Tom Franks has experience in private, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. He has a master of science in environmental management and policy from Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute. He is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing District 9.
BRATTLEBORO-As a volunteer, I have been supporting Brattleboro town staff with research and analysis about curbside collection of waste since April. They have worked diligently and creatively to achieve the objectives set by two consecutive Selectboards for a municipally funded program.
Based on new information and a review of the information I’d previously gathered, I believe that Brattleboro should discontinue municipally funded curbside collection and disposal of trash and recycling.
One piece of new information was the announcement of an estimated 12% increase in education taxes and the preliminary estimate of Brattleboro’s municipal tax increase in the range of 4.4%. Combined, it seems we can expect that the total property tax increase will approach double digits.
Considering the challenge we had passing a budget this year, it is unlikely that the town budget will pass with an increase that big. In the search for substantial cuts, trash and recycling may be the only line item where private arrangements can readily fill the gap and where staff cuts would not be required.
The other recent information came from research into the likely decrease in sales from higher prices for pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) bags, from $2 to $4.60 for yellow bag and from $3 to 6.90 for purple. This research shows that modest increases in price make sales go down by 0.1% to 0.6% for each 1% of increased cost.
Brattleboro’s prices are going up by over 225%, which is nowhere near modest. A conservative estimate of the decline in bag sales is 22.5%. It could easily be higher.
Delaying the decision to cut this program until a budget crisis would be more costly than making it now. Over the next few months, the town will invest lots of staff time in preparing to roll out a program that may not survive the budget process.
If a decision to change course is not made before the budget vote is warned, the town will also have ordered and probably taken delivery of $150,000 to $350,000 of recycling bins. These investments will be completely wasted if the trash and recycling program are cut from the budget.
Thus, I decided to speak out before we pass the point of no return.
* * *
Here are some of the other reasons I suggest giving up on municipally funded curbside collection of trash and recycling:
• Most towns in Vermont do not provide curbside collection of any sort. None of the other towns that provide municipal fire and police services do. (Let’s call them “high service towns.”)
Despite not providing municipal trash collection, these other towns are not noticeably more awash in trash than Brattleboro. And all but a few of the other towns in Vermont have lower tax rates, including all of the other high-service towns;
• It is a bad deal for the town. I have compared Brattleboro’s proposed contract cost to that of the five other communities which provide curbside collection of trash and recycling. The metric is cost per stop: one stop each for trash and recycling.
The average cost per stop for the five communities is $2.64. Brattleboro’s anticipated cost per stop, assuming maximum participation under the latest proposal, would be $4.80, not including the municipal expenditure on recycling bins.
• It is a bad deal for many taxpayers. The tax burden of the curbside program is currently spread across all properties in town. This includes taxpaying properties that would be excluded from the program, like residential buildings with five or more units and all non-residential properties.
These excluded properties comprise approximately 41% of the Grand List. This means that they pay 41% of the taxes for everything, including the recycling program. This would amount to $284,723 collected in FY27 for properties that would be excluded from the program, and this money would support the recycling for other properties.
• It is not a good deal for some eligible households. Those households that use more than 1.6 bags per week and that have a property assessed at higher than the residential (R1 & R2 property codes) average of $221,150 would be better off making private arrangements with a hauler. Those properties that use two bags or more per week, regardless of assessed value, would be in the same boat.
• Finally, all of the cost estimates of the trash and recycling program above are based on meeting bag sales projections. If bag sales are short of projections by 25% or more, the trash program will need support from other sources. The estimates also assume that the recycling carts will be funded by sources other than FY27 tax receipts.
* * *
The town of Hartford provided curbside recycling until the end of the FY25. In contract renegotiation, its hauler more than doubled the price. Hartford said no. A Hartford citizen I spoke with had been paying $65 per month for trash and $5 per month for recycling pickup under the town contract. After Hartford no longer had a contract, this individual began paying the same hauler $50 per month for both.
I shared similar thoughts with the Brattleboro Selectboard and town manager on Dec. 7. I thought I should share them with the voters and taxpayers of Brattleboro. As a town and as individuals, we have options other than what we’ve been doing. Let’s explore them.
If you want more information, please contact me at tomfranks.opinion@gmail.com.
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.