The warning came from the company describing a food-scrap collection service to Farmington.
"You are not saving money by implementing a program like this," a USA Waste representative identified during the meeting as Daniel told the Green Efforts Committee on Aug. 4. "You are more so doing what's right with the waste stream and providing residents an outlet for this material to be recycled."
That answer did not end the committee's interest in collecting residential food scraps. It did clarify the choice. A drop-off program could keep food out of the trash and give residents a place to bring material that backyard compost piles cannot handle. It would also add a municipal expense, and the committee has not decided whether to recommend one.
USA Waste was describing a service it could be paid to provide. The company told the committee that the hauler would own and maintain the carts.
No pilot was approved at the meeting. Kimberly Haidinger agreed to seek prices and operating details for metroSTOR collection units and report back. The committee still needs to measure resident demand, identify possible locations and decide whether a more secure enclosure is worth buying before it can judge whether the program is workable.
The committee made townwide composting one of four priorities in July. August supplied the part that goal-setting meetings tend to leave out: the bill.
Cheaper to process, more expensive to collect
The economics turn on the difference between disposal and collection.
Daniel said food scraps generally cost less per ton to deliver to an anaerobic digestion facility or composting site than ordinary trash costs to dispose of. The savings stop there. A separate truck, driver and route cost more than the difference between the two disposal prices.
"The collection cost far outweighs that offset in disposal cost," Daniel said.
Nicholas Malouin, a food waste program specialist, gave the committee a preliminary price of about $25 per cart per pickup. Daniel later stressed that the figure was a ballpark estimate. A final price would depend on the program Farmington designed. The hauler would own and maintain the carts.
Daniel said the calculation can work differently for a grocery store replacing costly trash-compactor service, or for a municipality that already pays another company for food-scrap collection. Farmington has no existing town program to replace, so the service would create a new budget line rather than reduce an old one.
The committee pressed on a different possible saving. If residents put less in their household trash, could they buy smaller private trash service and lower their own bills? The meeting produced no answer. Such savings would depend on the terms available from each resident's hauler, not on the price Farmington paid for the drop-off program. The distinction is important: a household might find a saving even while the town adds an expense, but the committee had no data showing how many households could or would do so.
What earlier pilots found
Connecticut has already tested versions of this idea. Daniel described state-funded Sustainable Materials Management grants that supported organics pilots in multiple communities. The programs varied, including curbside pickup, town drop-off sites and transfer-station improvements.
Most of those towns did not continue after the pilot, Daniel said. Some established smaller drop-off programs outside the state funding.
USA Waste also funded a curbside trial serving about 250 homes in Bloomfield. Daniel said participation reached about 30 percent even though residents paid nothing. A separate weekly truck and driver made that model expensive relative to the number of households using it.
Against that backdrop, the company recommended a voluntary, centralized drop-off instead of curbside collection. A typical pilot could last six months to a year, Daniel said, though participation patterns usually become visible within a month and a half to two months.
For Farmington, the harder question is not whether food scraps can be diverted, but whether enough residents would make a separate trip often enough to justify the collection bill.
The bin is part of the decision
Farmington has no transfer station, which removes the most obvious location. Members discussed town land, libraries, fire stations and property near the Farmington Land Trust. None solved every problem. A site must be visible and convenient without inviting ordinary trash, and it must serve a town divided by the river and highway.
Basic carts could come with the hauling service. The alternative discussed by the committee was an enclosed metroSTOR unit with controlled access. Members discussed phone access and participation data as ways to control who used the bins and monitor demand. They also viewed those controls as safeguards against contamination.
They do not yet come with a Farmington price. The vendor representatives described the units as expensive and said lead times are long. Committee members used figures ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 only as examples of how price could change the number purchased, not as estimates.
The enclosure also became a wildlife question. Members worried that food scraps at a fire station or other public site could attract bears. Haidinger said she would ask metroSTOR about construction, filters and its experience with bears. The committee did not establish that either the basic carts or the enclosed units are bear-resistant.
The concern was not only that a bear might damage a container. Members also raised the possibility that an animal drawn to a collection site could be struck on a nearby road or create another public-safety problem.
What Farmington has to learn next
The committee does not know how many residents would use the service. Members discussed adding a question to a broader town survey planned for the fall, with October mentioned as the likely release period. The survey has not been written, so food-scrap collection is not guaranteed to appear in it.
Commercial collection would offer residents something backyard composting does not. Daniel said processing facilities can accept dairy, meat and bones, materials that residents generally cannot put in backyard piles. Education would be one factor in whether those materials arrive without glass, metal or other contamination.
The committee heard a related cost problem in the school district's composting program in July. District officials said the program remained a net expense because ordinary dumpster service is largely billed at a flat rate. The committee had already approved $4,500 for a compost-sorting table at Union Elementary School, an environmental investment made without a claim that it would pay for itself.
The next step is narrower. Haidinger is expected to return with metroSTOR pricing and specifications. Until then, Farmington has no approved pilot, no selected site, no hauling agreement and no established budget.
The question before the committee is what food-scrap diversion is worth when the savings pitch is removed.
This coverage is supported by Farmington Storage, 155 Scott Swamp Road, the only storage facility in Connecticut with Museum air. Some things should be diverted. Some should be preserved. 860.777.4001 📦
Jack Beckett has covered Farmington long enough to know that even banana peels eventually reach the municipal cost question. He read the full transcript. The coffee was diverted to a more immediate use. ☕
The Farmington Mercury covers the public decisions that rarely fit inside a meeting summary: what local boards are considering, what it costs and what happens next. We report on town government, education, development, public safety and the local institutions doing the work. Always last to breaking news, because somebody should stay for the part where the numbers arrive. farmingtonmercury.com | #WeAreFarmington 📰