Common ground

I just finished watching the most recent taping of John Martin's "Voice of Reason." The guests included Chris Juetten, Ben Tartaglia, Johanna Musselman, and Chris Kirk.

That's right, Yes4Shrewsbury and SRT members sharing the same stage participating in constructive dialogue. Although it was easy to discern the differences that exist among the panel guests, the half hour also proved that common ground could be found.

Interesting talking points included electing members to important town boards (e.g., Finance and The Council on Aging), as opposed to having them appointed by the town moderator and town manager (as is the current practice), and fighting unfunded mandates, which bleed the town dry.

It was an interesting and informative half hour. I applaud all who agreed to participate.

My hope for the new year is that we hear more constructive dialogue — BOS members as guests on CBS's show, members of SRT as guests on the Superintendent's Roundtable. Although we will never have uniform consensus on all areas of the town's operation, I think we can all agree that we want Shrewsbury to remain the quality place we call home.

Amy Kotsopoulos

(Note: Small corrections were made to this letter on December 30.)

"Trash tax": Finally, what it will cost YOU

Next week (New Year's) [1] the Selectmen will consider a pay-as-you-throw (or "trash tax") policy, which would require town residents to buy special plastic trash bags at a price of $1.50 each [2].

If Shrewsbury's roughly 10,000 households use 1.7 bags per week (as Worcester residents do), then Shrewsbury residents will pay an additional $1.3 million annually [3] for a service that's currently included in their property tax bills.

The bags will cost the town about 21 cents each, so the town's Health Department expects to reap $500,000 - $600,000 annually from the sale of the bags -- enough to cover the costs of incinerating the town's trash, but not enough to cover the costs of collecting the town's trash [2]. Collection costs will still be paid using property tax revenues -- for now. However, the Selectmen would be free to raise the price of bags to whatever price they wanted. (Northborough charges as much as $2.50 per bag.)

So, without a vote either by the town's voters or by town meeting, residents will be paying an additional $1.3 million for a service that's currently included in their property taxes.

By the way, under the proposed scheme, the Health Department expects a decrease in the amount of the town's trash by as much as 25-50% [1]. But as a previous column in Shrewsburied revealed [4], the decreases in trash that have been observed in other towns when "trash taxes" were imposed, were largely due to residents forgoing their municipal trash collection service and hauling their own trash to the town dump. Since there's no public dump in Shrewsbury, even a 25% reduction in trash may be optimistic.


References:

[1] "Health Department prepares dual budgets" by Melissa Muntz, Community Advocate, 28 December 2007, pages 1, 4. (Available on-line at: http://www.communityadvocate.com/news/2007/1228/Front_Page/006.html .)

[2] Private conversation with the Health Department, 28 December 2007.

[3] ($1.50/bag)x(1.7 bags/household/week)x(10,000 households)x(52 weeks/year) = $1,326,000 annually.

[4] "'Trash tax': a hugely inefficient fee," posted 17 December 2007.

Affordable housing: state vs. Shrewsbury

The state is forcing Shrewsbury to fulfill two mutually exclusive goals: increase the amount of affordable housing in town, yet not use more water nor produce more wastewater.

Under state law M.G.L. Chapter 40B, 10% of a town's housing must be "affordable." Currently Shrewsbury falls short of that goal. Until the town meets that goal, developers can build apartment complexes even where our zoning laws ban them. The town suffers twice as a result: commercially zoned land (which produces more tax revenue than it consumes) is lost and replaced with high-density housing (which consumes more tax revenue than it produces).

But the state is desperate to reverse its steady population decline: after the 2010 census, Massachusetts will almost certainly lose another Congressional seat -- and the federal aid that goes with it [1]. Consultants have convinced the state government that the high cost of housing in Massachusetts is driving people out of the state; hence the state's push to build more affordable housing. (However, no one has explained how a decreasing number of buyers causes real estate prices to rise.)

But while the state's Department of Housing and Community Development is pressing Shrewsbury to build more housing, the state's Department of Environmental Protection is pressing the town to use less water and produce less wastewater. In 2007 the town concluded an agreement with the state which limits (to 3.91 million gallons per day) the amount of water that the town can pump from the ground, and that limits (to 4.65 million gallons per day) the amount of wastewater that can be treated at the Westborough sewage treatment plant. There are no provisions in the agreement to increase those limits in response to the population increases that new (affordable) housing will create.

Clearly the state's environmental department hasn't bothered to talk with the state's housing department. It's just more evidence that our(?) state government doesn't give a darn about its cities and towns.


Reference:

[1] "Congressional seat on line: State might be cut to 9 House members" by Steve Lablanc, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, 28 December 2007, page A3. (See: http://www.telegram.com/article/20071228/NEWS/712280381 .)

Garbage In, Garbage Out

Don't get me started.

In all the hub-bub (is that how it's spelled?) about Trash this fall, no one doubted the importance of recycling. Not even the über-conservatives at Seniors for Responsible Taxation. Even they said that they wanted to increase recycling.

Neighbors, let us review. There are two arguments for increasing recycling, we are told: 1) because it saves the Town money (which is true); and because 2) we should increase recycling for its own sake.

Is # 2 true? We accept it as true, but is it really?

Now before you scream and freak and call me a hypocrite because I have not one not two but three recycling bins which I fill beyond capacity every fortnight, take the time to read this thought-provoking article from the New York Times. It's called "Recycling is Trash" and it was written by NYT's libertarian op-ed columnist, John Tierney. It holds the distinction of generating a record-breaking amoung of hate-mail sent to the NYT Magazine.

I don't actually completely agree with Tierney's thesis, but it's iconoclastic and might make you think differently about why we recycle.

When you're done with this blog, please recycle it.

Christopher Rutigliano is running for Selectman

Christopher Rutigliano is running for Selectman in the May 2008 election.

Two seats on the five-person Board of Selectmen are up in 2008:

• Incumbent chairman, Maurice DePalo, is running for re-election.
  
• Incumbent Bruce Card is expected to announce his intentions after the first of the year.

Rutigliano, 45, is a Republican and lives at 15 Farmington Drive. He is a Town Meeting Member from precinct nine and was a member of the 2006 Fiscal Study Committee.

Some of the issues which will likely come up during this campaign will be whether candidates support:

• the pending Library expansion project;
  
• "Pay As You Throw" trash fees; and
  
• potential repairs to Sherwood Middle School.

Nomination papers are typically available in January and due back to the Clerk's office by March.  The election is the first Tuesday of May.

Winter Solstice and Light

The Winter Solstice will be on Saturday, meaning the days will be getting longer. To celebrate the Season of Light switch from your standard light bulbs to compact fluorescent lamps(CFL), you know the curly funny lights (CFL). We all know they will save us money, last longer and reduce our carbon output so why are we waiting? You looked into them a couple of years ago and you hate the glare and white light, they don’t fit in your lamp base, and you are concerned about mercury. Follow the links on the highlighted words to read the advice of environmental groups. I have recently changed over most of the light bulbs in my home; I bought a few different types including one with a cover over the curly part, so it looks like a regular bulb. There are still a few fixtures that I was not able to switch over, I will need to do a bit of research. Start the New Year off on the right foot, or make that the green foot and change over your bulbs.

DID YOU KNOW: do not put used holiday wrapping paper in your recycling bins. The different types of papers are often of low quality, they are metallic, recycled, and the tapes and bows are unacceptable at the center that Shrewsbury uses to sort our recycled goods. Shrewsbury Health Director Nancy Allen suggests, “Flattening your used wrapping paper, don’t ball it up and then put in your trash bag, not recycling bins. The gift boxes and cardboard can be recycled in the regular manner.” OR you could do what your great Aunt Myrtle used to do when given a present and save all that paper for another use.

Uglification via trash

For those of you who care about Trash fees, here's a little perspective of parody:

Town Uglification Committee Approves New Pile Of Garbage Bags

(Click on the headline for the article.)

I just thought it was worth the laugh. Your comments are welcome.

Trash Fees Are Needed

At the November Financial Workshop Mr. Morgado included an Exhibit 10.1 Summary of Solid Waste Costs and Revenue that estimated for FY2009 trash collection costs of $1,157,758 (+3%) and trash Disposal Costs $794,420 (+28.4%). One should note that this is on the heels of an estimated 42.5% increase in disposals costs from FY2007 to FY2008. These increases coupled with other uncontrollable increases that Shrewsbury is facing simply cannot be absorbed without either applying fees, cutting out major services, or not properly supporting more productive pubic services.

We have seen the argument posted here that the revenue from the new landfill contract should be used to off-set the increases in trash costs not fees. Mr. Morgado projects that in FY2009 that landfill revenue will go up to $900,000, but that would still leave $722,178 to be covered by the FY2009 tax levy. From Fiscal years 2008-2012, if tax fees are not put in place, the town would consume $4,313,874 from the tax levy and consume all of the revenue from the landfill contract to pay for trash pick-up and disposal. So when the earlier posts tried to make the case that the trash fees are not needed they could not have been looking at all of the costs provided in Exhibit 10.1.

Paying for trash costs is not only a poor use of the tax levy and the landfill revenue, but it is poor policy to subsidize behavior that is bad for the environment. It is well documented that more people will recycle and reuse if they see the direct charge for simply throwing it away.

A trash fee makes sense even if you only look at trash costs, however, that is far from the full financial picture that Shrewsbury is faced with. The increase in State Aid is expected to slow and we are seeing double digit increases in portions of the school and municipal budget that cannot be avoided. Even though school enrollment numbers are flattening, we need to make up ground for the teachers that we did not hire when the school population was rapidly growing. We need more teachers for the middle school for class sizes to be within guidelines and we need more teachers at the high school so students can take classes instead of sit in study halls.

Using the tax levy and revenue generated from town run “businesses”, like the landfill, to hire teachers is a far more productive use of money then paying for trash.

Who Are You — I Really Wanna Know

This past weekend has been… unpleasant for me. After Spurious George's most recent salvo was personal and mean-spirited, I received far too much criticism than my thin skin could handle.  As the public face of this blog, I am responsible for everything on the site.  That's the honor and the burden.

Because of this blog's anonymity policy, I haven't been able to make this blog what I want it to be: a higher level of discussion on serious political issues.

Therefore, starting right now:

• all of the pseudonymous writers have been retired from posting articles on this blog; AND
• comments may only be made by registered users.

We have another budget crunch coming up and what could be interesting races for Selectman and School Committee.

I hope we can make this an even more productive discussion.   But now it's up to you.  I expect you, my dear readers, to step up and send in your comments.  If you think this is the right decision, then please come to the table prepared for discussion.

What do you think?  Please post your comments.

"Trash tax": a hugely inefficient fee

One of the main goals of requiring residents to buy trash bags (the so-called "pay-as-you-throw" or "trash tax" proposal) is to reduce the amount of trash that residents discard. Since the town would have less trash to incinerate, the town would save money on disposal costs; and that money could be used for other purposes (schools, public safety, etc.). However, a simple analysis of the figures reveals that such a "trash tax" would be a prodigiously inefficient way to raise revenue.

Let's look at the figures:

At present, the town collects trash from about 10,000 residences [1]. Suppose that under the "trash tax" policy, each residence buys and uses only one trash bag per week at a price of about $1 per bag -- about what the residents of Worcester pay. Then residents would spend

(10,000 residences) x (1 bag/residence/week) x ($1 /bag) x (52 weeks/year) = $520,000 per year.

In 2006, the town discarded 11,272 tons of trash. According to the town manager [2], so far this year the town is producing less trash this year than it did last year. So, estimate the amount of trash in 2007 at 11,000 tons. The Health Department estimates that under a "trash tax" policy, the amount of trash that's produced by the town would decrease 20-30% [1] -- splitting the difference, say, 25%. Since under the new trash contract that town meeting approved on December 10, the town will pay $67.73 per ton to dispose of the trash, then under a "trash tax" policy, the town would save

(25/100) x (11,000 tons) x ($67.73 /ton) = $186,257.50.

Thus, each year, the town's residents would pay about $520,000 so that the town government could have $186,000 to spend on something besides trash disposal. That means that for every $1 that the town would save in trash disposal costs, the town's residents would have to spend about $2.80. I think that an instructor in municipal administration would give such a grossly inefficient revenue-raising scheme a failing grade: its costs far exceed the revenues that it reaps.

Also, the impression has been spread that charging people for trash collection and disposal greatly reduces the amount of trash they produce. However, it turns out that the apparent reductions are actually due to other causes [1]. In many communities where a "trash tax" has been imposed, about half of the residents decide to cease having the town collect their trash. Instead, residents haul their trash to the town dump themselves. Since the trash that residents themselves dispose of isn't counted in a town's official figures of trash produced, imposing a "trash tax" appears to dramatically reduce the amount of trash that a town produces. So "trash taxes" aren't as effective as they've been portrayed to be.

If people want more money for the town government, they'd probably do better than a "trash tax" would, simply by standing outside the front door at town hall, holding a red kettle in one hand while ringing a bell with the other, and asking for donations.



References:

[1] Private e-mails from the Health Department, 17 December 2007.

[2] Statement made during the hearing of the Finance Committee, 6 December 2007.

Shrewsbury Leaning Toward Hillary

Based on a polling of the ShrewsBuried readership, the voters of Shrewsbury are tending to back presidential candidate Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, the junior U.S. Senator from New York.  Thirty percent of ALL votes were for Clinton who received 54% of all votes for a Democrat.  Trailing Clinton among Democratic votes were Barack Obama (27%), Joe Biden and John Edwards (8%), and Bill Richardson (4%). Rudy Giuliani was the top Republican vote-getter at 44% of the Republican vote and 18% overall, Mitt Romney (28% of Republicans), Mike Huckabee (17%), and Fred Thompson (2%).

Fifty seven percent of all votes were for Democrats, thiry-nine percent for Republicans and four percent voted "Don't know yet."  The poll was conducted on-line from Nov. 15 to Dec. 15.  Respondents were allowed to change their votes before the poll closed.

Receiving no votes were: Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, John McCain, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, "Other," and "Don't care."

The primary election will be Tuesday, February 5, 2008 and the general election will be Tuesday, November 4, 2008.  Anyone eligible to vote in the general election may vote in the primary. Contact the Town Clerk's office for more information.

Although it was not a scientific poll, it seems to mirror national polling generally.  Once I finish clearing my snow-bound driveway, I'll post some analysis.  Until then, I welcome your opinions in commentville.

Comedy Central

There is nothing I love more than sitting in my Barcalounger while watching a funny show on the television. Last Tuesday night, I was watching a hilarious show with the 3 Stooges, Shemp, the Dame, and glum Eyeore. It seems that they weren’t sure what to do about the budget so they asked the general public for help and hoo-boy, what a crazy crew of helpers!

The first helper was Ben Tartaglia who was waving around his bag of garbage; sheesh, next time he will be waving around his dirty laundry. His suggestion was not to charge a fee for trash pick up and said you could encourage recycling by using clear bags, because you could see the plastic containers and newspapers which should be recycled. The Dame said that the clear bag did not provide privacy to people. Makes me wonder what the Dame is hiding in her trash that she wants to keep private. Well we certainly know what Ben has in his trash because he kept waving it around.

The next helper was Ben’s cohort, John Lukach, and it was his turn to wave. He was waving around his muncipal budget, and proceeded to pass it out to the Board, who started to look really bored already. Mr. Lukach believes everyone in town should make their own budgets to submit to the board. When he was a child he must have been that kid who raised his hand on Friday afternoon to ask the teacher for homework for the weekend. Could someone please give this man a LIFE for Christmas? Normal people do not spend their free time making up municipal budgets.

The third helper, Missy Hollenbeck, must have removed the leaves from her hair, the bark from her shirt and the wood splinters from her arms, because she didn’t look like a tree hugger, more like a Big Mac hugger. She started going on and on and on about how good it was for us to pay extra money for special garbage bags. If this woman gets this worked up over garbage bags maybe she should get together with John Lukach; he could make up millions of budgets and she could recycle them all. She talked about soiled diapers, Alice’s Restaurant, and saving the earth, it made me wonder what leaves she must be smoking. By the end of her speech, I was waiting for Al Gore to come out and Melissa Etheridge to start singing. (I seem to remember Al Gore invented those special garbage bags.)

Johanna Mussleman was up next asking why the Stooges, Shemp, the Dame and Eyeore wait so long before they work on the budget and why they don’t do forecasting using different shortages. I got the impression that she has asked this question before, because everyone looked a bit exasperated. The Comedy Crew basically responded in two ways:
1) “Little Johanna, you do not ask grown ups why they do the things that they do. It is because we say so, now go to your room and don’t bother us anymore.”
2) Bruce Card (Shemp, because no one can remember him): “How dare you try to get rid of the library and the Senior Center” and the Dame: “we will not create fees just because we can.”

It is obvious that the system has worked so well in the past that we don’t need to change it. And I have already suggested some fees to bring in a lot of money, because they are certainly going to need them. Soon they will come crawling to George to beg him to suggest more fees to help bring revenue into Shrewsbury. I started thinking of more fees; I must have dozed off at this point because Mrs. George was telling me to go to bed.

Such-and-such

Did you see today's T&G headline, "Town taking a look at sidewalks and such"?

"And such"? Is that a regional expression? I've been told that it is, but I've lived here since childhood, so it seems natural to me.

But it seems like a real stretch of informality for a newspaper as vaunted as the T&G.

A Very Special Christmas Town Meeting

The first article on this week's Town Meeting warrant allowed the Selectmen to sell the Edgemere fire station. A new station has been built down the road and now we just had to dispose of the old one. No big deal. There were some good questions posed which were, in turn, well answered.

Once the debate seemed to wind down, however, Mel Gordon "moved the question." Procedurally, that means that the assembly votes on whether to end debate. The premise of such a motion is to say: "we're done debating and although there are more people with questions to ask, we want to move straight to a vote." Strategically, such a motion is used either when:
(A) opponents of the article are wasting time, delaying, filibustering, etc;
(B) when supporters don't want some damaging information to come out; or
(C) when the night is dragging on and we all just want to go home.

But I have no idea why, in this situation, the Chair of the Planning Board wanted to end debate. It looked to me like there wasn't any opposition to the article and that debate had already wound down naturally. I don't blame Mel Gordon for the motion, I blame Town Meeting for approving it overwhelmingly.

Why the rush? The entire Town Meeting lasted 45 minutes — an extremely quick town meeting. I've watched Planning Board meetings, and they are much longer.

Anyone out there in comment-ville have any ideas why Town Meeting cut off debate like that? If you were there, did you support the motion to end debate, and if so why?

Do The Right Thing

Shrewsbury’s Board of Selectmen will be making a decision as to whether trash pick up will be financed by the Pay As You Throw (PAYT) and then Town Meeting members will vote to accept the budget using that budget. The Fiscal Study Committee looked into PAYT and other options and they have done a fine job of presenting the financial impact, I want to respond to the negative criticism and why PAYT will and must succeed in Shrewsbury.

The single biggest reason The PAYT program demonstrates documented increases in recycling and decreases in waste disposal when a community institutes a financial incentive to reducing your waste disposal. This decrease in what you throw away has a huge impact on Global Warming and reducing green house gases. According to Earth 911 to help reduce green house gases:

Recycle more and buy recycled. Save up to 2,400 pounds of carbon dioxide each year just by recycling half of your household waste. By recycling and buying products with recycled content you also save energy, resources and landfill space!

According to the scientists of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment:

The very character of the Northeast is at stake. NECIA findings make clear that the emissions choices we make her in the Northeast and globally will have dramatic implications for the climate our children and grandchildren will inherit. The Northeast states and their municipal governments have a rich array of proven strategies and policies available to meet the climate challenge in partnership with business, institutions and an increasingly supportive public. The time to act is now.

Nancy Allen, the Shrewsbury Director of Health, stated at a Waste Watcher meeting, Shrewsbury currently has a 26% recycling rate and according to the Mass Dept. of Environmental Protection, historically our highest rate was in 1996 when we recycled 32%. According to the EPA communities will see reductions of their waste collection by 25% to 35%. Two towns in Massachusetts with PAYT and their rates:

• Topsfield had 28% recycling rate in 1998 when they started their PAYT plan, one year later their recycling rate was 40% and the next year was 40%. Their waste disposal decreased by 15% in the first year and 20% in the second year.
• North Attleborough had a 28% recycling rate in 1998 when they started their PAYT plan, one year later their recycling rate was 55%, the second year 39%. Their waste disposal decreased by 44% the first year and 35% the second year.

Unfortunately it seems that altruism is not enough to significantly increase recycling rates, it must be mandated or have some incentive for users; you recycle, compost and use less and your trash bag usage and cost will go down.

EQUITY
According to Nancy Allen about 20% of residents are not eligible to use the town’s trash pick up services, these are the apartment dwellers, and condo owners. And we can not forget the business owners, they do not use the town’s trash pick up services. Yet all of them must pay for separate trash pick up and property taxes, directly or indirectly. This does not sound very equitable to me. How about the single elderly home owner who pays property tax which includes garbage pick up for her one bag per week and how about the people I know who have 3 kids, 2 dogs, 2 cats and do not recycle at all and put out 6 bags per week? How is that fair?

Those with low incomes can not afford to buy bags is another concern. I agree, with the cost of gas, heating and everything associated with those two commodities, adding even a small fee will be hard for some to even squeeze out an extra 1.50 per month. We should look into some type assistance for those with a demonstrated need.

SIMPLICITY
There are many PAYT plans, some include a flat fee and a per bag cost or instead of a special bag there might be an official sticker. Some have different sized bags and costs. And some are fees based on the size or weight of can/container. And some offer curbside pick-up and some require the resident to drive to a drop off facility.

If I understand the possible Shrewsbury plan correctly, it would be the simplest and easiest of all the options. We would simply buy one of two sized bags, depending upon your needs. A 15 gallon sized bag would be .75 and a 30 gallon sized bag for $1.50 with no annual flat fee. These bags are bigger, thicker and stronger than comparable sized bags most homeowners purchase.

Some towns impose a weight restriction of 30# to 40# in case a homeowner wants to “cheat” and use a trash compactor and get more garbage in the bag. Trash compactors start at $365 at Sears, it will take a long time to make up the cost of that compactor.

ILLEGAL DUMPING
A big concern of residents, who “almost” support the PAYT program, is illegal dumping of unwanted trash. I know this was my concern when I first heard Shrewsbury was investigating this plan. I have been reading a huge amount of info from all over Massachusetts, the U.S and the world regarding PAYT, and illegal dumping is one of the most repeated concerns.

According to an EPA study, “illegal dumping is a problem in about 20% of communities—a problem that lasts 3 months or less”, with only about 15% being household in origin, and the largest household component is bulky items or appliances. Educating the public and offering good recycling programs and the ability to get rid of bulky waste legally will cut down on illegal dumping. I asked Nancy Allen, Shrewsbury Director of Public Health, did illegal dumping increase when televisions and pc monitors were banned from trash pick up, she said,

We had TVs and computers thrown on the side of the road before, and after, they were waste ban items. If anything I would say that we have less of that now because people know there are opportunities to dispose of electronics properly and at a reasonable cost. If a person can not wait until the spring drop-off event to get rid of a TV or computer, we give them the name of a few companies that will remove the item for a fee. Staples will take any computer now for $10.00.

Another type of illegal dumping is the dumping that might be happening right now, since our neighbors, Northboro and Worcester who have PAYT, might have some of their residents giving trash or bulky waste to their friends in Shrewsbury. That means our taxes are paying for their trash.

Health and Sanitation Issues
Some people are concerned about people who will save their garbage instead of paying the bag fee and putting it on the curb. Images of newspaper headlines of someone with tons of garbage and newspapers in their home come to mind. This is not a garbage fee issue this is a mental health issue called Diogenes Syndrome and hoarding is a major symptom.

The price can go up any time they want to increase it.
PAYT cannot by law be a revenue making proposition, it can only subsidize or pay for the program in its entirety. Some people argue that the cost of the bags can be increased anytime without voter approval and cites Northborough as an example when they raised their rates by a few cents per bag. This is true — Northborough did raise their rates because the rates under their new contract increased. Do the voters in Shrewsbury vote on every little fee, like when the overdue fees at the library increase, or the cable rates, electricity or water fees increase? No, so why should they get a say in trash fees, it is a utility, just like water, electricity, or cable.

PAYT is not rocket science or genetic engineering; it is municipal waste disposal and it has been implemented in over 7,000 U.S. communities and over 139 communities (59%) in Massachusetts. 100% of the communities in Oregon, Washington and Minnesota have PAYT.

Many residents seem to think that our waste disposal pickup services are free.

They are not free.

Our residential property taxes pay for them.

Make Good Use of Mitigation Money

Last summer when the BOS was considering 40B proposals, they asked for "mixed-use" development plans which would leverage commercial property taxes to offset the increased services required by additional residential units. Two of the three developers proposed commercial/residential options but ended up withdrawing for different reasons.

The last developr standing won the bid -- for an Avalon apartment complex off Route 20. Shrewsbury did not have much choice since we are obligated to provide an appropriate number of so-called "affordable" units in our town. Avalon seems to be the right company for the job, as they have already completed one development in Shrewsbury and have another one in the works in Northboro, right down the road.

It did not go unnoticed that Avalon offered to Shrewsbury a large amount of mitigation money, which is common practice when seeking a bid such as this one. The term mitigation means that the money should be used to off-set some of the increased cost of services to be provided to the residents of the new apartment complex -- e.g., schools for the children, police/fire coverage, trash disposal, road/sidewalk maintenance.

Did anyone else see Mr. DePalo's eyes light up when the several million dollar mitigation award was discussed? Mr. DePalo, Ms. Miller and Mr. Card chatted about the wonderful possibilities of how that mitigation money could be used. (Mr. LeBeaux and Mr. McCaffrey recused themselves from the 40B decision because of possible conflict of interest). Mr. DePalo suggested that this multi-million dollars could be invested in the Allen Property in the hopes of making it more attractive to potential commercial customers.

Talk about throwing good money after bad! Commercial development is a tricky process and nobody at Town Hall has a crystal ball showing what a specific purchaser might want. Just look at the Lake St. and Rte. 9 property -- to get her desired zoning change, Katherine Wellington sold a beautiful plan to Town Meeting in October 2006 -- a 2-story attractive building with perhaps a Starbucks, an investment office, a salon and a Cold Stone Creamery or a nice sit-down restaurant. What has it turned into? A cheap, no-frills, ugly 4-story residential apartment/hotel called ValuePlace!

Shrewsbury does not have the right staff in place to actively market and negotiate with commercial developers. The market is slow right now, there's plenty of vacant space up and down Rte. 9 and it's unlikely that investing the Avalon mitigation money in the Allen Property would result in a near-term commitment to develop that property.

Resist the temptation to use the mitigation money that way and use it for what it was intended -- to support town departments which will be further burdened by the additional Avalon residents! Follow the lead of our smarter and more progressive neighbor -- Northboro.

In a recent article in the T&G, Northboro spelled out precisely how the mitigation money from The Loop and Avalon would be used:

The mitigation money from the two development companies will be used to pay teacher salaries for 70 additional students, as well as salaries for three police officers and two firefighters. The money will also pay to lease one school bus, buy three police cruisers, and pay half the cost of a new ladder truck for the Fire Department.

This is how it is meant to be used. Please analyze the impact of the new Avalon project on our town departments and get in front of this! It also makes sense not to spend all of it in Year One, but to spread it out over several years. While you are at it, can you convince ValuePlace to pony up some mitigation money, too? That development will certainly impact the town with additional police calls, kids enrolling in school, etc.

Agenda special town mtg (Dec. 10, ' 07)

On Thursday, Dec. 6, the town's Finance Committee reviewed the five articles that will be considered at the special town meeting on Monday, Dec. 10. There were a few interesting revelations.

Article 1: sale of old fire station

If this article is approved, the old #3 fire station at 122 Hartford Turnpike (Route 20) will be sold. The problem? State law requires that the town solicit sealed bids and set a minimum bid for the property. The town followed this procedure when it tried to sell a house at 51 Holden Street (at the end of the high school's driveway). The procedure flopped despite repeated tries. Eventually the house was sold at auction, and the winning bid exceeded expectations. Let's hope that a potentially valuable property isn't sold for peanuts just to satisfy an outmoded state law.

Article 2: highway money

Each year the state disburses so-called "Chapter 90" [1, 2] funds for the maintenance and repair of roads. For years the town's sidewalks have been neglected. This money could be used to repair them -- but don't get your hopes too high.

Article 3: doctors' bills

If approved, this article will pay several doctors' bills that were incurred by public safety officials.

During the discussion of this article, the town manager revealed that the town had changed the medical insurance policy that it offers to new employees: from $25,000 in coverage with no deductible to $100,000 in coverage with a $1,000 deductible per incident. This change is likely to restrain increases in the town's health insurance costs.

Article 4: interest and veterans' benefits

Most of the money in this article will pay interest on a "bridge loan" for the renovations to the Oak Street Middle School. The town is still funding a bridge loan for the renovation/replacement of three fire stations, but even that loan will be retired in February 2008, so the amount of money that the town spends on paying interest will continue to fall. The town's finances are looking better.

Article 5: new trash contract

Town meeting will approve only the length -- not the terms -- of a new contract with the Wheelabrator Corporation. The contract will last 40 years and will cover not only incineration of the town's trash in Millbury, but the disposal of waste in the town's landfill by Wheelbrator. Until now disposal and use of the landfill had been covered by separate contracts with different lengths, running the risk that a change in one contract would render the other contract unprofitable. If approved, this contract should settle the town's trash worries for a generation or more.

Under the new contract, the town manager expects that the town can expect to earn an added $600,000 each year from use of the landfill.

Another attractive feature of the new contract is that disposal costs will escalate at only 75% of the Consumer Price Index, which will restrain for decades the town's bill for trash disposal.

A potential danger: If the old town dump, which is located within the landfill site, must be cleaned up, the town must pay the first $500,000 of the costs. No provision has been made for those potential expenses, but the town manager believes that the town runs only a small risk.

The town manager also revealed that so far the amount of trash that the town has disposed of is running lower than that of last year. Indeed, the amount of trash that the town disposes of has been falling annually from a peak of 12,297 tons in 2003 to 11,272 tons in 2006.

Considering (1) that under the new contract, the town will be earning an added $600,000 each year from the landfill, (2) that the amount of trash that we have to pay to have burned continues to decrease each year, and (3) that the cost of trash disposal will be restrained for the next 40 years, it is really necessary to require residents to buy special trash bags?


Information on "Chapter 90" funds:

[1] the state law (Chapter 90, Section 34): http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-34.htm

[2] Shrewsbury's allotment for the current fiscal year: http://www.mhd.state.ma.us/ch90FY.asp

Tis the Season

The season of reflecting on our lives, being thankful and looking forward to new beginnings, starts in Shrewsbury around the beginning of November of this year with Diwali and running to the beginning of February of 2008 with the Chinese New Year, with Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas, the Winter Solstice and the Gregorian calendar New Year, on January 1 in between.

Wow, that is a lot of people taking stock of their lives, their world, and being thankful. I am thankful for many personal things that I will not bore you with, but I will share with you one of the many things that I am thankful for and thankful to the town of Shrewsbury.

The Shrewsbury Public Library is one non-essential service that I could not live without and one that I am truly thankful for not only its existence but its quality of programs and service. How much money does this service save the average person with all its offerings: videos/dvs; cds, computer programs, magazines/newspapers, books, computer access, educational programs, public service van; museum passes, clubs and groups, free meeting rooms… I am sure that I am forgetting something, but you get my point. Just look at the stats posted in the library on the number of patrons visiting!!

How many communities have the services that we have, how many have weekend hours, especially Sundays, how many even have a library? Not many, not many.So far our services are available thanks to good management starting with the Board of Selectman, Mr. Morgado, the Library Trustees and Ellen Dolan the Library Director. Another huge component of this success is the community itself. The volunteers who shelf books, answer questions, round up my toddler for me, form the great clubs and programs and the people and businesses who donate money to keep the library open on Sundays in the fall and winter.

Ellen Dolan, the Library Director has done a fabulous job of acting as a marketing/outreach/funding goddess. Once again she has gotten citizens, groups and businesses to donate $525 to keep the library open on Sunday from 1pm to 5pm. So far they only have funding through the first week in March. The library is packed on a Sunday what if the library had a collection drop box and asked people to drop in a buck or two to keep it open, I bet they would. I know my 9 year old would drop her saved allowance in that box with no thought at all. Just an idea, who knows they might be able to squeek out another Sunday.

Not sure what to do with your extra money this year (ok stop laughing now and continue reading), why not band together with your friends and neighbors and chip in and sponsor a Sunday. What a way to reflect on the past year, start the new year off right and thank everyone in town. Interested parties can contact Dolan directly at (508) 841-8537 for further information or to arrange a sponsorship.

Are you ready to Gamble on the promise of casino revenues?

I hope many residents of Shrewsbury happened to watch the recent “Ask the Manager” program with town manager Dan Morgado and guest co-host Kristin Oliveri. Kristin was able to ask the Manager how he viewed the possibility of Casino gambling coming to the commonwealth and possibly to Worcester, where a recent ballot question won a favorable response from the citizens of our neighboring city to site a casino there.

I am pleased to know our town manager is up on the topic, and had recently attended a workshop on the very subject where he learned the effects of casino gambling to local communities are well documented, and they are not beneficial. Shrewsbury residents and all citizens of the commonwealth need to be concerned.

The Governor recently proposed legislation for establishing three casinos in strategic locations in the state. The recommended locations would spread casino’s negative impact to every community in the state. Shrewsbury  would be in what is called the triple overlay area; we would be with in the fifty-mile radius of ALL three casinos.

The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts strongly opposes any plan to change our current gambling laws from class 2 to class 3 gambling, which if legal, would allow for blackjack tables, slot machines and mega casinos – and all of the problems that would ensue.

For the past several months the League has been updating its information on casino gambling. We have compiled close to 30 independent studies and articles that were written by professors of law, economics, and psychology; reporters from states that have casino gambling and states that are considering casino gambling; taxation specialists; and even Warren Buffet, renowned investor and businessman.

Diane Jeffery, President of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts, stated, “These studies and reports all conclude that casino gambling is not a solution to the fiscal problems that states face and definitely no substitute for reasonable tax policy. The perceived financial gain is easily outweighed by the myriad of problems that accompany the introduction of casino gambling.”

Ms. Jeffery summarized some of the main problems associated with casino gambling:

• Gambling is a business that drains the economy, it does not bolster it: Independent research has shown that for every $1 earned in revenue from casinos, $3 is spent in the costs associated with them. (“Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits.” Gringols, Earl PH.D. 2005.)
  
  
• Gambling is no substitute for a reasonable tax policy: The Governor claims that adding three mega casinos is just one piece of the solution for our fiscal challenges. Yet, not one state in this country has ever solved its budget problems with gambling revenues. Last year, New Jersey, with its 17 casinos, had to shut down its state government due to a budget crisis. (“Governor Corzine signs executive order for orderly shutdown of government operations.” Office of the Governor press release, July 1, 2006.)
  
  
• Casinos will not bring an economic multiplier effect to our area: Cities like Atlantic City and Detroit and States such as Louisiana and Mississippi continue to languish despite their heavy concentration of casinos. If the casinos were good economic development as their proponents say, then The Boston Business Journal would not be strongly editorializing against them. Casinos lower a region’s standard of living by attracting many low wage casino jobs and merely act as a jobs transfer, not a job creator. (“Gambling numbers don’t add up.” The Boston Business Journal, September 21, 2007. Pg 63.)
  
  
• Expanding Gambling will turn the myth that everyone is gambling already into a fact. While 16% of residents in this state traveled outside the state to gamble, 84% did not! The real mission of the casino plan is to increase the number of gamblers in the state, which is why they are trying to locate them near our population centers. (Opinion Dynamics poll on behalf of the Massachusetts State Lottery and the Massachusetts Council of Compulsive Gambling, Fall 2005.)
  
  
• The negative impact of casinos is most intensely felt within a fifty-mile radius of the facility. With 3 mega casinos proposed strategically across the state, there is not a place in the Commonwealth left without an overlaying effect from the casinos. Central Massachusetts has the greatest area of concern, with a triple overlay effect, falling in the fifty-mile radius of all three of the proposed casinos. (National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report commissioned by US Congress 1999.)
  
  There will be few winners in the state if casino gambling arrives. It is not a quick fix for Massachusetts, but no fix at all.

Other organizations have begun to sound the alarm along with the League of Women Voters. The Worcester Regional Research Bureau released its report “Casino Gambling in Worcester The Case For and Against” was released on October 18th with this conclusion:

“The Research Bureau judges that opening a casino will make the overall situation of Worcester and the region worse rather than better. Worcester is not a desert town with nothing to lose like Las Vegas, an economic basket case like Atlantic City or Tunica, or a rural area with relatively little need to worry about the effects of a nearby casino on the local and regional population or business climate like the locales of Connecticut’s Indian casinos. Worcester is home to highly- regarded educational and health care institutions and a burgeoning life sciences sector that can create jobs compatible with the state’s knowledge economy.

Even if the State Legislature should decide to authorize the establishment of casinos in Massachusetts, Worcester and the region have far more to lose than to gain from participating in the pursuit of gambling money. Instead of searching for new revenue sources that are likely to diminish the quality of life for Massachusetts residents where these facilities are located, both state and local governments need to pursue the numerous options available for bringing public expenditures under control.”

Analysis done by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which neither supports nor opposes resort casinos, found “in sum, casino revenues are neither a sufficient nor appropriate source for transportation funding, and in no way an adequate replacement for an increase in the gas tax.

In the coming months legislators will be considering legislation to make changes in our laws to allow for casino gambling to be come legal in Massachusetts, paving the way for three casinos under the governor’s plan and what ever else may come our way once the laws are changed. Preventing further expansion will be even more difficult.

I encourage everyone to research this issue further, you will find opposing casino gambling in Massachusetts is the sure bet for Shrewsbury. Contact your legislators and join the League to spread the word.

Kelly Marcimo
President, Shrewsbury League of Women Voters

Time to Look at the Town Charter

Has Shrewsbury outgrown the form of government we have been using, representative Town Meeting? When was the last time anyone reviewed Shrewsbury's Town Charter to see if it still meets our current needs and goals?

Recently, in Westboro, a Government Study Committee (GSC) was formed to review their form of government (open town meeting) and the Charter as well as to consider which positions should be appointed vs. elected. The committee generally found good news and did not recommend any major changes. {Westboro Finance Committee member John} Arnold said early on in their research into how residents felt the town government operates, the seven-member GSC heard from many who felt "the town was run very, very well."

But what is the harm in revisiting the Charter and considering whether Shrewsbury's size makes it harder to manage with a 5-member Board of Selectmen? Would the Mayor/Town Council format be more accountable to the 33,000 citizens of our town? What are the pros and cons of this form of government?

Following their presentation, Westboro's GSC members were also asked to consider the possibility of instituting term limits for elected officials. I wonder if any towns in our area have implemented term limits and, if so, what the outcome has been?