December 12, 2002 Maidencreek Regular Business Meeting:
The big issue on this night was hidden in the budget. We basically had to decide the direction of the recycling when we decided the budget. Remember the choices:
Implement the state required recycling program and charge the residents a flat fee (approx. $55.00 / household) to cover the costs.
Force the local trash haulers to do the recycling through a licensing program. They would have to purchase a license and agree to do curbside recycling in the township, and submit reports to the township.
Option two was suggested by Gloria and favored by the whole board. We asked the solicitor to research the licensing method to determine if it would satisfy the state's requirements for Maidencreek township. The solicitor reported as follows in an email sent out before the 12/12/02 meeting:
As you know you need to adopt the budget before December 31 and of course the recycling issue is the big question. I've found very little on the licensing and report from hauler method. As I reported last month, everyone says you can do it but nobody recommends it. The PSATS rep I called in October NEVER responded to my inquiry for help, so you're stuck with my guesses about how it might or might not work. Since we are mandated to recycle, the direct approach gives us direct contractual reporting from our contractor who collects and reports, enabling the township to file our compliance information from records provided. The downside is the estimated cost and consequential tax assessment which is part of the budget Bear in mind though that the rest of the recycling puzzle such as record keeping, reporting, etc. is still required under either method. Under the "licensing" concept we "regulate" by mandating that in order to pick up trash in Maidencreek you must be licensed and pay a fee AND you must file a report on forms we develop telling what you picked up and how much and
where etc. When we get that info we then do our compliance. I see enforcement and lack of reporting issues as regular re-occurrences. It's also not clear to me whether we really save the taxpayers anything. We charge the haulers for licensing and reporting. They have additional recording keeping and reporting and they are certainly not going to donate that to the public
good. Will fees for the actual recycling charged by the haulers plus the extra fees they are likely to charge for their compliance with our licensing and reporting really be a net savings the taxpayers? I really don't know. What are the consequences of our inability to file compliance reports because haulers don't comply? What if the reports are inconsistent
from haulers?
I frankly don't have answers to these questions. When the idea of dumping this recycling on the haulers was first discussed, I liked the concept. It may still work, but I'm not at all sure what the actual benefit will ultimately be. Internally we need the same information gathering and reporting structure. The information must also be coerced from private haulers with little incentive to help except the threat of prosecution compared to a contractor who contracts for the "right" to collect and
report as part of its obligation to the township. Last but not least, we cannot enact a licensing ordinance before the
end of the year. I suppose we don't have to run that on a calendar year basis but even if we wanted to,we should provide as much notice as we can to haulers and taxpayers alike. I'm glad you three are the policy makers. I've tried to give as much analysis as I can on the choices. We should decide this week about the ultimate direction.
Gene
With Gene's report, the specter of unintended consequences was considered. The licensing scheme would prevent the pass through charge to the taxpayers, but would it really save them money? Would it put the smaller haulers out of business? The people of the township had clearly spoken in the newsletter survey on trash that they liked their current haulers, and wanted to retain control of who hauled their trash. Would many of these people be forced to get new haulers if the recycling licensing scheme forced their hauler out of the township? Would they rather pay about $55 per year and keep their current hauler? These questions are truly unknowable, we could only guess. Gloria proposed approving the budget with the $55 recycling fee included. Bob refused to second it. Bob Kopfer still favored the licensing plan. This left the ball in my court. We listened to public comment for a while, and I seconded Gloria's motion. This means the budget is approved with the $55 pass through charge. The actual amount will be known after the township receives bids from the recycling hauler. Notice that the budget could be amended in this respect if there were good reason to. I did not sleep well that night wondering if I had made the right decision on recycling. The next day I got in touch with one of the smaller haulers. He told me that if he were forced to do curbside recycling by the township he would no longer pick up in Maidencreek.
I now believe that no one will be happy with this state required recycling, but people will be less unhappy paying about $55 per year than they would be having to scramble to get a new hauler. Only the larger companies could comply with the licensing scheme, and we would effectively reduce choice for the residents, and likely increase costs.
This thing will finally be done by ordinance. This vote on the budget just indicates a future direction. The real decision will be made at the vote on the ordinance. If you have strong feelings on this issue please email your supervisors, and attend the public hearing on the ordinance (date and time to be announced)
paid for by Roy Timpe