretionary income dwindling annually. This further exacerbates a widening gap for many in terms of income vs. expenses. I believe, as does the Finance Committee based upon their repeated requests for the study, that we have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that our return on investment is consistent with taxpayer expectations and if not, to take corrective actions.


Within the first month of my tenure (if not acted upon sooner based upon my ongoing inquiries) I will work with other members of the Board of Selectmen to request that (per the recommendation of the Finance Committee), a comprehensive study of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center be undertaken in order to effectively evaluate/identify the costs vs. the benefits associated with our current financial management of that center.

Green Initiatives: There is no doubt that energy conservation is a key component of overall cost management and environmental protection. Implementing a strong locally focused “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Recover” program can have a significant impact in creating a greener and more sustainable environment while simultaneously producing financial benefits to the community if undertaken as a comprehensive approach.

A community wide approach to “Green Initiative” implementation can produce significant savings in energy costs - both residential and municipal - while providing significant benefit to our local environment. For example, it is estimated that recycling one aluminum can saves the energy that it takes to power a television for three hours. Certainly, this has little to no immediate impact upon an individual’s energy costs, but in terms of the bigger picture, it translates to resource sustainability in a more global view.

Over the past two years we have talked at length about the merits of a more pro-active approach towards eco-tourism and developing it as one component of our overall economic vision. We have done little, however, in terms of increasing our green approach to promoting our community.

The director of the Chamber of Commerce has indicated at several public meetings that a strong component of any eco-tourist program is the implementation of green initiatives within the community as part of an overall marketing approach. There is very little cost associated with implementing such a program and the return on investment in terms of education, energy conservation, and environmental sustainability make it a plus – plus for the community.

Additionally, based upon recommendations I’ve received from a member of our Board of Health, I will work with other members of the Board of Selectmen, the Health Department, the EDC, and the Chamber of Commerce to study the feasibility of hosting a “Green Fair” much like Harvest Fest, whereby organizations and groups from throughout the State would be invited to demonstrate and showcase green resources and approaches. This would help establish a “day of destination” for folks throughout the region as well as provide a day or weekend of economic stimulant to the area by involving area hotels, restaurants, and shops.

Within the first six months of my tenure, I will work with the Board to schedule a work session presentation on green alternatives that can be implemented at the local level. Utilizing local resources - perhaps representatives from local activist groups - we can begin the educational process of dialogue and program availability, as well as researching appropriate initiatives that can be implemented community-wide at the local level.