Not-for-Profit, Award-Winning Community News and Views for Windham County, Vermont • Since 2006
Town and Village

Guilford stays in solid waste district, for now

Discussion focuses on costs, convenience

GUILFORD—After almost a year of researching whether to remain in the Windham Solid Waste Management District, the Selectboard unanimously voted at their Jan. 8 regular meeting to stay put, at least for now.

The debate goes back further than last year, though.

In November, 2016, some Selectboard members expressed confusion and frustration with the District’s budget process and fees. Board Chair Sheila Morse said she didn’t believe Guilford was getting enough services in exchange for what it pays the District. Her colleagues agreed.

The District, formed in 1988, is a chartered municipal entity owned by 20 towns in Windham County. Their mission is to provide solid-waste education, recycling management, and disposal services to its member-towns.

The Board of Supervisors oversees all aspects of its operation. Each member-town’s Selectboard appoints one voting representative to the Board of Supervisors, and one non-voting alternate.

Until July 1, 2017, the District operated a materials recovery facility, or MRF, where member-towns’ recyclables were collected and sorted. During the Fiscal Year 2018 budget talks, the Board of Supervisors voted to close the facility.

Recycling a key issue

Residents from Guilford and other member-towns could still bring their recyclables to the District’s Old Ferry Road location, as long as they paid for a one-time or a yearly pass.

Recycling was one of the main points of the Guilford Selectboard’s arguments for leaving the District. A few years before the MRF closed, Guilford lost its roll-off recycling bins when their previous location was lost and they couldn’t find a suitable place to put them.

With the District offering no recycling bins in Guilford, the Selectboard wondered if it was worth it to remain a member-town. Could they do it on their own? If so, the town would have to come up with its own Solid Waste Implementation Plan and get it approved by the Agency of Natural Resources.

Once the new Selectboard convened after the 2017 Annual Town Meeting last March, Board members began examining whether to leave the District.

They had a workshop, discussed it at Board meetings, and gathered comment from a variety of sources, including residents, District officials, and the town’s representative to the Board of Supervisors, Cheryl Franklin, co-owner of Franklin & Sons, a private rubbish hauler.

At the Jan. 8 Board meeting, Chair Sheila Morse said she wants “closure” on the issue, and noted “we’ve done our due diligence on it.”

The conclusion Morse came to is, “if we were to exit and create our own [Solid Waste Implementation Program], it would cost way more” than the FY19 assessment of approximately $18,500.

Not all Selectboard members were immediately persuaded, though. Gabrielle Ciufredda asked Morse for more information on the timeline and expenses related to withdrawing from the District, and remarked that “over three years, it might pay off.”

Board Member Gordon Little pointed out that if the town left the District, the Agency of Natural Resources would require Guilford to host its own thrice-yearly hazardous waste collections, and each costs $10,000. “That, to me, is a really big piece of it,” Little said.

Administrative Assistant Peder Rude and Morse outlined the major details of the timeline and costs for Guilford’s exiting the District.

If the Selectboard approved leaving the District, Rude said, the decision would then go to voters via Australian ballot. If it passes, the town has to notify the District of its exit by Oct. 1, 2018.

“Then, you still have that full, remaining, nearly 10 months of the fiscal year until you’re officially out,” he added.

$25,000 in fees?

Prior to notifying the District, the town must receive approval of its Solid Waste Implementation Program by the Agency of Natural Resources, Rude said.

To exit, the town would incur $25,000 in fees in one year, and that’s “even before we started implementing our own [SWIP],” Morse said.

Beyond that, Guilford would have to pay costs associated with creating and implementing a SWIP, and for setting up and managing its own solid waste facilities, and for hazardous waste collection and public education, Morse added.

Leaving the District “would exponentially put the burden on residents,” Rude said, because they “would no longer have access to [the District’s facility at] Old Ferry Road,” and would have to contract with a private trash hauler to remove their garbage and recyclables.

And, he added, residents would also have to pay for the town’s higher costs.

Board member Verandah Porche told her colleagues, “there’s a lot of concern from people who are still going to the dump, and what would they do if we left” the District. Little said he also received comments from residents “concerned about their [dump] sticker.”

“It just doesn’t seem to make sense in the short or the long run,” Morse said, noting that the Selectboard can revisit the issue in the future.

What do you think? Leave us a comment

Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.

Add Comment

* Required information
1000
Enter the last letter of the word satellite.
Captcha Image
Powered by Commentics

Comments (12)

Sort By
Topic: Page One
5/5 (2)
1 2 3 > Last
Gravatar
New
Tamara Stenn
Gravatar
1
0
0
Aug 2018
Tamara Stenn (Brattleboro, Vermont, US) says...

Thanks for writing this Elayne. I was thinking the same thing myself. The silence we received from the hospital is quite deafening. Unfortunately we\'ve had to continue working with the hospital as other (minor) heath issues come up.

Gravatar
New
Judith Skillman
Gravatar
1
0
0
Aug 2018
Judith Skillman (Newcastle, US) says...

Excellent and informative writing about the media and about the state of our nation. We must support the press speak truth to power, now more than ever before.

Gravatar
Regular
Ruby Bode
Gravatar
10
0
5
Aug 2018
Top Poster
First Poster
Ruby Bode (Westminster, Vermont, US) says...

We are also obliged to criticize the press when they merely echo the lies of the powerful. In this case, much of the press has taken a side, not just against the policies of the President, but against the election itself on behalf of the parties of war and Wall St. Just as the US has in the past agitated in other countries for coups against democratic outcomes they don’t like, much of the press, including this editorial, is now agitating for a coup here at home.

Gravatar
New
Peter Ford
Gravatar
1
1
0
Aug 2018
Peter Ford (Dallas) says...

Nailed it - Thank you.

Gravatar
New
TB Smith
Gravatar
1
0
1
Aug 2018
TB Smith (Ba, Oklahoma, US) says...

The divisiveness brought on by this shamefully poor excuse for a president has been once again, borne out by this article, and the responses to it .. his most devoted followers are the most gullible and easily swayed sheeple since the \"Kool-Aid party in Jonestown\" ... those who stand up the most fervently to this dictator \"wanabe\", will , inthe end, see him and the fellow purveyors of his garbage rhetoric like FOX News, Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc., crumble and be dumped like stale crackers (pardon the pun) .. we must impeach this tyrant before too much damage is done, either from within or outside our borders.

Gravatar
Regular
Ruby Bode
Gravatar
10
0
5
Aug 2018
Top Poster
First Poster
Ruby Bode (Westminster, Vermont, US) says...

So it’s OK that access to outlets that simply recognize Trump as President is indeed being shut down? But isn’t that exactly what this editorial is against? Should outlets that cheered on Obama’s wars and love of Wall St have likewise been shut down? Only John Birch Society–inspired screeds against Trump indicate the “legitimate” press?

Gravatar
Regular
Ruby Bode
Gravatar
10
0
5
Aug 2018
Top Poster
First Poster
Ruby Bode (Westminster, Vermont, US) says...

TB Smith’s comment in apparent support of the us-vs-them tone of this editorial illustrates why so many people distrust so much of the press (although, again, it appears to be only pro-Trump and anti-imperialist outlets that are actually being shut down): They are promulgating hysterical claims about fascism, Russians, and “crackers” not in the interest of the people, but wholly on behalf of the neoliberal/neoconservative program of Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama to deny Trump the Presidency and even remove him from office – not democratically, but by coup if necessary. That makes the press rather anti-democratic and, indeed, against the people.

Gravatar
New
Amelia Stone
Gravatar
1
0
0
Aug 2018
Amelia Stone (E Dummerston, Vermont, US) says...

Kudos to the Boston Globe for encouraging newspapers across the country to remind us all of the value of a free press, and to the Commons for hearing that call. The NYTimes article, A Free Press Needs You, concludes with the following: \"If you haven’t already, please subscribe to your local papers. Praise them when you think they’ve done a good job and criticize them when you think they could do better. We’re all in this together.\" Today I plan to subscribe.

Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 > Last
 
 

Originally published in The Commons issue #445 (Wednesday, February 7, 2018). This story appeared on page A1.

Related stories

More by Wendy M. Levy