Voters back Selectmen fee
Published on October 24th, 2007
STONEHAM, MA - Town Meeting overwhelmingly rejected a bid by Franklin Street resident John DeGeorge to usurp the Selectmen's power to impose rubbish and recycling fees upon the populace without voter authorization.
In a surprise move during last Thursday's Special Town Meeting, DeGeorge tacked on a provision to his proposal that would have allowed garbage and recycling charges, if a majority of voters endorsed such a measure during April elections.
The Franklin Street resident had originally pitched a general article that would amend the town code so that all trash and disposal expenses - besides special revenues such as grants or government aid - needed to be paid through the tax levy.
DeGeorge has consistently maintained that the trash fee amounts to a circumvention of proposition 2 and 1/2, a state regulation that prohibits local officials from raising the tax levy by more than 2.5 percent each fiscal year.
"There is no law presently in place that prevents town officials from circumventing the system by imposing fees," said DeGeorge. "This article has to do with the trash fee, but I'd be here regardless of the fee, if it amounted to an override without the approval of the voters."
The alteration, which led to animated objections from Town Counsel Bill Solomon, would have enabled the Selectmen to ask voters to authorize such a charge, if done so on an election ballot.
Because the article sought to make the town code change effective next fiscal year - meaning this year's $170 charge would be safe - the election provision would have allowed the Selectmen to ask Stonehamites to agree to garbage charges before the revenue source was eliminated from the budget.
Both Finance Board member John Warren and Solomon attempted to get the warrant article thrown out on technicalities, but were ultimately overruled by Town Moderator Michael Rotondi.
Solomon insisted that the election language was outside of the scope of the original warrant proposal, while Warren challenged whether an election on a trash fee could take place before the bylaw went into effect.
"I didn't want to chop the town apart and say, 'stop the fee now,'" said DeGeorge in defense of the election provision.
According to Stoneham Fire Chief Joseph Rolli, he opposed the warrant articles on the grounds that it placed refuse disposal above all other municipal services, including public safety and education. Rolli argued that the trash costs should be considered like any other government service. By mandating that garbage removal automatically be paid through the tax levy, all other town functions would suffer disproportionately in tough budget times, the fire chief opined. Forest Street resident Dave Morr later contended that the trash fee was necessary, especially given the soaring price of removal. Referring to the town's current contract with Hiltz Disposal, which expires in two years, Morr warned that Stoneham needed to find ways to control its expenses before a new deal needed to be inked.
"If we maximize our recyclables and minimize our solid waste, the trash costs go down," said Morr, who believed a pay-as-you-throw option would encourage residents to recycle, as they could control their rubbish bills.
"Trash collection at the curb is a luxury. The next time this question comes up before the Selectmen, the question is not going to be, do we have a trash fee? It's going to be, do we have trash collection," Morr said.
According to Beacon Street resident Darin Leahy, while he agreed with Morr's assessment, he believed the only way to encourage the Selectmen to shift to a pay-as-you-throw option was to strip them of their authority to impose a flat charge. Leahy claimed that if such a proposal was properly planned and presented to citizens, locals would endorse a trash fee at the election ballot.
"The Selectmen have been playing a shell game with the trash fee over the past three years. Let them bring before us a comprehensive solid waste plan. I'm not opposed to paying a fee for trash," the Beacon Street resident said.
Lincoln Street resident William Reilly later defended the garbage fee, opining that the charge was necessary to keep the town afloat.
"Yes, trash is supposed to be in my real estate tax. But so isn't educating my children and having fire and police," Reilly commented. "If trash becomes a priority over our schools, our police and fire, and our parks, that's a problem."
A second proposal pitched by DeGeorge was similarly defeated by Town Meeting on Thursday night.
The last article on the warrant, the measure sought to have all certified free cash placed into the stabilization account before the next fall Town Meeting. The transfer, if approved, would have meant that any new budget items would have to be passed by a two-thirds vote.
According to DeGeorge, the article was a follow-up to a successful proposal he passed last May, which sought legislative approval of a home rule petition that would force free cash to automatically flow into the savings account each year.
"If you put it into the stabilization at the beginning of the meeting, there's no doubt in my mind that if it was for a good cause, people would vote [to withdraw money]," DeGeorge said.
Finance Board member John Bowen later commented that Town Meeting had gone against an earlier recommendation to place all free cash into stabilization at the outset of the assembly. Instead, the body voted to spend over $600,000 worth of funding to amend the FY'08 budget.
During last Thursday's meeting, citizens also voted to:
•Spend $20,000 for a feasibility study on the best future use for the Stoneham Arena, a change from an original proposal to appropriate an estimated $6.2 million for an expansion of the skating facility;
•To add $665,435 to the FY'08 budget, mostly to account for collective bargaining increases and several capital items;
•Rezone a 1.7 acre parcel near Manison Street from a residential to commercial use;
•Increase the fee structure for fines levied for barking dog offenses and for dog collection services;
•Raise the fines associated with false alarms that require responses from public safety departments;
•To place $800,000 into the stabilization account.
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!