Re: single stream towns that do it well make money but it is not as simple as deciding to ‘just do it’.

Our hybrid PAYT mixed with dual stream on tap for January is not ideal but it gives me some control of what I pay to toss and what I recycle or compost. However, one concern I have with dual stream PAYT is that the fee is per bag and not weight so if a person choosees to not recycle then they can just pay to toss another bag or stuff their big bag full of paper plastic etc. – for some folks the extra $$ is worth not dealing with recycling. This is a problem on several levels 1) more trash to deal with and dispose of for the town 2) reduced revenue for the recycled material that we do sell.

Not everyone cares about recycling and the environment but lots of us do, so the system that we need would make it easy for the masses to comply with best practices in recycling combined with cost / price sensitivity. (dare to dream)
So if that solution is single stream PAYT then that would be a big increase to my family because we already recycle and compost everything…

There is lots of great discussion on this site and lots of opinions on all sides of the issues. Thanks Molly

A couple months ago I posted about South Berwick creating it’s own micro-economy. Crazy, I know, but other communities (Ithica, NY) have been doing it for years. I would much rather give my labor to the town then pay taxes. As of January 1st we’ll already have our own currency…How do other people feel about volunteering for an hour (picking up roaside trash, working at the Library, shoveling snow, cleaning a community center, etc.) in exchange for PAYT bags?

Again, I have suggested to Town Council members that we offer System Operations classes at UNH or UMaine the opportunity to redesign for better traffic flow. We would get a new design for free, lower the possibility of fender benders & maiming someone……

again, no one wanted to hear anything about it. Too much trouble, and besides the head of the Transfer Station just redid everything a few months back.

I understand what your saying but here’s the math for my home. (I realize it’s going to be different for everyone). The reduction of .17 per 1000 in my tax rate amounted to a savings of $31.21. My family of 5 produces 5 bags of trash a week. (Actually closer to 4 1/2 bags). We recycle. If I use the small bags it’s going to cost me $117.00 for 6 months. If I cram my regular bags into the large ones the same 6 months will cost me $58.50. This means that using the large bags is going to cost me $27.29 more than if they had raised my taxes .17. No matter how you slice it, that’s a tax increase. Except with PAYT they are telling me that they’ve done me a favor. For small households it may not be as bad. For some larger ones especially with young children, their screwed. What happens if the revenues aren’t enough? Will the bags get more expensive? If the revenues are more than enough will the cost of the bags go down? I’ve got concerns with the ordinances as well but I’ll have to wait and see how they changed.
A better alternative is to go single stream. We’ll get less money for our recyclables but there will be a net savings due to lower labor and equipment costs. Let’s do that first and then determine if we even need PAYT.

Eric

I’m also appreciative of the last two posts about PAYT. When the tone of this forum is civil and not that of a Rant, it is a wonderful tool for all of us. Thank you, Molly.

I hope that the diner can be a place where people can hear and consider other ideas. I firmly believe that the more ideas and information we all have, the better citizens we can be. None of us knows it all or has the answer (even though we all like to think so sometimes). I appreciate it when there is civil give and take at the diner and I think it helps people to think through the issues.

That said, here’s my take on the PAYT. I am one of the people who thinks the PAYT system makes sense. As I understand it, we were facing a problem:
–Tipping fees for waste disposal will continue to go up. I just read that New England is going to face a shortage of places to put landfill within five years.
–The cost to transport waste is going up with fuel costs, so the less waste South Berwick has to transport out of town the better for our bottom line.
–The town can recoup some of the costs for our municipal waste management system by selling recyclables on the commodities market.
–Not everyone is recycling all they could recycle. When that happens we lose in two ways; 1)we have to pay more for transport and tipping fees and 2)we lose the revenue we would get from selling the recyclables.

It seems to me that the PAYT system makes the municipal waste management system more like our water system. We pay taxes for the basic infrastructure and then we pay based on our consumption of the service. Like the water system, the waste management system is a public health issue. Improper waste disposal can result in health hazards and environmental clean up costs. As a taxpayer I am willing to pay taxes to make sure we have the basic infrastructure to handle the waste we generate as a community. But I also appreciate the PAYT program because it means that I can have some control over the total cost that I pay for waste disposal and I am not subsidizing those who choose not to recycle or who generate a lot of waste. This year we got a 17 cent reduction on our mil rate and will pay for our PAYT bags. By the time next year’s budget is ready to be voted on we will have a track record to assess how the PAYT program is working. I know if we didn’t do the PAYT program we would be paying more taxes now and could expect higher taxes in the future to support the current system so I’m willing to give it a try.

I think the PAYT program is not where we will end up. The waste management system in this country is unsustainable as it is but technology and knowledge are constantly evolving. How we deal with waste five years from now will be completely different that what we are doing now. I hope the Council and citizens will continue to learn about what the options are so we can be ready to do what is most environmentally and financially advantageous.

One other thing that makes sense to me about the PAYT system is that it puts us on the same system as North Berwick. This makes it more likely that we could collaborate with them in the future.

I offer that suggestion because many people are intimidated when their ideas are immediately negated. I am not one of those people.

We are in for tough times, financially. I do not believe that the towns should have to fill the gaps left by the fed and state in the upcoming school budget. I think we have to plan on that contingency, and also accept the reality of personal struggles that will be happening. That means that the school budget needs to be reduced from the beginning. SB’s budget should also be reduced. Reduction is very difficult, so I have proposed that they remain the same as they were last year, to start.

This applies to the PAYT concept, too. We are talking about a minimum of $52 a year to throw one bag of waste away per week. A large family would pay much more. For years we have been bombarded with the image of the elderly debating food or medicines. Where will garbage fit into that scene?

We just had a lovely fund-raiser to help our neighbors with their heating costs this winter. Great idea, great turn-out. Now, we turn around and hit them with additional costs to dispose of their waste.

PAYT was conceived as a plan to either encourage recycling or increase a revenue flow…I am not sure which or if it is both. I think neither is appropriate for the town to impose.

I believe in freedom and choice. Given information, people make decisions. Freedom results in different choices being made by individuals. Each of us thinks his choice was the best under the circumstances. Force is inappropriate in a free society.

Rather than using force, more education was required if there was non-compliance with the desires for recycling. Perhaps, the excessive time, storage facilities and effort required to comply with the methods employed at the transfer station have something to do with non-compliance. Perhaps it is simply a different conclusion drawn from the facts presented.

If compliance were the issue, only those who are not recycling should be effected by the new constraints. Those who comply should not pay more. But, everyone pays more.

If it is a revenue stream, then the Town Council should be honest and admit this is a tax increase. It does not matter which slot in the cash drawer accepts the payment! It is not a reduction in taxes if we are merely paying in a different place.

1) It should be offered first to abutting property owners. They can purchase it individually or as an entity.

2) It should be offered 2nd to conservation groups.

3) It should be offered 3rd to development.

This should be done even in a down market. In all 3 cases the land moves back to generating taxes. The purchase price may not be what we’d like but we need to look at that differently. Most of this land we got from non-payment of tax. Regardless what we sell it for we haven’t lost money. The town should not be in the conservation/real estate business, (or any other business for that matter), but should be run like a business.
This property should be looked at one at a time. We’ll have more of a debate over some pieces of property than others, but it’s a debate we should be having.

Eric Pelchat

Mr. Pelchat, I think you should reconsider your words about town owned land. Public spaces like parks, recreation areas, playgrounds, libraries and meeting spaces are the fundamental assets of any community, and the planning and holding of space for future needs yet to be determined is a wise practice. How foolish it would be to sell these future assets while prices are depressed!