Lexington waste collection and disposal costs have risen 67% in the past five years; the average household now pays $143 more per year through taxes than it did in FY22 (source: lexingtonma.gov). Those costs are expected to accelerate, as Massachusetts landfills reach capacity and close, forcing communities to transport waste out of state at an even higher cost per ton. Every dollar spent collecting and hauling away trash comes out of the same budget that funds schools, libraries, and public safety. A ‘no’ vote does nothing to relieve that pressure; it simply leaves the problem to grow until we are forced to raise taxes or cut services.
The average Lexington household throws away nearly 1,400 pounds of trash a year, and roughly 500 pounds of it is food waste that could be composted. Our trash is still 23% recyclable and 38% compostable (source: Lexington’s Waste Reduction Task Force). This sounds like a problem, but it is actually an opportunity to reduce both trash and cost. According to MassDEP, communities with volume-based fee structures generate 32% less trash annually than communities without such a program.
The surest way to lower collection and disposal costs is to reduce the amount of trash, and the surest way to do that is to give people a financial incentive to minimize their trash. A ‘yes’ vote affirms Town Meeting’s amendment of Chapter 90-9, which permits the Select Board to impose reasonable fees for waste disposal. Every household receives a baseline (one trash cart) still supported by taxes. Only trash above the baseline carries a fee; a modest one, judging by other towns that use this approach. For example, in Arlington you can buy overflow bags at local stores for $3/bag. Unlimited recycling and composting will continue to be covered through property taxes. The town pays to dispose of every ton of trash, so less trash volume means lower overall costs for the community.
The choice before Lexington voters on June 16 is not “free trash versus paid trash.” It is whether we manage our rising waste costs proactively, or absorb them later through higher taxes and cuts to the services we depend on.
Please vote YES on June 16.
Eran Strod
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 6
Irony of celebrating 250 years, while trying to levy more taxes on people.
The sneaky “no fee increase” framing by the author and the people who created this issue:
Proponents repeatedly claim there will be “no fee” or “no cost impact” for the majority of households. They cite a 2025 audit showing 63% of households use 36 gallons or less, 81% use 48 gallons or less, and 88% use 64 gallons or less. They say every household gets one “free” baseline town-issued cart (size TBD, with public input), all recycling and food waste collection remain free, and fees only hit “excess” trash (extra bins or bags, estimated $100–$200/year for a second bin or $2–$5 per bag).
**This is technically true but misleadingly framed.** By picking a larger baseline bin (e.g., 64 gallons), they can claim an even higher percentage pay nothing extra. However, 40%+ of households (or 12–37%, depending on the final bin size) who generate more trash will face new, direct fees that didn’t exist before. The current system is fully funded through property taxes. This proposal doesn’t eliminate that underlying tax burden for the base service…it layers user fees on top for heavier users while touting overall “savings” of $300k–$500k from reduced volume.
It’s not a “no fee increase” for the town or residents overall. It’s a shift from a flat tax-funded service (simple, predictable, universal for 40+ years) to a hybrid where a sizable minority pays extra based on usage. Opponents correctly call this an additional “tax” in practice, even if labeled a “fee.”
The bylaw change removes the longstanding “free” language precisely to enable this.
Proponents downplay the real impact on larger families, multi-generational homes, or those with higher waste output (who aren’t necessarily the wealthiest). This is the classic “it only affects the other guy” sales pitch.
Hypocrisy on “social and moral responsibility” + fiscal responsibility
The proponents (and town materials) frame PAYT/PAAT as a moral and social imperative: reducing waste is environmentally responsible, equitable (heavy users shouldn’t be subsidized by light users), and fiscally prudent to avoid service cuts or future tax overrides. They note many MA communities have similar systems and have seen 25–50% trash reductions.
Yet this comes immediately after Lexington approved a $660 million high school project via debt exclusion (overriding Prop 2½ limits), with tax impacts starting in 2027. Estimates showed peaks of roughly $1,300/year extra for a $1M home (higher for more expensive properties), even with mitigation via reserves. The project passed Town Meeting and voter approval in late 2025.
Opponents at notrashfees.com rightly highlight the 14% tax increase tied to this “splurge” and argue it’s hypocritical to suddenly demand “fiscal responsibility” and moral waste-cutting from residents while the town green-lit one of the most expensive school builds in Massachusetts history. Adding insult, months after the school vote, the district announced teacher and staff cuts amid operating budget pressures…showing the big capital spend didn’t magically fix fiscal issues.
If reducing costs and protecting services is truly a moral duty, why wasn’t the same scrutiny applied to the school project? The “Yes for Fiscal Responsibility” group focuses laser-like on trash (a few million dollars) but stays silent on the far larger capital commitment. That’s selective fiscal preaching. Hypocrisy and just being disconnected from what people actually want while trying to sneak all these nuisance resolutions by without thinking about overall experience.
Please don’t fix what isn’t broken. The cost of the this is negligible and your solution to fixing problems shouldn’t automatically be to raise taxes/fees. Be more creative.
Show us how you’re using the already sky-high property taxes. But, you might not want to mention all the wasteful spending that DWARFS the projected trash collected expenses.