CLINTON — At its May 21 meeting, the Clinton Select Board agreed to restrict the town’s recycling center to Clinton residents only, following reports that people from other communities have been flooding the facility with bulk waste.
Recycling Center Coordinator John Cobb asked the board to consider a residents-only policy after observing “an increase in volume of materials from out of the area that is overwhelming staff and escalating costs of the operation.”
Town Administrator Michael Ward said that Clinton’s facility was “almost becoming a regional recycle center” as outsiders – especially those from towns without their own dump or with higher fees – flocked to Clinton, where no one was checking IDs at the gate. Ward noted the town has begun seeing “a lot of volume” from non-residents, including “trailer loads of mattresses” far beyond what a typical household would generate.
According to Ward’s report, Cobb suspected that some landlords or private haulers were collecting multiple mattresses and bringing them to Clinton for disposal. The board had previously set a disposal fee to cover the cost of each mattress, but the surge in use was driving up other expenses – the bulky waste container now had to be emptied twice a week instead of biweekly, incurring additional per-ton hauling costs.
“We are covering the mattresses, but then there’s trucking charges and there’s employee staff time that we’re adding to it,” Ward said.
Select Board member Mary Dickhaut spoke in favor of taking immediate action on Cobb’s request. “I have actually been down there when some of the mattresses have come in, and that’s been a problem for a long time,” Dickhaut said. She pointed out that the nearby city of Marlborough charges around $65 per mattress to dispose of one, “and that’s the problem” – a fee that high provides a strong incentive for non-residents to bring mattresses to Clinton’s lower-cost facility. “I know that there’s a bed bug issue, and why should our people that are working for us have to tolerate [that]?” she added. Dickhaut argued the board should “not just think about doing it” but take action “tonight” on the residents-only rule.
“Number one, I would be in favor of just making it for Clinton people until we can really look at the whole overall issue of it,” Dickhaut said. Adding, “I don’t see how we could be making money down there, we’re certainly taking a lot of other towns’ trash into our recycling center, so I don’t think it’s something that we should delay action on.”
Chair Matthew Kobus agreed that “action needs to be taken” to address the recycling center issues, but he floated the idea of adjusting fees rather than an outright ban on non-residents. “If we increase prices for out-of-town residents to the point where it can offset the cost for the Clinton residents, I would be open to that discussion,” Kobus said, adding that he was also open to a residents-only rule if necessary. However, Kobus expressed worry that completely barring non-residents could lead to illegal dumping just outside of town. “I have seen a few mattresses on the side of the road on Willow Road over in Clinton/Berlin,” he observed, referencing a road near the town line. “I just have a feeling that we may see more and more debris on the side of the road if people are coming this way and they can’t get rid of something – they’ll find a way to place it before they leave,” Kobus said, warning that frustrated out-of-towners might dump items along local roads.
Dickhaut quickly disagreed with delaying the policy change due to that concern. “That shouldn’t be something that prevents us from doing that,” she said to Kobus regarding the risk of roadside dumping. “Just because that could happen, that’s still not protecting the Clinton people,” Dickhaut said. “To me, the most important thing is taking care of what’s right for the Clinton people.”
Other board members also leaned toward prioritizing town residents’ needs. Chair Julie Perusse noted that Clinton’s facility simply may not have the capacity to serve all comers. “I don’t know if we have the infrastructure down there to really accommodate everybody,” Perusse said. She echoed Dickhaut’s sentiment, saying “we need to shore up what’s happening for our residents locally first.” Her thought, she explained, was to “stop the bleeding down there” in terms of non-residents “dropping things off because we’re the most affordable [option].” Once the situation is under control for Clinton residents, Perusse suggested, the board could later revisit the idea of differential fees or other measures if needed. For now, she indicated, the immediate step should be to “shore up what’s going on right now” by instituting the residency requirement.
As the discussion continued, members talked through how such a policy would work in practice. One concern was Clinton residents potentially hauling large quantities on behalf of outsiders. “What’s to prevent somebody from…everyone has friends from Clinton,” Select Board member Edward Devault noted, imagining a scenario where a non-resident might ask a local friend, “Hey, would you mind taking these 10 mattresses down for me?” Dickhaut countered that such a scheme would likely be short-lived. “Honestly, how long is that going to last?” she said. “My friend’s only going to do it for so long.”
In response to a question about enforcement, Ward and the board members agreed that recycling center staff would need to check identification to verify town residency for each drop-off.
“They’re going to need to check IDs and ensure [people are residents],” Ward said of the staff, acknowledging the center may not have enough personnel to station someone at the gate at all times. So, workers might need to spot check to approach each vehicle as it arrives. The board agreed that prominent signage should be posted at the facility entrance to warn visitors that it is “for Clinton residents only” and that they should be prepared to show ID. “It’s like anything – once you start something, it’s going to take a little bit for people to become used to the fact that it’s for Clinton residents only. You’re going to have some [confusion] immediately,” Dickhaut noted of the new rule’s rollout.
The idea of issuing resident stickers for vehicles was briefly discussed as a longer-term solution to streamline the process. Ward said staff had suggested a windshield sticker system, but he outlined several logistical problems: Would the stickers be free or paid? If a driver showed up without one, would they be turned away? If stickers were sold on-site, that would require staff to handle money, which the town prefers to avoid at the drop-off facility. Given those complications, the board did not pursue the sticker idea further at this time. “If we just start with [signs and ID checks for] Clinton resident only…it’s not going to be perfect when you start, but you’ve got to start somewhere,” Dickhaut said of implementing the policy now and fine-tuning later. Board members acknowledged no policy would completely eliminate abuse – “you’re never going to clear it up 100%,” one said – but felt the effort would significantly curb the most egregious issues.
After a thorough discussion, the board moved to formalize the new rule. Devault made a motion to “adopt a Clinton resident-only policy for usage of the Clinton Recycling Center,” which was seconded by Dickhaut. The motion passed unanimously 5–0.
Going forward, the board plans to work with Cobb and the recycling center staff to refine the policy. Members suggested they may consider setting a reasonable cap on the number of certain items (like mattresses or box springs) any one household can drop off at a time, to prevent even residents from overloading the facility. They will solicit input from the center’s staff on what an appropriate limit should be. But first and foremost, town officials stressed, the focus is on shoring up the service for Clinton residents and relieving the burden on the small facility.
