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...

Summary only...

The Challenges Ahead

It's no secret, that nationally we face the most significant economic crisis since the great depression. Just yesterday, 75,000 American jobs were lost and predictions have suggested 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 remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

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 a possible candidacy by myself will lay the groundwork for the necessary dialogue by others who may be inclined to run for office.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

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.

Strangely enough, it is not lost on this writer, that appointed and elected officials of this community, along with former unsuccessful candidates for elective office, have exhausted an enormous amount of time and energy addressing landfill issues in a neighboring community, while turning a blind eye to our own landfill. These individuals have utilized various public forums both in and out of Sturbridge - in some cases parading children around in masks chaperoned by a 12-foot inflatable rat - in an effort to stop the expansion of a landfill just north of the "compound".

Yet, they've done nothing substantive (in fact they’ve been conspicuously silent) in terms of addressing or improving landfill issues in Sturbridge. This is one of the many reasons it is difficult to view the efforts of some local residents in terms of the Southbridge landfill, to be anything other than self-serving and undertaken not on behalf of the greater good.

Sadly, the effort in Southbridge to prevent the landfill expansion – clearly a worthy cause and one that will benefit all due to the increased scrutiny manifested by it – became tainted, when the actions of some of its Sturbridge-based leaders began to betray their so-called "altruistic" reasons for involvement. As the agenda and true motivations of this new leadership became clear, many of the more pragmatic and reasonable members grew frustrated and disillusioned, subsequently abandoning the movement. Such was the case as well with the S.O.S. movement.

Where are the voices of these so-called "concerned" Sturbridge activists as we face a nearly $2 million dollar shortfall with the Town Hall project? One can be sure they'll be up in arms if a decision is made to scuttle the original building project. Where as well, are their concerns as it relates to the management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center? Where is their voice in terms of the need for a new elementary school? Where is their concern for the health and welfare of a teenage boy who suffered 3rd degree burns on 20% of his body?

Were we not inundated with nonsense from the Sturbridge-based leadership of the R.A.T.S. movement and forced to alter an engineered street upgrade because of hazard tree in front of one particular house on a remote road? Were we not forced to deal with the absurdity of a 1.0 Wastewater Treatment Facility, which wouldn’t even properly address our current needs, let alone those 20 years from now, by the Sturbridge-based R.A.T.S. leadership? And who could forget the fear-bating by these same individuals, which predicted the destruction of our world, had we allowed a slight modification to the zoning on Route 15 to accommodate a very, very, limited theme-based retail component?

I am all for activism and staunchly support the right of residents to challenge their government. Our Founding Fathers sacrificed every fiber of their being to grant us that privilege and millions of brave men and women in uniform have stepped forward to ensure that privilege is never lost. However, I firmly believe that true and sincere activism must be accompanied by principles, integrity, character, objectivity, and intellectual honesty; otherwise, it’s just self-serving and destructive. Though I digress.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shop Locally, Dine Locally, & Leisure Locally

There is a great 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. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Subject Few Want to Publicly Broach

Since last July when a teenager was seriously injured at an illegal fireworks display on Walker Pond, there has been an undercurrent of frustration that has yet to be publicly broached. That frustration stems from the fact that for the past several years, local lake associations have come forward requesting financial support from the town to help defray the cost of maintaining our lakes.

Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of maintenance involved in ensuring that our lakes retain their beauty and their viability, as invasive weeds can quickly overrun and destroy the aquatic value of a body of water for residents. Historically, the lakefront property owners have borne the brunt of the required maintenance costs through dues, fundraisers, and other efforts. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

Some argue that those who live on the lakes should be responsible for maintaining them, since they choose to locate there, and are by and large, the principle users of the lakes. Others would contend that the increased tax assessments on such properties provides little in terms of additional return on their tax dollar. There is clearly merit to such a position, particularly since the lakes are by and large public property with public access, though in some cases rather limited public access.

I view the lakes as an asset to the community and one that benefits residents and visitors alike and have thus previously supported the lake associations in their pursuit of maintenance funding. I have in fact publicly spoken to same at past selectmen's meetings. To be clear, I have no property on the lakes, do not utilize the lakes, and have no special personal interest in the lakes that has dictated my support for the lake associations. I do have friends and acquaintances who own lakefront property (as many of us do who live in a small community), yet, as previously stated, I have never utilized, nor even visited the properties of these individuals for any type of recreation.

To be redundant, let me again state that I view the lakes as an asset to the community and one worthy of our support when and where fiscally appropriate. My position on this issue is fundamentally grounded in the premise that our lakes, just like our roads, sidewalks, parks, open spaces, etc., - all of which are not used by every single resident, every single day, in every single corner of town - are still public assets that we have an obligation and a vested interest to maintain. Clearly, some are prioritized higher (roads for example) as they should be simply because they are one of the most utilized public assets we have.

Thus, it should be clear, that I am a supporter of providing financial assistance to the lake associations in order to help defray some of the costs of maintaining our public bodies of water. But I, like many others, have wrestled these past months with a nagging concern and one I am going to be rather frank about. How much money, if any, was provided to the Walker Pond Lake Association last year or the year before? If they did receive funds, one has to question the validity of such. It is clear based upon information that has surfaced despite the "lack of cooperation" from attendees at the illegal fireworks festivities, that a significant amount of money was raised to host a rather impressive pyrotechnics display.

If (and at this point it is only an if), any public funds were provided to the Walker Pond Lake Association because of an overriding need for weed maintenance, then how serious was their shortage of funds, when it is clear that a significant amount of fundraising was utilized for the illegal fireworks display?

If (and again it's a big if) public funds were provided, then perhaps a much closer look at the financial practices of at least one lake association organization needs to be conducted. These are concerns that have manifested within the quiet conversations of individuals and groups as we weigh the glaring "lack of cooperation" from some Walker Pond area residents, who now, may well be party to investigative obstruction.

Make no mistake about it, there are a multitude of incredibly wonderful and generous people who reside in the Walker Pond area. Sadly, these wonderful people are burdened with the albatross of a few cowards who are now hiding in the shadows and have turned their backs on their responsibility as adults, as parents, and as human beings. Were it their son or daughter who was so seriously injured, there is little doubt that they would be screaming for justice from on high.

Thus, despite the best intentions and justifications for public funding for lake weed management, there will be - when the time is appropriate - questions and concerns raised in terms of at least one lake association organization and its access to public funds. Clearly, the Walker Pond Lake Association, which is being dragged down by a few cowards, will be the subject of some scrutiny by those of us who view personal accountability as an integral component of our daily lives.

If they wish to be entitled to the financial support of the community, then perhaps they should demonstrate some character and courage within the community, by "stepping up". A great place to start would be the dismissal of all Walker Pond Lake Association officers and or representatives who were involved with coordinating this event. This should be followed by a public apology to the teenager and his family, expressing regret for the unfortunate and unintended accident. Next, would be an public apology to the residents of Sturbridge along with the Sturbridge Police Department for the glaring lapse of character and leadership demonstrated by those responsible for this incident.

Lastly, but by no means least, the new officers of the Walker Pond Association should publicly acknowledge to our children, the importance of maintaining character and integrity in our daily practices.

Now, there are those who may be prone to suggest that I am singling out one particular lake association group over all others. This is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, this is the only lake association that bears any responsibility for a fireworks display that resulted in 3rd degree burns to 20% of a teenagers body, and has since engaged in what some might call a "cover up" in terms of responsibility and accountability.

Read More...

Summary only...

Discussion on the Sturbridge Landfill

Last night, Chairman Steve Halterman raised the issue of initiating some dialogue with the Board of Health and the general public regarding the management of the Sturbridge Landfill/Recycling Center.

This is welcomed news as detailed discussions on the financial management and practices of the Sturbridge Landfill are long overdue. In fact, the Finance Committee has repeatedly issued calls over the last several years (in their annual reports), for the establishment of a "study committee", charged with the responsibility of reviewing current practices as well as possible alternatives. Those "calls" have seemingly fallen on deaf ears, as no detailed public discussion or study has ever been initiated.

Over the last two weeks, this issue has been raised on several occasions by this writer as well as by a member of the Board of Selectmen. Additionally, information has been provided to the Town Administrator, the Board of Selectmen, the Finance Committee, and the Board of Health that can help serve as a general starting point for discussions in terms of landfill/recycling costs, fees, and management practices.

Regardless of the outcome of a public review of current practices, it is imperative that a detailed study highlighting the financial management of the landfill/recycling center be conducted. Such, is the only way that we can be sure we are getting the very best return on our investment. Anything less is a great disservice to the residents and taxpayers of Sturbridge.

One can only be gratified by Mr. Halterman's willingness and commitment to pursuing the appropriate dialogue on this matter. It is the right course of action and the fiscally prudent thing to do.

Read More...

Summary only...

An Idea Worth Exploring

At last night's selectmen's meeting, the Town Administrator offered an alternate proposal for the Town Hall project. That proposal calls for the potential purchase of a commercial site on Route 20 (All Star Premium Products, 208 Charlton Road) for use as the Town Hall. The Telegram & Gazette article with more details can be accessed here.

This is certainly an idea worth exploring. Though fundamentally, one may be opposed to removing property from the tax roles (as is my general inclination), one might do well to consider the economic upsides. At a possible savings to the town of nearly 2 million dollars in real money, one would be hard-pressed to realize a similar benefit from any tax revenue on that site for at least several or more decades, if that.

Clearly, it does not have the historical ambiance of the current Town Hall, but it has significantly more value in terms of its potential and functionalities, both presently and for years to come.

The current Town Hall is, and should always remain, an important cultural and historical symbol within our community; it need not however, serve only as “the” Town Hall in order to maintain its value and significance to our community. An improved economy (when such occurs) providing additional tax revenues, as well as grant research and acquisition (grants are something that must be sought) could serve us well in preserving the Town Hall for some other future use.

Sturbridge has grown, so too has its needs and the services it provides. With that growth, has come the necessity for more space, greater access, and better functionality for employees, residents, and visitors alike. Regardless of the level of renovation and modifications designed into the Town Hall and Center School, there will always be challenges with those sites that will remain inherent within their footprints and their aged structures. Additionally, regardless of any bids for work to be performed, the great unknowns within those structures, (particularly the Center School), will surely increase the cost of the project.

Undoubtedly, there may be issues associated with the site proposed by the Town Administrator; only in-depth review and discussion will bear those out, if in fact they exist. The essential element however, is that another idea has been proposed, and it merits a detailed review that should not be dismissed simply because of some historical attachment to the current Town Hall. No one is suggesting demolishing or abandoning the current Town Hall, nor should they, it is an important and necessary part of our history. It need not however, function solely as a Town Hall to maintain its significance to Sturbridge.

Read More...

Summary only...

Circuit City to close 567 remaining US stores

The following story compiled by MICHAEL FELBERBAUM and VINNEE TONG was released by the Associated Press earlier today.

Associated Press: 01-16-09

Circuit City became the largest retailer to fall victim to the expanding financial crisis Friday, announcing it will shut down its remaining 567 U.S. stores at the cost of 34,000 more jobs after failing to sell the business. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

The closure of the nation's second-biggest consumer electronics retailer spells more trouble for the nations malls, and is the latest casualty of an unprecedented pullback in consumer spending that has claimed KB Toys, Mervyns LLC and Linens 'N Things.

"Very, very sad," said Alan L. Wurtzel, son of company founder Samuel S. Wurtzel and himself a former chief executive of Circuit City. "I feel particularly badly for the people who are employed or until recently were employed."

Richmond, Va.-based Circuit City had been seeking a buyer or a deal to refinance its debt, but the hobbled credit market and consumer worries proved insurmountable. Negotiations for an acquisition extended past midnight Thursday before finally falling through, Circuit City lawyer Gregg Galardi said.

Two potential buyers — Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas Pliego, who controls a chain of electronics stores in Latin America, and the Golden Gate Capital private equity firm — considered a shrunken form of the business, retaining as many 350 stores or as few as 180. But Circuit City couldn't secure the necessary financing or support from vendors.

"This is the only possible path for our company," acting Chief Executive James A. Marcum said in a statement. "We are extremely disappointed by this outcome."

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Huennekens gave final approval to the liquidation plan Friday afternoon. Some employees were notified that they would lose their jobs and certain stores would begin close-out sales as early as Saturday.

"Since my childhood, that's been where you go to buy electronics — Circuit City," said 37-year-old Sonya Webb, who was standing outside a store in Chattanooga, Tenn., watching as an employee set a 46-inch Sony television in her car.

Webb, an administrative assistant at a dialysis clinic, said she usually compared Circuit City, Best Buy and Sears when making purchases, but that Circuit City was always her preferred choice. She said she came to buy the TV after she heard that the stores were closing.

Circuit City said liquidating the stores should last through March, after which they will be closed. A small staff will keep working at the corporate office through that process.

The company's inventory has a retail value of about $1.8 billion, said James Schaye, president and CEO of Hudson Capital Partners, the liquidator. He said sales will begin with up to 30 percent discounts and will be adjusted as the liquidation continues.

"There's a lot of great deals," Schaye said. "If you're competing against someone like Best Buy, we're going to be at a much better discount than they're going to be."

It was unclear what would happen to the company's 765 retail stores and dealer outlets in Canada. Galardi told a judge there are still bids for the Canadian business.

Circuit City's brand value was diminished in the 1990s as it faced tougher competition from Best Buy Co., which built bigger stores in better locations.

Wurtzel has previously said Circuit City didn't take the threat from Best Buy seriously enough and at some points was too focused on short-term profit rather than long-term value.

Circuit City's failed turnaround efforts included laying off higher-paid employees, opening smaller concept stores, seeking potential buyers, changing management and closing stores. In 2007, it laid off about 3,400 store workers and replaced them with lower-paid employees. Analysts had warned the move could hurt morale and drive away customers.

Marvin Allen, 46, of Cleveland, Tenn., was at a Chattanooga store Friday shopping for a computer desk. He said the closings were bad not only for the people losing jobs, but also for consumers, because competition helps keep prices down. Allen said he and his wife, Teresa, 54, purchased a television from Circuit City just before Christmas.

"It means fewer places left to compare (prices)," she said.

Credit Suisse analyst Gary Balter told investors that Circuit City's demise should "further secure Best Buy's position as the leader." Shares of Best Buy Co. rose $2.20, or 8 percent, to $29.34 on Friday.

The liquidation of Circuit City follows the worst holiday shopping season since at least 1969. People have slashed their spending as they worry about their job security and declining retirement funds. Already this week, department store chains Goody's Family Clothing and Gottschalks Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection.

Analysts said the loss of Circuit City will be a particularly big blow to malls, which have suffered from a rise in vacancies as chains have liquidated and now face even more empty space. Circuit City stores range from 20,000 to 25,000 square feet.

"It will bring to market a glut of big box spaces across the country," said John Bemis, head of Jones Lang LaSalle Inc.'s retail leasing team. "It will have one of the largest impacts on big box real estate across the country."

Circuit City filed for Chapter 11 in November as vendors started to restrict the flow of merchandise. It had been exploring its options since May, when it opened its books to Blockbuster Inc. The Dallas-based chain made a takeover bid of more than $1 billion, but withdrew the offer in July.

Circuit City said it had $3.4 billion in assets and $2.32 billion in liabilities as of Aug. 31. Under court protection, it broke 150 leases at locations where it no longer operated stores and closed 155 stores in the U.S. in November and December.

"Unfortunately, there won't be a Circuit City after today," Galardi said Friday.

Associated Press Writers Anne D'Innocenzio in New York and Bill Poovey in Chattanooga, Tenn., contributed to this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Comparing Waste/Recycling Fees

The powerpoint presentation to the right side bar provides a brief overview and comparison of several waste/recycling approaches/options available.

It can also be accessed via the following link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/10609698/The-Cost-of-Trash1

Oddly, the BOS Chairman who entertained extensive discussions about a landfill in a neighboring community, has been absolutely silent regarding our own.

Read More...

Summary only...

Economy Trashes Market for Tons of Recycled Goods

"People need to know its costing money... If I don't start charging my customers, I will go out of business." Thus is the quandary face by Katherine J. Fairbanks, owner of Millbury Rubbish Removal in an informative article written by Telegram & Gazette reporter Priyanka Dayal in today's paper. The story titled "Falling prices, rising stacks" chronicles the downward spiraling international market for recyclable goods.

Buttressing her concern is the rising stockpiles of recyclable goods at E.L. Harvey & Sons of Westboro, "...which receives 500 tons of recyclable goods each day". The article highlights the fact that "...in good times those materials are quickly shipped to mills and plants that turn them into new products". However, that article points out that "In today's weak global economy, many of those products have no where to go".

Manager John L. Robinson, states that "No one wants it. The boats to China have virtually stopped".

Yet, here in Sturbridge, where we depend upon recycling fees to shore up our landfill cap account, town leaders - once all too eager to engage in lengthy discussions regarding the landfill in a neighboring community - are eerily silent in responding to requests for public discussion of our own landfill. Instead it has been referred to the Board of Health for consideration.

Surely, the Board of Health should be engaged in this discussion, but as a matter of public policy, this item warrants same matter of attention, in fact more, by our public policy leaders than do concerns in neighboring communities. Yet, there is but silence.

Where is the leadership from the Chairman of the Board on this issue? Mr. Halterman was quick to respond to my correspondence regarding one of his favored projects (the Town Hall), pointing out how HE is working closely with the Town Administrator on the Town Hall issue and that when "...when Jim and I find a better alternative, we will be presenting it..."

Maybe THE CHAIRMAN is working on a better alternative for this issue as well, and will present it as a matter of public policy when HE has all of the particulars in place. If such is the case, then a simple acknowledgement would be welcomed.

By the way, it should be pointed out that this writer is most appreciative of the courtesy extended by Vice-Chairman Ted Goodwin, who, acting as Chair this past week offered me the opportunity to address this issue. He did so with genuine interest, objectivity, and openness.

The full T&G article can be accessed here: http://www.telegram.com/article/20090111/NEWS/901110400/1116/NEWSREWIND.

Read More...

Summary only...

Attorney James Ehrhard Announces Candidacy for Sturbridge Selectman

Attorney James Ehrhard, formally announced his candidacy today for Sturbridge selectman. Mr. Ehrhard is an elected member of the Tantasqua Regional District School Committee and the owner of Ehrhard & Associates, P.C.

The Ehrhard campaign committe has established a website which provides residents the opportunity to gain further insights into the candidate's position on issues facing the community, as well as providing an opportunity to communicate directly with him.

The press release issued today, provides details of Mr. Ehrhard's background as well as information of interest to voters. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

EHRHARD for SELECTMAN
254A Holland Road
Sturbridge, Massachusetts 01518
508.344.1977

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 8, 2009

James P. Ehrhard Announces Candidacy for a seat on the Sturbridge Board of Selectmen

James P. Ehrhard is currently an elected member of the Tantasqua Regional District School Committee representing the Town of Sturbridge. He is the owner and manager of Ehrhard & Associates, P.C., one of the largest bankruptcy law firms in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in terms of bankruptcies filed per annum.

He has decided to enter the race for Selectman in the town elections scheduled for April 13, 2009. The campaign has created the website http://www.jamesehrhard.com/ which provides further information regarding his biography and goals as Selectman and all are encouraged to view and use it. The website will also allow residents with their busy lives to easily communicate with the campaign.

Please feel free to call or e-mail James Ehrhard at the above phone number and e-mail address with any questions.

Statement from the candidate:

"At the Town Meeting in April of 2008, in advocating for a larger waste water treatment facility, I stated to the residents of my town that we needed to break free from a regressive view of where Sturbridge is headed. I forcefully advocated an agenda which would include moderate to large retail and entertainment development along the Route 15 corridor while stabilizing the smaller businesses along Routes 20 and 131. In so doing we would increase tax revenues for the town and allow for greater focus on quality of life improvements.

It has been more than nine months since that speech and still residents I have never met come up to me when I am about town and mention how that speech energized them. Invariably, they want to see Sturbridge progress and not wither.

All areas of the state are currently faced with difficult economic times and the town of Sturbridge is by no means immune. But the downturn offers an opportunity for the town to position itself as the location of choice when businesses start expanding again and the housing market stabilizes. In turn, it offers an opportunity to implement changes that will better the quality of life for Sturbridge’s residents.

The theme of the campaign is 'A Way Forward for Sturbridge'. The below five headings summarize the agenda and outlook I will bring to the Board of Selectmen.

Expansion of Current Zoning: The majority of town residents at the last Town Meeting voted for a limited expansion of the current zoning for the land along Route 15. Although they are not overwhelming changes, such zoning expansion would be the catalyst for reasonable development along the Route 15 corridor. At the same time, the expansion respects the residents who live in the area/. Route 15's unique location with easy access off of I-84 makes it perfectly suited for larger scale development and the tax revenues such development puts into the town's treasury. We should not be handing those tax dollars to our neighboring towns when the people of Sturbridge want such development in that corridor.

Economic Development: An Economic Development Coordinator should be hired to guide businesses large and small who show interest in coming to Sturbridge. This position should also include the duties of a Grants Coordinator. Even in today's economic environment, there are many federal, state and private grants available to fund upgrades, restorations and beautifications throughout town. One specific upgrade that should prioritized is the beautification of the median between Route 20 from a stale concrete barrier to one with plantings and bushes (similar to the upgrade done on Shrewsbury Street in Worcester). The placing of the electric lines on Route 20 underground should also be seriously examined.

Protecting Senior Residents and Retirees: The senior residents and retirees of town should expect that their Senior Center is , at the very least, level funded. Additionally, the transportation services for this segment of the town's residents should be vigorously defended. Seniors and retirees should not be skeptical that their tax dollars are being used for their benefit. The following three quality of life improvements stem from the long term expansion of economic development and should be implemented when the opportunity arises.

Quality of Life Upgrades:

Playgrounds - More and better playgrounds need to be built for the families of Sturbridge. Despite the efforts of passionate volunteers on the Parks and Recreation Committee, the Board of Selectmen has failed to provide the support necessary to provide outlets for the young families and retirees in town. There is no reason parents and grandparents should have to drive to neighboring towns to find a place to spend an afternoon outside with their young children or grandchildren.

Ball Fields - The number of ball fields for soccer, little league and football are not sufficient and are subpar. They need to be upgraded.

Sidewalks - Sturbridge has gained a density of population with the development of subdivsions north of Route 20. A series of sidewalks connecting to Routes 20 and 131 can now reasonably be envisoned based upon easements owned by the town. Such an interconnecting sidewalk system would significantly open up the town to residents and tourists.

Open Space and Recreation: Sturbridge is blessed with open spaces and outlets for active recreation. The Westville Dam area, Wells State Park, Streeter Point, and the land purchased along Stallion Hill Road and Leadmine Road are the jewels of town. Unfortunately, in too many circumstances the land is not used to its fullest potential. That said, we must always keep in mind that the residents of town are extremely fortunate to have enormous efforts in support of our open space acquisitions from the Open Space Committee, PLAC, and Trails Committee. Their continuing efforts have produced significant return on investment in terms of the Hines Property, which is a true credit to their hard work and sacrifices. Land acquisitions such as the former OSV property as well as the River Lands can produce similar results if we continue to support and recognize their efforts. Though certainly the economy will dictate how much we can reasonably expend in terms of funds, we must continue to recognize the value of those properties. Where the topography and funds allow, we should strive to create trails which are stroller and handicap friendly for use by all Sturbridge residents. This will require a greater focus by the Board of Selectman on finding the resources, be they volunteer of financial, to make this happen.

Facilities Upgrades: The construction of a new Burgess Elementary School must be the number one priority in terms of large scale construction in the Town of Sturbridge. The town has been fortunate to have strong leadership on the committee overseeing such new school. The Board of Selectmen needs to ensure that it provides the support necessary to make the new school a reality. This includes re-examining, if necessary, other large capital projects.

Sturbridge has rightfully gained a reputation throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a special town, one to be admired. But it cannot take such reputation for granted. It must be proactive in protecting it. Old Sturbridge Village with new leadership has revitalized itself and rebuilt its reputation by implementing smart business practices; the town in which it is located should do no different.

I look forward to personally communicating this message with every voter before election day.”

James Ehrhard

Read More...

Summary only...

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. The remainder of this post can be read by accessing the READ MORE link below.

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...

Summary only...

Discussions on Town Hall, Economic Stimulus, and the Town Landfill

Due to technical difficulties, last night's BOS Meeting was not televised. As such and due to the importance of some of the items discussed last night, the audio recordings from those discussions are offered on the sidebar to the right for your review.

As some of the audio is lengthy, I have added some photos for the sole purpose of reducing screen static. Any inferences or conclusions drawn by site visitors are simply just that, inferences or conclusions drawn by site visitors.

Read More...

Summary only...

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...

Summary only...