Conference 7.286::maynard

    I think it's just another form of taxation, under the politically
    correct name of recycling.
    
    80-90% of the people in town have absolutely no idea what is about to hit
    them.  I also think that is the intention, so that this proposal will slide 
    through Town Meeting next week.
    
    At one time the motive behind this was because of a proposed mandate by
    the state.  That is no longer the case.
    
    					Steve
    					

re:  <<< Note 429.1 by KALI::MORGAN >>>

>>  I think it's just another form of taxation, under the politically
>>  correct name of recycling.

Steve, I disagree.  

The cost/pound of waste management is skyrocketing and will continue to do
so indefinitely as landfills fill up and environmental regulations on
incineration get tougher, as they will in order to prevent air quality from
deteriorating even more. 

A LARGE part of the answer is to reduce the TOTAL volume of trash.  The only
way to make that happen is to give each household an incentive to reduce the
amount of trash it puts out.  The best universal motivator is $. 
Exhortations to civic pride are far less effective. 

I think that the dept of health has hit a good compromise.  Most households
will be able to stay within the one-barrel (32 gallons = large barrel) limit
with a little bit of work. Those who don't will have an incentive to work a
little harder.  That is the idea of the plan. 

This will cost the town LESS money OVERALL.  A few people will pay a little 
extra.

Given that I consider the environmental issue very important, I would hope
that after a year or two, the size of the "free" barrel be reduced to 13 or
16 gallons (large kitchen wastebasket) to put even more of a squeeze on the
trash volume. ("free" = paid for by property taxes which all of us pay) 

>>  At one time the motive behind this was because of a proposed mandate by
>>  the state.  That is no longer the case.
    
I've heard that the deadline has been pushed out, not eliminated.  That, 
IMHO, was a mistake made by politicians who are afraid to ask people to face 
the consequences of their actions.

<MILD FLAME ON>

I believe that people should pay the real cost of the goods and services 
they buy/use (with no downstream, hidden costs).  We (the world) have 
treated trash (and oil, metal, etc) as something that our children will 
pay the price for.  I think that it is time to for that to stop.  The kids 
will have enough problems without the added burden of cleaning up the mess 
we are already leaving them.

As just another example, the Bush administration CLAIMED that they favored a
"free market" approach.  In reality, if the market price of oil included the
fraction of our military budget required to ensure the safety of "our"
Middle-East oil, then the price of a gallon of gasoline would be more than
$4.  Instead, there is a poorly-disguised subsidy (called "national
defense") of $3/gallon, paid for by a deficit which almost everyone agrees
will ultimately destroy our standard of living.  

The word "ultimately" means "Let the children pay for it." 

That is not a good policy to use on a non-renewable, dwindling resource
which is the basic feedstock for almost everything we use. 

<MILD FLAME OFF> 

Just my opinion.

:-)

John 

What I'd like to know: 

Current	- How many tax dollars per year per house go to pay for current 
	  curbside trash and current voluntary recycling. 


New: 	- How tax many dollars per year per house will it cost to pay for 
	  trash in the new scheme (one barrel per house per week). 
	
	- How many tax dollars per year per house will it cost to pay for 
	  curbside recycling in the new scheme. 


Result 	- What is the difference in cost between the current and the new in 
	  terms of tax dollars per house per year? 

	- If the cost of base level services in the new scheme (one barrel 
	  trash plus unlimited recycling) is less than the cost of the current 
	  services, what is happening to the extra money collected in taxes 
	  that today goes to trash/recycling and tomorrow will not go to that? 

re: <<< Note 429.3 by POWDML::DUNN >>>

>>	- How many tax dollars per year per house go to pay for current 
>>	  curbside trash and current voluntary recycling. 

I don't know except that it is increasing rather quickly.

At least in the beginning, voluntary recycling saved the town SOME money by
putting less trash through the incinerator and/or selling the recycled
material).

>>	- How tax many dollars per year per house will it cost to pay for 
>>	  trash in the new scheme (one barrel per house per week). 
>>	
>>	- How many tax dollars per year per house will it cost to pay for 
>>	  curbside recycling in the new scheme. 

Again, I don't know the absolute numbers, but I THINK that the annual cost
of curbside recycling is about $70-90K (because it requires a separate
truck). 

The $0.75 per bag beyond the one-barrel limit is the Health Dep't's best
guess of what will just cover the $70-90K for the curbside-recycling will
cost (with whatever selling of recycled material factored in). 

------------------------------------------------------------------

The situation has become slightly less clear since the mandate appears to
have been delayed.  Several months ago, there was a state law which would 
require us to 100% recycle paper, glass, steel (and #2 plastic?).

A survey showed that a large proportion (75-90%?) of people in town wanted
curbside recycling rather than building/staffing a transfer station (big
capital outlay and lots of inconvenience). 

The current alternatives to cover the cost of curbside recycling were to
have user fees or to put all the cost into property taxes. 

The current proposal is the Health Dep't's attempt to minimize the cost and 
drive consumption behaviour in the direction it has to go to preserve the 
environment (less trash).

Now that the mandate is delayed, there is another option: continue as we do 
now.  Personally, I think the original Health Dep't proposal makes sense 
regardless of the delay of the mandate.

Hope this helps.

:-)

John

	From the town meeting warrant:

					Town Mtg.	Dept Request 
					FY'93		FY '94
	217.	Trash Collection 	
		A. Pickup & Disposal	490,000		554,140         +13.09%
		B. Administration	0		12,000		NEW ITEM


	I was told that this is based on 3500 households. My understanding
	is that (roughly) the whole increase is the cost of curbside recycling,
	but I don't know what "business as usual" would cost.

.1>   I think it's just another form of taxation, under the politically
.1>   correct name of recycling.

One difference between the existing system and the 75c per bag is that the
75c is not deductible.  I. e., it's a tax in the sense that it's money
out of your pocket for the town, but I doubt if the IRS lets you write it off.
(Not being a tax accountant, I could easily be wrong, though.)

I have to agree with John's goals in .2.  The question is whether the Board of
Health's proposal is the best way, and the fairest way to do it.

Personally, I think that single people will be quite content with the 1-bag,
limit, while families will be paying for lots of 75c extra bags.  I'd prefer
a scheme which doesn't discriminate against households with more than one
occupant.  

I also think that the Board of Health has a Pollyanna attitude about 
the potential of illegal dumping of trash.  They don't think it will be a
problem, even with a 1-bag limit.  I would prefer that they have a strategy in
place for dealing with dumping to go along with decreased limits.

Note, too that the proposal is for trash pickup for the condos to be the town's
responsibility, for the first time.  When the condominiums were approved for
construction, the developers agreed that the condo residents would pay for
their own trash.  This will certainly add to the cost.  Of course, you can
argue that the condo residents pay taxes too, so this is only fair.  In terms
of political reality, linking the condo trash proposal to the 1-bag limit
probably means that we'll have a lot of new faces at Town Meeting, all voting
for the Board of Health proposal.

To my mind, the high-level question is to what degree government should coerce
citizens, in pursuit of an admirable goal.  For example, we generally agree
it's OK to force children to go to school; the adults who vote seem to go along
with that.  The tricky balance will be to have a trash policy which persuades
people to act in an environmentally responsible manner, without incurring
sufficient resentment that they reject the policy, either at town meeting,
or by dumping their trash in the woods.

Karen, your questions in .3 are right on the mark.  I suggest you ask them
at Town Meeting tonight, and keep the microphone in your hand for follow-up
questions until the Board of Health has answered them all.  

-Steve

Well, I guess this all became moot.   What I heard said at the town 
meeting, from a woman who's name I do not recall but whom I believe
is on the board of health, was that the board has the unilateral
right to impose user fees as it chooses to.    I think she said
something close to (in words or intent) "do whatever you want to the
budget line, but we can still impose the per bag fees". 

So there was basically no way to discuss the per bag charges, as it was 
tangental to the budget discussion at hand, and basically they are 
going to do what they want to do.   

.7> Well, I guess this all became moot.   What I heard said at the town 
.7> meeting, from a woman who's name I do not recall but whom I believe
.7> is on the board of health, was that the board has the unilateral
.7> right to impose user fees as it chooses to.    I think she said
.7> something close to (in words or intent) "do whatever you want to the
.7> budget line, but we can still impose the per bag fees". 

    It's really too bad it came out this way.  The woman on the Board of
    Health is Anne Marie Desmaris.  She's an environmental engineer, which
    gives her an excellent perspective on public health issues, and she's
    put a lot of time and effort in on the Board. 

    There was some discussion of the Reddish account.  As the Town
    Administrator Mike Gianotis described, Reddish was a trash hauler who
    tried to renege on his contract with the Town several years ago.  The
    Town took Reddish to court and won something like $700,000.  The reason
    that we got that money was that the contract with Reddish contained
    very specific language to protect the Town in case the trash hauler
    didn't to his job.  Anne Marie wrote that language, so she (and Town
    Council Joe Vrabel, who took Reddish to court) are thus personally
    responsible for the money that's paying for the Minuteman Library
    connection, the town's matching grant for the DEC computers in the
    schools last year, DPW equipment, and large items for other
    departments.

    Board member Rob Gogan is truly passionate about recycling.  Larry
    Hartnett is a retired Federal Meat Inspector, and brings valuable
    skills to the Board. They're nice people and easy to talk to, as well.

    When the Fincom said that the Board of Health kept changing their story
    about the $12K raise for the Health Agent, the Board of Health didn't
    dispute it. It sure looked like the Board of Health was being
    imperious, if not sneaky.  When the Board of Health compared the
    $12,000 with the School Committee paying coaches, the comparison
    failed: coaches do not get $12,000.  Also, the Health Agent, Gerry
    Collins, is a 4-day a week employee.  On Fridays, he works elsewhere:
    Leominister, I think, or another town in that direction. If the $12,000
    was for another day and a half of work per week, as someone on the
    Board stated, does that mean that they propose for Gerry to work 6 1/2
    days a week?  That wasn't discussed.  Gerry Collins does an excellent
    job, and he certainly looked unhappy last night.  The Board served his
    interests very poorly. 

    It's just really, really too bad that a bunch of hard working,
    well-intentioned people like the Board of Health could get out on a
    limb like this.  I just hope they don't take it personally, and get
    discouraged.  I would hope, instead, that they make rational, well
    thought-out proposals in the future.  

    -Steve

before I get labeled for viewpoints I don't hold...  


- I think the bd of health generally does a good job.  I was very 
pleased with our voluntary recycling efforts, how early on that 
started compared to other towns, and the variety of things they were 
able to take given the small size of our town.   

- I strongly support recycling, have hauled my stuff down there for 
however many years we've had it, and have farmed out my plastics to 
friends because we don't collect them here.   

- I don't have a philisophical problem with a per bag fee to incent 
recycling, but I feel that going from 6-1 bag of trash per week is a 
steep implementation ramp.  

- I don't think the problem of trash being dumped (littered) places 
has been well thought out enough. 

- I have an overall problem with any board instituting fees (really, 
taxes) without the taxpayers voting on the plan.  


- My real problem is that if we pay $X per year to get 6 bags now, and 
the extra cost of recycling is going to be paid for in per-bag fees, 
then that means we are paying $X plus the whatever percent increase 
next year to only get one bag of trash.   I want to know where the 
rest of that money is going.      If they want to go to straight user 
fees to encourage recycling fine, but first 

	- keep the tax money it will cost to do curbside recycling, give 
	me back the money I spend today to get 6 bags, and then charge 
	me per bag I put out from the start, at the actual cost of the bag.    

	- reduce the taxes to what it costs to cover one bag per house 
	and curbside recycling, and then charge per bag for each bag after 
	the first, at the actual cost of the bag.   

Some things we pay for in taxes (police protection), some things we
pay for by usage (sewage/water) but this way, it's like we pay for it
in our taxes, and then pay for it by the bag - please pick one. 

re: <<< Note 429.9 by POWDML::DUNN >>>

>>  ...but I feel that going from 6-1 bag of trash per week is a 
>>  steep implementation ramp.  

I think that it's more like 6 --> 2 or 3 since a 32-gal barrel is larger
than a typical garbage bag.  However, I haven't checked it carefully since
we use kitchen (13-gal)  and paper bags; for me it's 6 --> 4.

>>  - I don't think the problem of trash being dumped (littered) places 
>>  has been well thought out enough. 

That is a risk, which I believe the Board of Health considered and decided 
to take.  Some people already dump trash on the road.  Why don't they use
curbside (unless they're from out of town)? 

I would hope (and I think that the Board of Health is banking on it) that
people will be responsible, consider the intent of the new plan and work to
reduce the amount of waste they generate to minimize their cost.  

What would drive the issue if there were no personal incentive? 

>> - I have an overall problem with any board instituting fees (really, taxes)
>> without the taxpayers voting on the plan. 

I was surprised that they could do that.  I assume that since no one
challenged it, it must be true.  That's actually too bad in the sense that
since town meeting didn't formally buy-in (with a vote), it lowers its
chances of success. 

>>  ...next year to only get one bag of trash.   I want to know where the 
>>  rest of that money is going.

The Board of Health has said repeatedly (including last night) that their 
goal is to break even and that they will adjust the fee to make that happen.
75 cents is their best guess at what the break-even cost will be.

The EXTRA money (from the stickers) will pay for the EXTRA truck required to 
pick up the recyclables.  Initially the amount of trash will be about the 
same, but will have to be put into TWO trucks rather than one and there is 
presumably some extra effort to UNMIX the recyclables (glass, steel, 
aluminum and plastic will ALL go into one recycle-container).  

>>  Some things we pay for in taxes (police protection), some things we
>>  pay for by usage (sewage/water) but this way, it's like we pay for it
>>  in our taxes, and then pay for it by the bag - please pick one. 

See above.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was sorry that Jerry's extra pay was voted down.  I also didn't realize
that Jerry only works 4 days/week in Maynard.  If I had just been given the
data of 
	1. $12K for an extra day and a half of work
	2. Jerry works 4 days today,

I would have guessed that the idea was for him to quit his other job and
work full-time in Maynard. But since, he didn't stand up and say that, it
appears not to be the case. 

On the other hand, is it possible that the good, sincere, hard-working
(naive?) people of the Board of Health were so totally unprepared for the
antagonism at town meeting that they went into shock?  I would hope not, but
since that is the first time I remember that they've run into that, that
might be what happened. 

Watching someone else get chewed up is NOT good preparation for what it's
like when it happens to you.    ;-} 

If so, that's unfortunate.

As you can tell, I think a lot of that board.  They have worked long and 
hard on this and are sincere as the day is long (as others have already 
said).  They were "accused" of some nasty things last night.  I don't think 
they deserved it.  But town meeting is a tough game; I hope that they 
learned a lesson from it.

:-)

John

> I think that it's more like 6 --> 2 or 3 since a 32-gal barrel is larger
> than a typical garbage bag.  However, I haven't checked it carefully since
> we use kitchen (13-gal)  and paper bags; for me it's 6 --> 4.

I am using "bag" interchangably with "barrel".   Right now the limit 
is 6, I believe that is 6 anythings (including 6 barrels).   And it is 
going to 1 barrel.  hence I said 6-1.     I'm not hung up on the 
numbers, it's "a lot" down to one.  


--------------------


Let's dissect this:  

	Today's budget				next year's budget 
       ----------------                         ------------------
	$4xx,000 				$5xx,000 
						per barrel fees 


	Today's service                         next year's service
       -----------------                       ---------------------
	6 barrels 				1 barrel 
	hauling of voluntary recycling		curbside recycling 



So, given your statement: 

> The EXTRA money (from the stickers) will pay for the EXTRA truck required to 
> pick up the recyclables.  

That means the curbside recycling is paid for by the per barrel 
charges.    


That means that today I pay my portion of $4xx,000 and I get 6 barrels 
hauled.    Next year I pay my portion of $5xx,000  and I get one 
barrel hauled.    How can that be?      



I'm not saying that the board of health is ripping us off, I don't 
have anything against anyone in the board of health.  From the 
tangental experiences I have had with them they seem to be competant and 
nice people.     

I just need to understand how we are paying more for 1/6 of the 
service.    

re:  <<< Note 429.12 by JUPITR::MCGOLDRICK >>>

>>	Since there was a preview at finance committee the week before, I'm
>>	not sure why you think that they were "totally unprepared", John.
>>	They heard nothing last night that they didn't hear the week before.

You're right.  They should have had some idea.  On the other hand, their
forum and survey showed that they had strong support. Given the strong
support they expected, they could well have been surprised.  They looked
unprepared (for what followed their initial presentation).  It looked to me
like a classic case of thinking you have your ducks lined up and discovering
too late that you've just walked unprepared into a hornets' nest. 

>>	I didn't take it as anything against Jerry, the BOH, or the job 
>>	any of them are doing.  

I would hope that everyone feels that way, but that isn't how it sounded.
See below.  In that situation it's very difficult to not take it personally.

>>      Just because he's worth $54k doesn't mean
>>	we want to pay $54k for those services.  

That's fine, but there's the little problem of the mandate.
	
>>	...bottom line, though, is people are getting fed-up with FISCAL 
>>	FINAGLING at all levels of government.

Your statement suggests that people thought and expressed the idea (as they
have every right to do) that the BOH were "finagling fiscally".  Since I
consider fiscal finagling a significant "misdeed", that counts (to me) as an
accusation. To accuse = "to bring charges against someone for a misdeed" 

re: .11

I don't know the detailed math. But in qualitative terms, here's the idea:

Every week at least one trash truck will come past your house.  Every N 
weeks (where N = 1, 2 or 3) a second truck will also come by.

The additional truck (for the recyclables) costs extra money even if the
total amount of trash collected is exactly the same.  If less trash goes to
the incinerator, that reduces the cost. 

However, we also have a contract with the incinerator that says that we OWE
them a certain MINIMUM amount of trash.  So I THINK that we're collecting
trash from the condos to meet our minimum quota.  That is more total trash
(but maybe somewhat less incinerator trash).

The $90K is the result of adding up all the plusses and minuses.  I am not 
saying that their math is correct; I haven't checked it.  And their stated 
intention to adjust the fee to break even suggests that they understand the 
uncertainty in their calculations.

I think we all agree (BOH included) that it would have been better to have
had a 10-20-minute presentation on exactly how the dollars add and subtract,
at least in their back pockets. That's nice in hindsight.  I believe that
they made an honest tactical error but I don't think there was any
calculated attempt to deceive.

One interesting additional point is that no one disputed the mandate.  I
thought (as did someone earlier in this note) that it had been delayed but
last night it sounded like it's still in effect.

Interesting...

:-)

John

> One interesting additional point is that no one disputed the mandate.  I
> thought (as did someone earlier in this note) that it had been delayed but
> last night it sounded like it's still in effect.
    
    John, sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to your earlier note.  I've
    been away at jury duty for the past few weeks and haven't had a chance
    to keep up to date on notes.  
    
    If I remember correctly, I read an article in the Globe a month or so ago 
    stating that the state recycling mandate was being delayed.  In hindsight 
    I wish I had kept it for reference.  That was my only source of
    information.
    
    I too find the numbers confusing from item 217 of Article 4 although I
    certainly do not doubt the intentions of the BOH.  I've found Rob Gogan
    to be one of the most accessible members of any town board, as he's
    always had the time to listen and answer any questions or opinions that
    one may throw his way.
    
    My biggest worry is that the river, woods and even our neighborhoods
    may suffer from a fee-based implementation.  All schools, churches,
    and/or businesses should definitely keep a lock on their dumpsters if
    they haven't already done so.  I do know that St. Bridget's was forced
    to buy a lock for their dumpster last summer because of people taking
    advantage of its location, etc.
    
    					Steve

re:  <<< Note 429.14 by KALI::MORGAN >>>

Everything below is merely my opinion although I have specifically marked 
only one section as such.  This is a good discussion.  Thanks to everyone!

On the financial calculations:  I am ASSUMING that, as town manager, Mike
Giannotis has checked the BOH's numbers enough that they are OK. 

>>  If I remember correctly, I read an article in the Globe a month or so ago 
>>  stating that the state recycling mandate was being delayed.  

Steve, I agree (I vaguely recall seeing it in the Chronicle). 
    
>> My biggest worry is that the river, woods and even our neighborhoods may
>> suffer from a fee-based implementation.

Again, right on!  At the forum the BOH said that they are concerned about 
this and are thinking about ways of preventing/stopping it.  But, you're 
right; a few who don't care can be VERY visible.

I get the impression that we essentially agree that recycling is the right
thing to do and that more recycling is better.  IF we can agree that less
total trash is also better (probably true but less explicitly clear.) then
what are the alternatives to fee-based implementation which will accomplish
that?   If there's a better way, then let's do it.

But let's not let the lack of a better alternative prevent us from doing
something.  I hope that the fines for littering are high enough to
discourage dumping, and, if not, let's fix that.  

ANY implementation will either "discriminate" against someone or be a
bureaucratic nightmare to implement. One alternative would be to issue 25
(or pick another number) of stickers per year per individual.  But then
there would have to be bookkeeping to keep track of how many people in a
household, who has received their allotment of stickers, etc.  The
libertarians would love that! 

I confess.  I'm a liberal.  I think that government should drive those 
issues which are too big for an individual (or collection of them) to drive.
Environmental protection is a perfect example of that.  All of the BOH's 
(and town's) efforts at voluntary recycling, while very praisworthy, are not 
worth much unless it sets the stage for mandatory (100%) recycling.  

<OPINION>
The concept of "1000 points of light" is dumb!  It translates to: "Let the
few suckers carry the burden of society so the sharpies can make out like
bandits." 

Let me soften that a little.  A point of light is valuable when it's from a
"sparkplug" in a "cylinder" of society's "engine" with society/gov't
ensuring that there is appropriate "fuel" present so that the "engine" does 
what society says that it is supposed to do. 
<ENDOPINION> 

I'm also a strong environmentalist.  It has only taken 50 years for air,
water and waste pollution to all become serious global problems.  The next
fifty years will make today look like a tea party, especially as these
problems begin to synergize.  So, like the deficit, let's get moving on them
NOW. 

:-)

John

I wasn't going to weigh in on this but since there seems to be a number of 
diverse opinions I thought you might like another town's perspective.

A few years ago Holliston began a voluntary recycling program and instituted
a fee for trash pickup. The fee was presented as necessary due to increases
in the cost of pickup and lack of revenue growth to cover the bill. Town meeting
decided that the fee would formulated as follows. 61% of the trash bill would
be paid from the tax levy. This was arrived at based on level funding in the
solid waste budget. 39% of the trash bill would be paid as a fee to each
household. The fee at the time was set at $75.00. The community was also told
that the way our solid waste contract was written, the more we recycled the
lower our trash bill and thus the lower our fee. This year we went to curbside
recycling and have continued to reduce our bill and fee by reducing our tonnage. 
The fee per household is now $72.00 and this includes a new contract with 
increased per ton fees. There are people, there always are and always will be,
who feel that this is simply a different tax. One thing we also did was allow
the town to add the fee as a lein on the real estate tax bill after it was 
overdue. This allowed the town to collect interest on the unpaid bill and 
allows the taxpayer to include it as part of his tax bill.

IMHO, if this came up on town meeting floor again it would likely be defeated. 

    I have a couple of questions/issues concerning the new trash pick up
    policy:
    
    -There is a vacant house for sale on my street.  When the tenants moved
    out last month they put a couch out front for pick up.  However they did
    not get the $10.00 permit from the town for large items.  It sat on the
    side walk for two weeks until the landlord bought the permit.  What is
    going to happen if people see a vacant house and put unpermitted trash
    bags in front of these houses?  
    
    A resident brought up another point at the planning board meeting last
    week.  When condos were approved to be built in Maynard, the
    construction covenant stipulated all condos will provide their own 
    snow plowing and trash disposal service.  The board of Health is 
    allowing the town to pick up the tab for the condos trash disposal.
    This resident is looking at possible legal action againest the town for
    breaking the convenant.
    
    I am hearing from many people that they are upset at the new trash pick
    up policy.  If we are paying taxes for trash pick up we shouldn't be
    paying any fees. If we are going to pay fees then we should not be
    taxed.  Do one or the other, have trash picked on a fee basis or pay 
    for it on your taxes, but not both.  Many resident feel we are being
    taxed twice for the same service.
    
                                                   

1)  Exactly where do you purchase the stickers?  All I have seen is mention of
"Town Hall and other businesses in town".

2)  What if I have more items than will fit in the recycle bin?  Can I just put
them out with the trash?  If not, can I get additional recycle bins?  If so,
where?  At what cost if any?

3)  I assume that all types of recycled items go into the same bin (ie. metal,
plastic, paper)  Curosity asks what happens to these items when they are picked
up.  I would hope that they will be sorted out at time of pickup based on the
type of material.  But, I vividly remember working for a company many years ago
that had large bins in the halls for computer paper and punch cards.  We were
supposed to separate our trash so that it could be recycled.  One evening I was
working very late when the cleaning crew came through.  There was a cleaner
pushing a large waste cart down the hall emptying the trash from the offices. 
When he came to these recycle bins he just emptied them into the same trash bin
as the normal garbage and kept going.  Eventually this trash bin was emptied
into the dumpster behind the building.  Just curious...

    I saw a sign on the Cumberland Farms store on Acton Street saying you
    could buy trash stickers there.
    

    On my pass down Concord St. and onto Brown St. (rte. 27), while driving
    in to work this morning, I saw one blue bin on the side of the road,
    otherwise it was all barrels and bags.
    
    The people have been poorly educated on this issue in my opinion.
    
    					Steve

On Brooks St. this morning, nearly every house had the blue tub out, filled
to overflowing with recyclables.  Not bad for the height of vacation season.

    In my neighborhood, almost every house had a blue tub out on this the
    first week of recycle pickup, and many houses had extra recycle-ables
    in other bags sitting next to the tub.  I hadn't made it to the town
    center in more than a month, so I had 4-5 bags of plastic milk jugs
    out.  All the recycle-ables were taken.
    
    Those of you who are dissapointed with participation: remember that 
    recycle happens every other week (blue vs grey).  Maybe the areas you
    saw little participation were grey.  (or maybe not...)
    
    For the curious: a large white truck (with two steering wheels!) comes
    around.  It has a bucket on the right side (couldn't see the left
    side... maybe it has one there too).  The bucket has two compartments:
    one for paper, one for everything else.  When the bucket fills up, the
    operator flips a switch which causes the bucket to slide up the side of
    the truck and dump stuff into the truck.  I'm assuming that there are
    two chutes up there which keep the paper and everything else separated.
    I'm also assuming that the recycle center has some mass production
    methods for separating glass, aluminum and the plastics.

.24>    I'm also assuming that the recycle center has some mass production
.24>    methods for separating glass, aluminum and the plastics.
    
    Yeah, I wondered about that.  Perhaps the trash hauler just takes
    everything away, and they do the separation of materials.  Or maybe
    Jerry Collins does it all (though I would guess that's too much work
    for one person - maybe the Board of Health is creating new town jobs).
    Anyway, where would the sorting be done?  The recycling area by the DPW
    is all outdoors, so is the sorting contingent upon good weather?
    
    The other thing I wondered about was how the Board of Health plans to
    enforce the 1-bag limit on the condos, where they use dumpsters.
    
    -Steve

    Yup, from what I could see, the lower end of Summer St. had close to
    100% parcipitation.
    
    Pete, I thought about the possibility of this not being Brown St.'s
    week to do recycle, but the bin I saw was blue, which led me to believe
    that it was their week.
    
    FYI to all - You can't get additional recycle bins.  Use a laundry
    basket or somesuch that shows the haulers that it is recyclable
    material.  And for those that have more than the allotted 1 barrel of
    trash, you should affix the sticker to the top item in the 2nd barrell.
    
    					Steve

My wife stopped at Town Hall the other day to purchase trash stickers and to ask
some questions that we had.  She was told that the place where the materials go
apparently has some type of high-tech device that automatically separates the
plastic, glass, and metal.

    On my 5:30 am walk this morning I saw a lot of bins out, grey as well
    as blue.  I guess the grey bin people didn't read the instuctions that
    came with the bin.  I thought that the instructions were pretty clear.
    But I was also wondering about mixing the plastic, glass, and metal.  
    Thank you for the explanation.
    
    I was pleased to see as much participation on the first week.  I am
    sure it will increase as time goes on too.
    
    And for those people that are complaining about the price of the extra
    stickers, we could have what Concord has.  Big $$ .  I understand they 
    pay for EVERYTHING>  We don't have it that bad.  We get alot of good
    services in our little town.
    
    
    SM
    
    
     
    EVERYTHING!

    Another location to buy trash stickers is the Paper Store downtown.
    

It greatly concerns me that the flyer put out with the barrels had 
some mis-information on it.     The flyer stated under the "do not 
recycle" column that "shampoo bottles" were not taken - all of our 
shampoo bottles are # 1 or 2.     We need to education people to look 
on the bottom of the container, not make blanket (incorrect in this 
case) inclusions or exclusions.  

My comments:  

- What about all of the other numbers other than 1 and 2 plastics?    
I am being forced to throw out those that are recycleable.     Also, 
carboard.   

- I have very strong feelings that agree with Paul LeSage a few notes 
back about paying for this twice - taxes and stickers.  

Regards

Re: Paying twice

I've paid once for my basic trash collection services.
If I exceed the basic services, I pay to collect the extra trash.

I don't see this as paying twice.   Why should you subsidize my household
when it occasionally generates more waste that it should?  [Especially when
this behavior has detrimental societal and ecological effects.]

I'm not saying that all the numbers add up in the current services that
we have (what we pay now versus what we used to pay), but that is a different
argument than the principal of "paying twice".


- dave

    I agree with what Dave says.  The only problem I really have is that we
    cannot recycle more than we already do (i.e., # 5/6 plastic,
    cereal/pizza boxes, etc.).
    
    					Steve

I don't know about Maynard but in other communities there are exclusions
within the #1/#2 plastics based on what was contained in them and how they
are manufactured. Bottles with small necks apparently aren't acceptable
for some recyclers (thus the possible reason for excluding shampoo bottles)
and plastic containers for oil or antifreeze are some other banned ones.

    I called the Board of Health and asked about shampoo bottles that are
    #2 plastic.  I was told that EVERYTHING marked #1 and #2 are to be put
    in the recycle bin, including shampoo bottles.  The only exception is
    plastic bags with #1 and #2 (I was surprised to learn that bags are
    marked, but they are!)  The reason stated that shampoo bottles were put
    on the excpetion list is that the list is meant to be a "general" list 
    and apparently most shampoo bottles are higher than 2.
    
    My first concern over the new trash law was lack of communication.  I
    didn't mind that I had to do it, I just didn't know what to do!  Now
    that I have an almost complete understanding of what to do, I don't
    mind it.  It is saving me a trip to the Town Barn!!  I do share the
    concerns of others though regarding not being able to recycle cardboard
    and higher numbered plastics.  Possibly we are being put on a
    trial-basis.  Once we get this list down pat, they'll add to it next
    year!?!
    
    Linda

    You can recycle cardboard at the Stop and Shop in Concord.  The next
    recycle day there is Sept. 18, from 10-1 {i think that's the end time,
    you can call S&S and they'll tell you the details}
    
    There's also a Goodwill truck there too, for other "recycleables".
    
    Sandy

    
    Re a few back and....
    
    >Possibly we are being put on a trial-basis.  Once we get this list down
    >pat, they'll add to it next year!?!
    
    
    Quite possible that we're "starting small" but there could be a risk in
    this approach.  I would think that participation would be better if we
    were able to recycle more volume.
    
    Another possibility is that by forcing people to pay for the disposal
    of packaging, that we will tend to buy products that have less
    packaging.
    
    I favor the usage based fee because it will (IMHO) drive us in the
    right direction by making us examine the real cause of this
    problem......excessive packaging and too many disposable products.
    
    A good example is the recent Kool Aid ready-made drinks in plastic
    disposable containers and those little "squirt" boxes of drinks.  I
    watched my son drink down two containers in less than a minute and I
    was theorizing that it probably takes more plastic (volume) to make the
    containers than the volume of drink within the containers.  You get
    about six ounces in a drink and end up with a piece of litter that will
    stay in our landfill for probably over a hundred years.  Also paper and
    styrofoam plates and drink cups.  We've become a disposable society.
    
    	Jim

My experience has been that in most cases the reasons for not recycling something
are 2-fold. The fisrt is lack of market. Amazingly the market for recycled
cardboard is just beginning to come into its own and certain colors of glass are
difficult to find markets for from time to time. The other reason is the cost of
recycling a particular type of package. Juice boxes and styrafoam items are 
difficult and costly to recycle. At the present time it's cheaper to manufacture
new ones. BTW - styrafoam has recently been shown to breakdown and decompose 
in certain conditions. The problem with most juiceboxes is that they are a 2-ply
container - part paper, part metal. The seperation process is expensive.

    I've been trying to contact the Board of Health by phone since
    yesterday and get a recording that their hours are 8-4 Monday through
    Friday (which is when I'm calling).  I left a message but thought I'd
    ask this here:  
    
    I've got some rolls of cut-up wall-to-wall carpet that I've tied in
    bundles.  What are my disposal options?  Do I put a $.75 tag on each
    bundle or do I need to get a special tag?
    
    Thank's.
    
    Jim

    
    I have been waiting on a call since last September?
    good luck.
    
    bc
    

    
    re -.1
    
    >I have been waiting on a call since last September?
    >good luck.
    
    Your trash must be piled quite high by now :')
    
    I just got a call from them and my questions were answered.  As long as
    the bundle is no more than 70 lbs, I can just put a $.75 sticker on
    each.
    
    Jim

    
     My statement refered to the message .38 as follows :
    
    >>I've been trying to contact the Board of Health by phone since
    >>yesterday and get a recording that their hours are 8-4 Monday through
    >>Friday (which is when I'm calling).  I left a message but thought I'd
    >>ask this here:  
    
     In this paragraph I donot believe it makes any mention about trash.
     and the statement was separated from the first part of the
     presentation so there could be no problem in separating the two issues
     that this person had. 
    
     Or is it just a matter that you want to stir things up a little.
    
    bc
      

    
    No, I just wanted to make a joke, which is why I put a funny face next
    to the statement.  

I live in an apartment building in Maynard.  My understanding is that we don't
get trash pickup service.  But, does anyone know if we can join the recycling
program?  I really hate to throw those milk containers, juice bottles, etc. to
the dumpster.

Thanks.
Ming

    I live in a condo building in Maynard, and our Management company
    negotiated a very good deal with the Town of Maynard about our trash
    and our recyclicables.  We pay for the Town to pick up our trash,
    instead of hiring an outside company.  The Town also provided recyling
    bins (and has added several extras, because we've got a really
    successful program in our building), and picks up the bin contents once
    a week.
    
    Maybe you should ask your landlord if he/she would consider talking to
    the town to see if they'd do the same for your building.  
    
    ****andrea**** 

    My experience was:

    Maynard won't give you a recycling bin if there's more than (4?)
    residences on the same lot.

    The company which picks up your trash is required, by law, to provide
    recycling.  Just call the number on the dumpster (or ask your landlord
    for the number) and inquire.

    Rachael

Re: .44 .45 
	Thanks for the info.  I'll look into these two:  join Maynard trash
	pickup program and check with our current trash pickup company for the
	recycling.  

	By the way, I did call Board of Health on Sep. 1 when I entered the 
	note and got a recording.  No one has returned my call yet.

    RE:  -1
    
    I'll remind the Board of Health to call you.
    
    Frank