Following is a excerpted transcript, edited for brevity, of a Finance Control Board meeting on June 27, 2006, regarding a proposed trash fee charged to Springfield residents. Transcript in its entirety provided courtesy of resident Sheila McElwaine and hosted by the Forest Park Civic Association.
FCB Executive Director Philip Puccia: This [proposed trash fee] goes a long way towards helping the city balance the ’07 budget. We have to do a better job managing our solid waste. [T]he imposition of a trash fee of some sort, whether it’s pay as you go (PDF), or a flat fee, or something along those lines, is being done currently in 120 different cities and towns (PDF) around the state with the fee ranging as high as $325 per year. Some of our neighboring communities who have a trash fee are listed here [on a screen] for you to see: Amherst, Belchertown, Longmeadow, Greenfield, and the like. I would point to Worcester as a community, similar in size as Springfield, who went through this over the past couple of years and has had a very successful program.
Our recommended fee is $.95 per gallon per year. Our costs were based on the solicitation for waste management services we did last year. There’s a relationship between what we’re going to recommend as a fee to these costs. This [information on the screen] is a breakdown of the number of residential units broken out by single family homes, condominiums, mobile homes, and the like. This is all based on the fee that you see recommended in front of you; $90 per year—per container, not per resident.
Springfield Mayor Charles Ryan: That is a 90-gallon container, correct?
PP: That’s correct. It is the same container that all of Springfield’s residents are familiar with. The city made a significant investment in both containers and trucks several years back, and we felt using that container system as opposed to a direct pay as you go, pay as you throw, system would be the most efficient to at least get this recycling and solid waste management program off the ground.
In the same way that you have taxes, you have folks who will not pay and we’ll have to chase them down for the funds. What you see in the budget today is about three-quarters of a year, not the full benefit of a year, because we will not plan to implement this—if the board approves this proposal—‘til September or October 1 at the latest.
[I]f you choose to opt out, you have the right to do so by either using a licensed hauler approved by the city or taking your trash to an approved landfill. We expect that the vast majority of residents will use the current service provided by the city. It is the most cost-effective; it works out to about a $1.72 per week for the 90-gallon container.
There are some other exemptions, consistent with exemptions for residential property tax. There are some other concerns, and maybe the board would like to address them. But this is how we plan to do it: $90 per year. It’s an automated container. For each container, as we mentioned, they’ll be billed quarterly. And it is the responsibility of the owner of the home to seek a discount or an exemption. If you don’t pay, you’ll be charged a late fee. Those fees will be charged against the owner, so if it’s a rental unit, the fee will be charged against the owner of that apartment complex or [multi-family]. And a lien for unpaid fees will be placed upon the owner’s property.
This may be a little more detail than is required, but this is kind of our schedule. We’ve done a significant amount of research to date on how to implement the program. In fact, the DPW has considered this in the past. We’ve managed to cut expenses and make investments, but now, I think this is the time that we need to consider this fee in order to present a balanced budget. And we’ll obviously need a consistent communication strategy to educate the public about the who, what, when, and where. And I’d be happy to answer any questions from the board.
CR: Phil, could you go back to the slide your suggested discount? Who are the groups that you had listed?
PP: They’re primarily the elderly, folks who have disabilities, veterans, and there’s the “indigent,” but that is a definition used by the state and federal government, and I don’t know the exact guidelines.
CR: Have you been able to capture the percentage of people that would fall within those categories?
PP: We’re assuming ten percent or so would qualify under that broad guideline.
CR: Would your numbers in the budget work with a 25 percent discount for those groups?
PP: Both [City] Councilor [Jose] Tosado and you, sir, and other folks have expressed some concern. I think, if the board was so inclined, we can find a way to manage a discount for senior citizens of approximately 25 percent. It is a significant sum of money, not only to the budget, but to the citizens who have to pay it. In my math, it comes out to around $300,000 in savings that we’ll find someplace else. I’m asking the board today to approve the fee in general of $90, and allow the mayor and myself to finalize the plan, and present it to the board at the August 11 board meeting.
City Councilor Jose Tosado: Thanks, Phil. I tend to support this today. I understand that you can’t get patrol cars, and buy new school books, and do building maintenance, and build new schools, and take trees down, and demolish eyesores, you know, without additional revenue stream, so I completely understand that you can’t have it both ways. Naturally, I think the city council a number of times has also had serious discussions relative to trash, to a trash pick-up fee, so I do intend to support it. However, I have a number of questions I will ask, and I’m glad the mayor brought up the discount for seniors. As you know, I had this discussion with you last night…
PP: That’s right, Councilor.
JT: The ten percent that was proposed initially wasn’t sufficient for seniors. I’d like that to go higher than 25 percent, but I understand that 25 percent is reasonable, based on your revenue projections to get the $4.5 million. A question I have: when you come up with $5 million as projected revenue, is that based on real property, or is that based on the number of bins currently out there?
PP: I’m not sure I understand. You mean our cost to collect the $5 million?
JT: You’ve got $5 million projected gross income within that gain of $4.5 million, and that figure is based on—what is it?
PP: On the containers.
JT: On the containers. So [it’s] not based on the individual property.
PP: No.
JT: I live in a single-family, owner-occupied neighborhood in Sixteen Acres. Some folks have gone to DPW, paid $45, and got a second bin for their overflow trash. Does that mean that those folks’ fee goes to $180?
PP: That’s correct. The revenue is based on what we believe to be the number of bins in circulation today. We think that our database is reasonably accurate. There’s a relationship between controlling the amount of solid waste, improving the amount of recyclables, when folks have an incentive to actually manage their waste. We believe folks who maybe are on the cusp of a second bin may improve their recycling so that they only get charged for one bin.
FCB Chairman Alan LeBovidge: So, under this proposal, if someone had two bins, could they turn one in and say, “Now it’s only $90 instead of $180”?
PP: That’s correct. Right.
JT: I only have one, but I think some consideration should be given that if you’re a single family household and you’ve got two bins that you’ve had historically which was something that you could do back then, that maybe double the ticket is probably not fair, but something graduation of that could be considered?
PP: We’ll consider it. Just in numerical terms, if we implement about a 25 percent discount for folks on fixed incomes—seniors—that’s $300,000 off of the $4.5 million. So I would need to run the math and figure out what that number is. We’ll be as aggressive as we can in trying to lower the costs.
JT: In terms of the rate, it’s $90 this year. Does that mean it could be $100 next year, $110 the following year? We know that inflation doesn’t stand still for anyone, and I assume that this rate could easily be increased over the years. I would ask the board to consider, with your input, Phil, freezing the rate for a set number of years, perhaps a three-year period.
AL: If all of a sudden inflation was 15 percent, and the cost went out of sight, you may want to increase it, but if it’s what we have now for inflation, maybe you freeze it for three years; it won’t go more than $90. So I think you should run some numbers and see what it looks like.
FCB member Thomas Gloster: You’re going to take this discussion back and work it through and then we’re going to be presented with a final version of this?
PP: A final version of the regulations or the proposed sort of rules and regulations.
TG: Would that include the kind of things we’re talking about now?
PP: I don’t have the math to tell you what we can provide to answer Councilor Tosado’s questions. I can tell you that we’ll find a way to manage the $300,000. I can’t answer anything beyond that.
TG: This plan, as I understand it, is sort of a first step, and this thing is going to evolve over the years as experience helps us figure out how to best handle the situation. Tie into recycling and all that sort of stuff, and maybe this will result in a reduction in the amount of solid waste we dispose and more stuff recycled.
PP: Yes. It should do two things over the long haul as we move from this sort of container-based flat fee system to, eventually, a pay-as-you-throw system, which is what is recommended by the Department of Environmental Protection. It should have two benefits over the long haul, which is to reduce the amount of solid waste, which reduces the amount of fees that the city pays to dispose of it, and, secondarily, increase the amount of recyclable material which the city receives a credit for.
TG: This container you’re talking about: I would assume that a great many families get by with one container.
PP: I would defer a specific answer to Mr. [Al] Chwalek [DPW Director], but I believe that is the case.
JT: The purpose for doing this is basically to close the deficit gap. I know that David Panagore, for example, and the control board have been doing a fantastic job in terms of closing that gap and bringing additional revenue. There’s some major plans in the works in terms of economic development within the city of Springfield. The Urban Land Institute is coming in tomorrow actually for a visit, and so I see great things for the city of Springfield in the future. I see increased economic growth, and so I take it that this is a temporary measure until we get our financial ship in order. And so I wonder if this can be tried first for a set number of years.
PP: I’ll defer to the chairman.
AL: You can rescind it at any time. I assume that at some point in time, we’ll be out of town, and things will be back to normal, when the governing body, if they think it’s financially viable, could get rid of it. It’s up to the people who are the elected officials at that point in time to do something if they want.
FCB member Jake Jacobson: Phil, why are the federal, state and county—why are they exempted from this fee?
PP: I think it allows us to pick up their trash should we find it lying around, but we have no intention of, for example, picking up the trash at the federal court building without reimbursement. And, in fact, I believe we do not do that today.
AL: Do we have the legal right to put a fee on the federal government?
PP: I don’t know. I don’t believe that we do.
JJ: Didn’t we just say two different things: we don’t have a right, but we’re under no obligation to pick up their trash if they don’t pay us for it? What’s the answer?
PP: I’m going to defer this to Mr. [Peter] Graczykowski, who helped do the research on this.
Attorney Peter Graczykowski: Even though they’re exempt under the model that we have right now, we have no obligation, under the proposed executive order; we have the right to refuse any additional pick-ups that we do not have right now. If we choose not to accept that pick-up, we don’t have to do it.
PP: If someone was to request that we pick up the trash, we have the right to charge them a fee, and we have the right to say no.
PG: That’s right.
JJ: Why don’t we just say what we mean?
PP: Good point. We can amend the order to reflect that. I would like the board to approve a fee of $90, with further regulations, including a [25 percent] discount for seniors, [and] regulations to be reported back to the board, and the executive director, on August 11. With other recommendations to follow, consistent with this discussion.
Motion passes unanimously.
Following is an excerpted transcript of a Finance Control Board meeting on August 11, 2006, regarding the final changes to an approved trash fee proposal for Springfield residents. Transcript in its entirety provided courtesy of resident Sheila McElwaine and hosted by the Forest Park Civic Association.
PP: Mr. Chairman, at our last meeting, you recall the board approved a trash fee, and directed the mayor and I, and city staff, to finalize our proposal to you that we have been working on since the June board meeting. We have put together a variety of information for the citizenry. We’ve posted it on the city’s Web site; we’ve distributed it to neighborhood councils. We’re asking you today to finalize a couple of items. One is the discount for senior citizens that we discussed at our last meeting, of 25 percent over the age of 65. Secondarily, based on my conversations with both Mayor Ryan and Councilor Tosado, we’d also suggest that the bulk fee, which is presently set at $12, be lowered to $8, in some sort of gesture acknowledging the imposition of the trash fee.
AL: Does the $8 cover the cost of—
PP: The $8 covers the cost by about $.50 per load.
AL: Okay. Cutting it close.
PP: And then, lastly, to approve the regulation that we have drafted, related to the approval of private hauling companies, should a citizen wish to avail themselves of that option, as opposed to using the city’s DPW to pick up and dispose of their trash. Did I leave anything out, Mr. Chwalek?
DPW Director Al Chwalek: No.
TG: Payable quarterly, you’re talking about $22, roughly. Is the processing pretty inexpensive to do this? In other words, why don’t we do it less often?
PP: The processing is inexpensive. We tried to replicate the process and procedures associated with the payment of real estate taxes. A certain number of city residents, a quarterly payment will [be] appreciate[d] as opposed to bi-annual or annual.
All three necessary motions pass unanimously.
