Some Sanford residents had been advocating for the city to back down on its trash disposal proposal, which will go before voters June 11. We’re glad to see the council held its ground.
The council agreed April 2 to put two options before voters for waste disposal and recycling, with no option to keep the current no-fee structure. Residents will choose between a pay-as-you-throw system in which they pay for special trash bags that are picked up by the city’s waste contractor or the More-In-Return proposal, in which they would still pay for special bags, but would get a refund at the end of the year.
Some residents have voiced concerns about the referendum vote, saying they want a “none of the above” option so they can vote to reject both pay-per-bag proposals. And while the council thought about adding that question, they chose to to let the referendum remain as it is, which means residents will be paying for trash bags, one way or another.
We agree with Mayor Maura Herlihy that the city “can’t afford not to do something,” so it doesn’t make sense to even give voters that option.
What if they chose it, and the city’s waste disposal was left without the anticipated savings from increased recycling? Such a vote would leave the city in a strained financial position, just as it was when residents rejected the short-lived pay-as-you-throw plan in 2010.
Another consideration is recycling itself. During the few months when pay-per-bag was in place in Sanford in the summer of 2010, before voters repealed it that fall, the recycling rate was 43 percent. Since the repeal, it’s dropped to 21 percent.
Less recycling is not only bad for the environment, it’s bad for the city’s finances, as the cost of disposing municipal waste is obviously higher when there’s more of it. These services cost money and there seems to be less and less of that to go around.
The city spends $1.6 million on environmental services each year, representing 6 percent of the budget. By the city’s estimates, bringing the recycling rate back up to 43 percent means that it can save more than $115,750 each year in waste disposal fees alone.
Giving voters only the choice between programs ”“ not whether they should have a pay-per-bag program or not ”“ is the only way to ensure that the waste disposal program remains fiscally solvent into the future, and avoid additional layoffs and other cuts to city services.
We’ve all come to realize that there’s no “away” in “throw away,” since all trash has to end up somewhere. Even so, it’s clear that money is the only incentive that really works to get the majority of people to recycle.
In the June 11 vote, voters will note that both trash disposal programs have the same estimated revenue from bag sales, at about $654,032 per year, and the same cost savings. Where they differ, however, is the rebate. With More-In-Return, the revenue from sales of bags goes back to the residents directly as a rebate, whereas that revenue in the pay-per-bag program would go toward reducing taxes.
Pay-as-you-throw would reduce the mil rate by .55, while More-In-Return would reduce it by .08.
Voters will have to decide whether they want the bag money back in their own pocket or want it going toward offsetting municipal costs. Either way, the city will be saving money and residents will have a more fair system of trash disposal, since people don’t have to pay for their neighbor’s refusal to recycle. With either of these proposals, each household is responsible for its own waste costs, rather than spreading the cost evenly among those who recycle and those who don’t.
We urge Sanford voters to look into what their mayor is saying and check out the numbers for themselves before they clamor for business as usual. The era of recycling is here, which means making people personally and fiscally responsible for their own trash.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
