Pay As You Throw (Families Out of Tiverton)
A failure to raise taxes has not been the cause of the landfill dilemma, and increasing the cost of living in Tiverton should not be the solution.
According to the fiscal year 2011-12 budget document currently posted on the town's Web site, Rubbish/Recycling Collection is going to cost the taxpayers of Tiverton $556,664. That's the baseline. Thanks to a brand new Pay as You Throw (PAYT) system that will begin draining residents' wallets on May 16, the real cost will likely be more than twice that.
Beginning on that spring week, all regular garbage that residents discard - whether they put it out on the curb or deliver it to the dump themselves - will have to be placed in official town bags, manufactured and administered by South Carolina-based WasteZero. A fifteen-gallon bag will cost $1, a thirty-gallon bag will cost $2, and with an estimate of one bag per household, which surely seems absurd to any household of three or more, the town expects to generate around $500,000 in new revenue.
Turning back to the budget document, the town also appears to be pushing the limits of the state's 4.25% limit on tax levy increases, meaning that property taxes will increase somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 million. With $330,000 equaling approximately a 1% increase in the levy, May flowers look likely to bring a 6% increase in the cost of town services through additional taxes and fees. In case you're wondering, it does not appear to be the case that any town employees are being asked to forego 6% of their total compensation.
Granted, of all of the factors contributing to this increase, the proximate end of the landfill's usable life is among the most legitimate. Town leaders have spent decades inadequately preparing for the day that the dump was full - so much so that we'll be shy of the $6.8 to 8.2 million needed to cap the dump around 2015 by between $2.4 and 3.8 million. That's a real problem, and it still doesn't include the costs of implementing another solution for Tiverton's refuse. Moreover, the estimated $500,000 per year that the PAYT program is supposed to generate will still cover only half of the shortfall.
These are just the numbers, though. The point that has not been adequately considered is that the lack of preparation has not been caused by a refusal to raise taxes. This has been proven dramatically as the tax levy doubled over the last decade. In other words, the money that should have been saved in order to close the landfill was not given back to taxpayers; it was spent on other things, most significantly labor costs. Why, then, should the pain for this error be felt among those who've been forced to increase town revenue, these many years, rather than those who've benefited by the profligate spending?
The answer is a somewhat generic application of political theory: Government is empowered simply to take money when it claims to need it. Oh, there can be political risks associated with the taking, but that's a point of strategy, not of objective.
By contrast, because businesses must convince customers and clients to hand over additional funds, they are much more apt to shave costs, including those associated with personnel, in order maintain market share. Even where increased costs affect all competitors, businesses that can find ways to increase productivity to compensate for growing expenses will have an advantage over those that merely jack up prices.
And what of individuals? When our cost of living goes up, we must rely even more heavily on our ability to persuade employers that our value exceeds our current compensation. That means working more, taking on more responsibility, or changing jobs.
Be that as it may, it wouldn't be entirely accurate to say that mere residents cannot just take money from the town, after a fashion. If, for example, residents begin dumping additional garbage on our many rural roadsides, not only would the town fail to collect money for that tonnage, it would have to pay even more to collect it. Alternately, if households begin carrying bottles and cans across the border, where they can procure recycling refunds, the town would lose that opportunity for credits.
The better solution, which is exponentially preferable to littering, would be for the people of Tiverton to attend the financial town meeting on May 14 and eliminate the line item for rubbish collection, effectively giving themselves one free bag per week each. The naysayers will declare the proposal, at best, to be a further abrogation of responsibility, kicking the can down the road, or, at their usual worst, the end of Tiverton as we know it, but it is neither.
When the PAYT program began to look inevitable a little over a year ago, I began recycling in earnest and rapidly reduced my number of garbage bags to one-third of its prior average. With the added incentive of not exceeding a single thirty-gallon bag, recycling would skyrocket, thus adding years to the life of the landfill and multiple budget seasons to the time that Tiverton's leaders have to figure out what expenses to reduce in order to resolve the problem properly.
Tiverton_Red
7:21 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
The better solution, which is exponentially preferable to littering, would be for the people of Tiverton to attend the financial town meeting on May 14 and eliminate the line item for rubbish collection, effectively giving themselves one free bag per week each.
Justin, that may work for a young able-bodied adult such as yourself, but what about all of the fixed -income seniors and disenfranchised that you and the TCC claim to represent (yet curiously try to cut their services from the town budget)? Did you stop and think they may need curb-side pickup and don't want to give up the service for about $1/week? Or maybe the TCC knows what they need better than they do.
Bruce H. Cox
8:07 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
If you have just started to recycle in earnest then you sir have been part of the problem, you have kicked the can down the road until it finally showed in money directly out of your pocket. Everyone should be sorting their refuse to make sure that what they are throwing away at the dump is trash and the rest is recyclables. The volume of true trash is much smaller than you may think.
j michael
8:31 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Justin,
Where is the reference to May flowers (line item/page)? Also, what were your assumptions to estimate that removal/recycling costs would result in an additional $556K (costing twice as much)? Thanks!
Joe Sousa.
9:43 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
It is unfortunate that we are paying for years of mismanagement . It is also unfortunate that those who chose not to recycle cost the rest of us money. I support this effort PAYT to repair the damage and fix the problem. If people change their habits and think about long term cost at the land fill we will solve this problem. Pay as you throw is pay as you go.
RI Politics
10:11 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
And still no town official has come up with a solution to the yard waste! 23 Joe. 23 bags just on 1 street this morning. Where is it going? IN the landfill! This theory of yard waste pick ups twice a year is fine and dandy except yard waste is a year round issue! From the grass clippings to leaves to pulling weeds, the stuff goes IN the landfill.
To give a solution to something Joe mentioned in another post, we have to buy dirt to put on the landfill. BUY DIRT! Why buy it when we can be making our own dirt with a place to dispose of yard waste and a means of it getting to that area for people that can't lug 25-50 bags themselves. Not to mention that if life just so happens to get in the way when it is 1 of the 2 times a year they do yard waste pick up, it goes curbside with the trash!
TOWN OFFICALS - WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS? The TCC has "been in control" since the last election and all we hear is crickets!
Jim L
2:00 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
yes i guess they wasted a whole three month not fixing problems ignored for years
Joe Sousa.
10:28 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
PAYT is the only way I know to get people to use the land fill correctly. Do you think we should increase the numbers of yard waste days? The budget recommends two pick up days. I don't see people spending two dollars a bag to dispose of leaves.
RI Politics
6:25 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
I don't see people paying that either Joe which was my point to the council and adminstrator. There are going to be an awful lot of leaves ending up on the sides of roads and the town will then have to pick them up.
Joe Sousa.
10:38 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
As mentioned I compost in my back yard. I have a large yard, noticed every time I cut it. I have a ten buy ten compost heap that I made from an old tarp and some used wood. Yes I am cheap, But I don't cost the town a cent to dispose of my yard waste. I also don't call the Lawn Dr. every spring. It cost me some of my time but I feel safer around my well with home made product. People will change their habits and adapt to the situation. Some will kick and scream . They are usually the biggest offenders.All in all I would say we have made a step forward
Tiverton Dad
11:08 am on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Again, I'm a logic guy, not a numbers guy, Justin. It sounds like you are in favor of PAYT if the budget line item for trash pickup were eliminated. At first that sounds great. We get to have our cake and eat it too. But it's only half of a solution, because the town still needs to pay for trash pickup. Where will that money come from in the budget? What will need to be eliminated and/or short changed? This is only kicking the can further down the budget.
Justin Katz
12:22 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tiverton_Red,
The idea isn't to end curb-side pickup; it's to transfer the cost to the user fee.
Justin Katz
12:24 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
j michael,
I don't have my history textbook handy for the May flower reference...
Regarding the doubling expense, the town is estimating $500,000 per year in bag fees. I think their assumption of one bag per week per household is low, thereby increasing the total fees.
j michael
2:02 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Justin,
I just didn't get the connection, and I actually found the third paragraph quite unclear. Thanks for providing the estimate basis. I agree, that is probably too low. However, the higher it goes, the more there is to cover the cost of capping the landfill. Correct?
Justin Katz
12:26 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Tiverton Dad,
Simply creating incentive to recycle will extend the life of the landfill by years, giving the town more time to continue putting money aside and find new ways to save money elsewhere. It may kick the can, but it kicks it farther than it already is.
And again, I think the town's going to reap more money from this program than it estimates... unless, of course, people find ways around the bag fee.
Tiverton Dad
12:41 pm on Tuesday, April 5, 2011
I understand that point, Justin. Recycling will extend the life of the landfill. However, the real benefit is that this will allow the PAYT account to grow. Anyone who thinks that the TC will put the money aside any other way hasn't been paying attention. It's like having money automatically deducted from your paycheck to go into savings. If you never see it, you won't be as tempted to spend it--especially if it's in an escrow account.
I still don't understand your point when you say that people should "attend the financial town meeting on May 14 and eliminate the line item for rubbish collection..." My point was that the town still needs to pay for rubbish collection. Someone has to pick up the bags from the curb. If the FTM eliminates that line, where will that money for trash collection come from in the budget? What will need to be eliminated and/or short changed? This is only kicking the can further down the budget.
David
9:54 pm on Friday, April 8, 2011
Hi Justin, A solution around the bag fee.
PAYT can be used to generate more revenue for local government as well as reduce the burden on taxpayers. It depends on how it is implemented. In all waste businesses, the need for waste is paramount to the survival of the company. Some local governments operate waste collection and processing facilities and also employ staffs in waste management jobs. In short, the more the waste there is, the better as it helps the local government to generate more revenue. There is always an added factor in the equation to include a profit before arriving on the price of each bags that taxpayers need to pay.
However, for residents who are really in to eliminate waste, it is a good way to save money that you would likely be throwing out with your waste. I use a product call NatureBin and it compost not only green waste but also meat, cheese and in fact every organic waste (including bones) from the kitchen. This product totally eliminates the collection of kitchen waste and immediately saved me money! As for garden waste, I don't compost them as the process takes too long, I use them as mulch around my garden. Mulching save me on my water bill. With both the NatureBin and mulching, I generate zero organic waste from my household. In fact, I hardly need to buy the PAYT bag at all. All other waste are recyclable which I need not pay to have them collected. So take advantage of PAYT and pay no more by doing the right thing. Don't dump your waste.
Seeker
9:53 am on Thursday, May 12, 2011
NatureBin--Wow--only $300 at Home Depot...
Think we'll stick to worm farm and cut down on meat [and bones...]
Or save up at $5.77/wk and get one next year...