SAUGUS — The WIN Waste Host Community Agreement has returned to Town Meeting a few years after already being voted on, with a brief amendment from Article 34 creator and Town Meeting member Elizabeth Marchese.
The amendment would strike out the section “Whereas, failure to secure such an agreement could result in the Town foregoing significant revenue that could otherwise support municipal priorities, including public safety, schools, infrastructure, and stabilization of the local tax burden.”
It would add “Whereas, any future expansion or continued operation of the landfill facility may significantly impact the town of Saugus, and the town therefore requests discussions and negotiations in the form of a host community agreement regarding appropriate community benefits, protections, and mitigation measures should such proposals arise.”
It also added, “Whereas, discussions regarding the future of the ash landfill facility have included the possibility of eventual closure, cessation of operations, remediation obligations, redevelopment opportunities, and long-term impacts upon the town of Saugus.”
It also added a statement on the town being able to secure appropriate financial protections, environmental safeguards, mitigation measures, infrastructure support, remediation commitments, and community benefits associated with the closure or transition.
Other amendments were made, and items were struck from the article.
Marchese noted that the article removes the involvement of MassDEP, taking away the claim that Town Meeting is trying to influence the decision of the state on the expansion of the landfill.
“The amendment ensures that any Host Community Agreement can address both outcomes,” Marchese said.
She said the article remains nonbinding and that the amendment clarifies intent, “strengthening protections for the town and ensures the article addresses the full range of realistic outcomes facing Saugus.”
Marchese said the common goal was to protect the town regardless of what happens with the landfill, expansion, or closure.
“For years, Saugus has received little more than standard tax revenue and donations for youth sports, various organizations, various town functions. While appreciated greatly, we have never secured the kind of substantial mitigation, protections, or long-term financial safeguards that communities hosting facilities like this often negotiate,” she said.
Marchese stated that she wanted to protect Saugus and stop the “divide” between the two sides.
Town Meeting member Peter Manoogian approached after Marchese finished speaking to oppose Article 34.
“My colleague from Precinct 6 brought up the Kumbaya approach. Kumbaya would mean if we were united and not divided on this issue. Imagine if we demanded as a community that we have a new incinerator capable of 45 parts per million of NOx emissions like the one in Palm Beach, Florida,” he said.
Manoogian continued by saying that they should let WIN find another community desperate for revenue and willing to host them.
“Imagine if we demanded that all those commercial zoned acres were put to economic use that yield far more revenue than the paltry sums described in this deal,” he said.
Manoogian held up the agreement made in 2023, calling it a “cash for ash” deal, noting that the committee that brought the deal forward had no professional guidance.
He continued, saying this would be a bad deal for public health and that voting yes would endorse emissions standards “proven to exacerbate asthma and respiratory ailments.”
Resident Sarah Petruzzelli, who believes the closure of the landfill is the better outcome, noted that she supports Article 34 because now is the time to negotiate.
She continued that when the landfill does close, the town will be burdened with the incinerator and that “We deserve all that comes with that, including a fund that they continually pay into to help mitigate the damage they are doing to the community.”
Selectman Jeff Cicolini, who voted for the 2023 HCA, said he does not trust the state and wants protections in place, even though he does not want expansion.
Cicolini explained that the HCA has to do with adding more ash to the landfill and is not connected to the facility.
“This isn’t the time to be negotiating… Leverage doesn’t happen when the state makes a change in legislation. It then goes to our Board of Health… That’s when they would have a discussion about whether there’s going to be a site assignment… We were talking hypotheticals… 50 feet never came up in discussion. It was 20 years, 20 feet, whichever came first,” he said.
Cicolini stated he does not support the article in the way it is written.
A call was eventually made to refer the article back to the maker, and in a 28 to 19 vote, the article was referred back to Marchese.
