by Frank Schroth
Last night’s selectmen’s meeting was a municipal cornucopia of discussions on issues and items from an array of elected officials and department heads. Arguably two of the more interesting may have been an update from Selectmen Chair Conlon on the Hendries development and from DPW Director Joe Lynch on possible changes to sewer and water rates.
Chair of the Selectmen Katie Conlon reported that Senator Joyce, who appeared earlier in the session, had successfully advocated for legislation regarding the Hendries property. The state web site identifies Governor Duval Patrick as the sponsor of the legislation. Bill H.4332 states “Message from His Excellency the Governor recommending legislation relative to authorizing the town of Milton to acquire certain property and to convey certain property.” The property to be acquired is a small parcel that to date has been unresolved. It would give this parcel to the town and the town in turn would give that piece together with the portion the town owns to Carrick Realty with the understanding that Carrick would demolish the entire structure and build a mixed use development. The bill is currently with the committee on Municipalities and Regional Government. It is hoped to clear both houses before their session ends July 31.
Member Keohane pointed out that this proposal has not been accepted by Carrick and he wanted assurance tha the town is moving forward with the demolition of the building. Town Administrator Fagan said that it is and Town Planner Bill Clark said that at least one firm has signed out the RFP for demolition services. He estimates 3 or 4 firms will respond. Chair Conlon said that she has been maintaining an open channel of communication with Jerry Connelly, a principal at Carrick Realty and that he is aware of the legislation in process. Conlon thanked our state officials Governor Patrick, Senator Joyce, Representatives Cullinane and Timilty as well as Town Counsel John Flynn and Planning Board Chair Alex Whiteside. She also thanked “two people who never get enough credit, Annmarie Fagan and Bill Clark.”
The board also briefly discussed the hearing that commences on Thursday at the Board of Appeals regarding a 40B comprehensive permit for the Hendries property owned by Carrick Realty. It is believed that the initial session will be largely organizational. The selectmen were uncertain whether they would attend this meeting.
Joe Lynch appeared before the board to discuss several issues. Chief among those was a possible change to sewer and water rates. The DPW is developing a master plan regarding water and sewer infrastructure and rates. Milton has a 4 tier billing system that relates to usage. At issue is a complaint from residents to multi-unit dwellings such as 88 Wharf Street. They feel they are unfairly billed as those buildings use a single meter that gauges use and that all residents are billed at that rate – which is a high tier 4 rate. At a previous meeting residents had suggested simply dividing use by number of units and billing at the corresponding rate. Lynch presented observations and a couple of options to the selectmen in response to the complaint. He recommended that the town only look at adjusting rates in multi-unit buildings with 5 or more residences. There are only ~7 of these currently in town. He also suggested preserving the current rate structure. In terms of addressing inequity there are two options; a) full adjustment and b) 1/2 adjustment. A full adjustment uses math as proposed by the residents (ie. tier sized volumes are determined by a multiple equal to the number of units in the building). A half adjustment divides that number by half. The reasoning for a half adjustment is to compensate for fact that some residents are only there certain seasons.
Given the town has a financial number that has to be met, any decrease for one group/tier means an increase for the others. In assessing that impact the DPW and their consultant on this (Woodard & Curran) made the following estimates:
If a full adjustment were made the average MWRA customer would see an annual increase of $5 in their water bill and $25 in their sewer bill. A half adjustment would create an annual increase of $2.50 in water and $17 in sewer.
The selectmen asked Mr. Lynch to drill down a bit more on specific impacts to residents of Wharf Street for each of the proposed adjustments. He will return with that information, the selectmen will review the impacts to all residents, and then take a vote on any rate change.
Lynch also discussed the current change to solid waste trash hauler. There were some hiccups which are disappearing as hauler becomes more familiar with the town. Of more concern is lost revenue from trash removal. According to Lynch the town produces about the same amount of trash year to year (i.e. ~4800 tons). While the amount is remaining the same the sticker revenue is dropping. Lynch speculates that this could be due to residents using larger wheeled trash barrels with a higher capacity than that specified by sticker program. A sticker is good for a single 32 gallon barrel. Wheeled barrels have a larger capacity and consequently residents can dispose of more trash for less. Lynch recommended the selectmen look at requiring 2 stickers for barrels that are larger than 32 gallons. He said the $3 sticker fee is the right fee rate and should not be increased. The DPW recently mailed out post cards with the trash pick up schedules. Included on that were regulations on trash pickup (e.g. barrels can be no larger than 32 gallons and cannot weigh more than 40lbs.)
It has always been the strategy of the town to depend on recycled materials being maximized while trash is minimized. Perhaps Mr Lynch needs to think about whether this is actually meeting with success. I served on a citizens committee which came up with a plan 4 stickers on trash and this was our plan.
I think the more important questions concerning this program might be why is this a sticker program? If it was part of the general services provided by the town to its residents and taxpayer, those same taxpayers would receive a benefit on their federal taxes.
The second question is whether or not there is 40 gallons of trash in a larger wheeled trash barrel – barrels that were not common when this program was put in place.
So if someone puts in less than capacity, why should they be penalized. If the barrel contains less than 40 lbs, what’s the problem. ‘
Are we going to have a weights and measures officer on each trash route.
On another matter, a man came to our house, rang the doorbell and told my wife that he was the Town’s electrical inspector and was there to do a final electrical inspection for work done on the house.
This man had no visible identification of being a Town employee and when asked to produce some sort of Town identification, he could not do so. We did pass the inspection.
But,……..
This man could have been anyone.
When asked about why this is allowed to continue, I was told that this is an issue for negotiations with the Town’s unions.
Let’s be serious here. This is a matter of PUBLIC SAFETY!!! Public safety is not negotiable.
But the bigger concern is trash barrel size?
I’m surprised by the reported content of the legislation related to the former Hendries property. At a Board of Selectmen’s meeting it was presented that the purpose of the legislation was to allow the town to sell it’s ownership, 0 Central Ave., without having to go through another public advertisement and bid process. There was no discussion of the “unknown ownership” parcel, which it now seems likely belongs to Conrail.
The purpose of stickers is to connect a known cost to a known unit of trash to be collected. Coupled with a single-stream recycling program, this approach was designed to create an incentive for citizens to choose recycling over simply pitching throwaways into the trash containers. In our house we very rarely even fill a single 32-gallon trash container. This collection service therefore costs us $3.00 per week. Pretty cheap!
The irony of Mr. Lynch’s observation that “trash collection revenues are down” is that after almost 30 years of encouraging recycling and reduced consumer packaging, perhaps we can make the case that the program has produced the desired result – namely, to reduce trash volume and related transfer/tipping costs while changing consumer habits in favor of recycling as the first choice.
Read up on state policy planning for waste reduction: http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/recycle/priorities/swmp13f.pdf
Wasn’t there a savings in the hundreds of thousands of dollars with the new trash removal contract? Kudos to the DPW staff for that negotiation, however, should there then be a reduction in the cost of the stickers? Or at least a discussion of that matter.
Just asking.
Since single stream recycling was instituted, my trash has gone down
to one pick up a month. I recycle nearly everything. I use a paper leaf
bags so no undersized town bins are left on the street. I’m very happy with the new system.
I agree with Mike Palmer. The recycling/sticker program has been a huge success for me. I recycle almost everything and leave out very little trash, a barrel every three to four weeks.
Wait till the fall and winter, lots of leaves, ice , sleet and snow. I hope the DPW wrote a penalty in the new contract. A two day pickup, will turn into four or five days.
We recycle and fill our greater than 32 gallon barrel on most weeks.
I am a huge advocate of recycling. That’s not my point.
I hope this rather new program does not fall into the trap of most things Milton. We did it, it’s done, fuggedaboutit.
It’s time to look at it from all angles as should all programs.