Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectboard weighs options after regional glass tipping fee hike; transfer-station sticker proposed for rentals
Summary
Pittsburg officials discussed a regional superintendent’s plan to charge towns an additional $25 per ton for glass (raising total to roughly $55/ton with tipping fees), and considered short-term fixes including accepting glass in MSW, negotiating with neighboring towns, and selling $20 dump permits for rental properties to offset costs.
Staff and selectboard members spent a sizable portion of the meeting discussing an announced change in regional handling of glass recycling that will affect town budgets. Staff member (speaker 1) told the board the regional superintendent plans to begin charging towns $25 per ton for glass; with the local tipping fee that would bring the effective cost to about $55 per ton.
"I just received an email … superintendent that I heard is gonna start charging all the towns for $25 a ton for glass," staff member (speaker 1) said during the transfer-station report. Board members discussed several responses: continue separating glass and ship later in summer when frozen water weight is reduced; have Vermont towns remain responsible for their own tonnage; or accept glass in municipal solid waste while seeking a regional agreement on costs.
The meeting also advanced operational ideas for the transfer station. Staff proposed building a covered reuse area for C&D materials and suggested generating revenue and accountability by selling a $20 dump permit or sticker aimed at short‑term rental properties (Airbnbs) and frequent nonresident users. "I think I'd rather sell them the permit for the $20 just because I think it's fair that way," the staff member said, noting such a sticker could be valid across seasons.
Board members noted legal and accounting constraints — revenues that exceed expectations may require hearings or go back to the general fund — but they signaled interest in pursuing a revolving fund model where transfer‑station receipts stay with the facility for repairs and improvements. No final vote was taken; the board planned to discuss the regional change at an upcoming inter-town meeting and to prepare communications for residents ahead of any fee changes.
