Trash Talk From Thomas Boussy

A Letter to the Editor from Thomas Boussy

Trash is a long and boring story, but this post is to simplify and educate everyone on the history and facts leading us to Town Meeting on Monday. There are two issues at hand with Article 22: One is whether the Town of Stoneham should charge its residents a trash fee. The second issue is much larger - the idea that the Selectmen wish to charge you a trash fee to build reserves. To understand the trash fee, we unfortunately must go back in time to appreciate how we got here.

The trash fee has existed in various forms from $0 to $50 in the first part of the decade. During the budgeting for FY12 there appeared to be a shortfall that would require cuts in the school as well as general government. The idea of a trash fee was first floated in the January 18^th Board of Selectmen’s meeting by then Chair Paul Rotondi. The idea was that they would have a warrant article for a $1.9M override and then if that failed, they would have a trash fee effective July 1, 2011.

In 2012, the first year of the trash fee, the town made a 13th payment of approximately $70,000 to Hiltz by paying two months in one payment. The June FY12 payment and the July FY13 payment (in advance with the FY12 trash fee money.), and an additional $58,500 was transferred out of the trash fee as an appropriation into another account.

Chairman Rotondi passed the gavel to vice Chairman Vallarelli.

Chairman Rotondi moved to do a $1.6 million trash fee effective 7/1, based conditionally on 1) a four-year plan agreed to by the Tri-Board that the Town go forward with; 2) If the Town asks for an override then the trash fee does not go into effect. It will be one or the other. Selectman Sweeney asked how much money per household. Selectman Gregorio said $252 per unit. Chairman Rotondi said even with the trash fee there will have to be some cuts. He said the Selectmen have no other place to go now but to approve this trash fee. He said he thinks it should be unanimous. Selectman Sweeney said even if they don't agree, they still need it and the Selectmen have the power to do it or not do it. Chairman Rotondi said he is saying the majority of each board. Selectman Gregorio said the motion should probably have a date. Chairman Rotondi moved to have a $1.6 million trash fee effective 7/1, conditioned on 1) agreement reached by majority of triboards to de done by 3/1 and 2) if things get worse and they decide to do an override instead, if the override passes, they don't have an override and a trash fee. Motion was seconded by Selectman Sweeney. Selectman Gregorio said he is not in favor of a flat trash fee and they should work with the committee on pay as you throw. He said if they have a flat trash fee, they should have something to offset seniors. Selectman Sweeney said they should put what percentage will go to each department. Chairman Rotondi agreed and said with a percentage based budget, there is an incentive to save. He said that, over the last five years, the Town has consistently saved money, and they lost all that money because it went someplace else. A roll call vote was taken.

Voting in favor: Selectman Gregorio Chairman Rotondi Selectman Sweeney

Vice Chairman Vallarelli

Opposed: Selectman DePinto

During the February 15^th BOS meeting the board voted unanimously to place the $1.9M Prop 2 ½ override on the warrant for the 2011 Annual Town Meeting. Obviously the override failed at town meeting so the trash fee was set to go into effect on July 1 ( The start of FY12). This is where the wheels started to come off the cart. At the April 2011 BOS Meeting the DPW director said that the trash budget needs to be $1.6M and that it would only leave $15,750 in surplus. The problem here was that this was an outright lie. The total cost for hauling and tipping (disposal) the previous year was only $1,242,228, leaving a surplus of $357,772.

In 2012, the first year of the trash fee, the town made a 13th payment of approximately $70,000 to Hiltz by paying two months in one payment. The June FY12 payment and the July FY13 payment (in advance with the FY12 trash fee money.), and an additional $58,500 was transferred out of the trash fee as an appropriation into another account.

These numbers also include $20,000 in overtime at Stevens Street & $60,075.23 for “other purchased” and $500 for supplies, and the minus report is still showing a surplus of $110,601.16. So, in the FY13 budget the trash budget was increased by $173,877 to $1,582,600 knowing that the actual cost in FY12 was only 1,242,228 the next, and that year the minus reports showed a surplus of $185,224.65 with increases to non-trash related items.

The abuse continued when The BOS wanted to reduce the trash fee on the meeting of July 24, 2012 (FY13). The DPW director made a presentation full of lies, telling the Selectmen that it would be very difficult to lower the fee and when Selectman Vallarelli asked "how many tons of trash we were tipping" he said not once, not twice, but THREE times 9,000 tons. The problem with that statement is that the town hasn’t tipped 9,000 tons since FY06-- in fact according to his records he understood the prior year we only tipped 7,317 tons. This is important because we pay by the ton to tip or dispose of our trash somewhere around $63 per ton at the time.

In 2013 Selectmen Vallarelli questioned why the trash wasn’t going out to bid, and that he thought we could get a better price and because recycling was free at the time. The board voted to form a sub committee with Frank and myself, and the more we investigated it, the more options we had. Together with the Town Administrator, the Director of Public Works, and Town Council we developed an RFP with five different options that would save the town money. The options ranged from continuing the existing contact language to a two-barrel system with automated pick up.

This was opposed mostly by town employees, and then lead by the newest member of the BOS and DPW director. All they really wanted was for Hiltz to get the contract. This dragged out for about eight months until Selectman DiPinto made a motion to put the vote off until next year, costing the town a minimum of $100,000 because Hiltz came down $100,000 in their quote from the option year that was in their contract. Trash talks continued, and the TA announced that we were going to a barrel system with automation pick up when Selectmen Sweeney made a motion to form a trash committee. This committee was lead by the DPW Director, who didn’t give the committee any information about a barrel system or automated pick up. This is because Hiltz was obviously insolvent, and they couldn’t afford the new technology (Or new trucks for that matter). A year and half later Hiltz got the contract and there was a 90 gallon limit and it added weekly recycling. This was far from the best deal out there and the newest member of the BOS famously posted that she never really cared about how the trash was picked up; only that Hiltz got the contract.

At the special town meeting of 2014 I wrote an article that passed a town meeting establishing a special fund where the trash fee would go, and that it could be spent on trash items, hauling and disposal or anything that would help lower the trash fee. Low and behold we had a surplus of $435,490 in the first year FY15, and we were over in $500,000 FY16. Then at the beginning of FY17 Hiltz informed the town that they would no longer honor their contract, and to add insult to injury they never posted a bond that would have covered the difference that the town would have to pay to bring in a new contract. In the meeting of the FAB on 1-30-17, the TA and TA (town administrator and town accountant) informed the members that $500,000 from the trash surplus was used in FY17 and that we would have to find $500,000 to cover the short fall of FY18. So these decisions not only cost us another $500,000, but this year alone the cost of hauling is $350,000 more then it would have been had we gone with a different hauling company in FY15. Additional recycling is no longer free, so we are paying for that as well. We put in the original RFP that recycling is free for the entire contract. When Hiltz went out of business I was on a trash subcommittee with the current chair, and he couldn’t see an advantage to a barrel system that would have provided free recycling for the next 10 years.

We were working towards a sustainable reduction in the trash fee with a steady increase in free cash. Now the Board is telling you that even though we had $3.4 million in free cash in FY 2017 they want to continue to charge you money in the form of a trash fee while freely admitting that it's really an illegal prop 2 1/2 override. After totally mismanaging your money for the last seven years, the Board is telling to simply trust them because they "know what’s best for you."