Conference 7.286::maynard

    get in touch with the board of health -- I think they're looking into
    some kinds of user fees and eventually curbside pickup for recyclable
    items. the phone number is 897-1001.

    btw: I spoke with rob gogan last night (chair of the board of health)
    and he said that they're now taking colored plastic containers, like
    for laundry detergent. I don't remember the type of plastic it is, but
    it has the number 2 in a recycling symbol. again, contact the board for
    more information.

    they're working very hard to save money, and if you want to work with
    them, I'm sure they'd appreciate the help.

    					-- hs 

I think that there needs to be a flyer that get's put on every door in 
town that explains what is accepted for recycling, but in 'user 
friendly' terms - for example: 

	Glass bottles (clear and colored) - 
		examples: wine bottles, liquor bottles, condiment bottles, 
		salad dressing bottles, spaghetti sauce bottles, etc. 

	clear & colored plastic containers - 
		examples:  milk containers, oj containers, laundry 
		containers, bleach containers, cooking oil containers, 
		etc. 

	paper products - 
		examples: newspapers, envelopes (no plastic windows), 
		the sale flyers from your front door (out of the plastic 
		bags), writing paper, office paper, etc. 

????	cans - 
		examples:  canned fruit and vegetable cans, tomato 
		juice cans, fruit juice cans, tuna fish cans, etc. 


(aside - what is the story on cans?)

Because people don't realize what actual products are included in the 
categories.   For instance I threw out a few wine bottles before it 
dawned on me that they were clear glass and acceptable.    I think we 
have to get the message out in every day terms.     I would be willing 
to work on the flyer with someone, and willing to work on 
distribution.  


How about a campaign in school for recycling?   If we get the kids 
involved then they will get their homes involved.  I don't know anyone 
who has anythign to do with the schools (no children) so I can't help 
here. 

Regards, 

Karen 

    
I just talked to Jerry Collins, the Maynard Health Agent (Board of Health
employee). 

.0>    Now this is really only a shot in the dark, and I don't know how this
.0>    plan could be implemented, but to me, trash removal looks like a large
.0>    expense that could somehow be lowered, whether it be the result of 
.0>    residents paying fees for trash disposal or whatever.  This item is 
.0>    expected to cost the town close to $500K next year.  

Last year it was about $475K - $255 for pickup and $220K for disposal.  The
disposal consists of hauling the stuff to an incinerator to be burned.  Earlier
this year, the Board of Health was thinking seriously of going to Town Meeting
with an override article for a transfer station, and eliminating curbside
pickup.  The idea would be that everyone would haul their own trash to the
transfer station (likely on the site of the old dump).  Recycling would be done
on the same site - you'd just bring everything you don't want. 

The reason to do a transfer station would be to cut down on the $255 pickup
cost.  This would be replaced by the cost of having an employee at the transfer
station, plus the cost of the station itself.  The Board members were
particularly apprehensive about the possibility of the pickup cost increasing
radically in future years - the haulers are in a much better negotiating
position than the towns. 

The Board decided not to do it this year.  For one, they negotiated a good
contract with the Vining company to haul trash for the next three years, so
that cost is pinned down.  For two, this was not exactly the greatest year to
get yet another override passed. 

In the long term, I personally think we'll likely have to go to a transfer
station.  But the decision is deferred for a couple of years, anyway. Curbside
pickup is nice, but not every town does it around here.

.1>    get in touch with the board of health -- I think they're looking into
.1>    some kinds of user fees and eventually curbside pickup for recyclable
.1>    items. the phone number is 897-1001.

Actually, it's 1002.  I called 1001, and got the Board of Selectmen.

.1>    btw: I spoke with rob gogan last night (chair of the board of health)
.1>    and he said that they're now taking colored plastic containers, like
.1>    for laundry detergent. I don't remember the type of plastic it is, but
.1>    it has the number 2 in a recycling symbol. again, contact the board for
.1>    more information.

Yes, I noticed a number 2 in a little triangle on the bottom of our laundry
soap bottles.  And stomp on your plastic milk cartons before bringing them, so
they take less space. 

.1>    they're working very hard to save money, and if you want to work with
.1>    them, I'm sure they'd appreciate the help.

The immediate opportunity is to help on recycling days.  1st and 3rd Saturdays;
9 to 12 at the DPW barn on Winter Street.  You're likely to enjoy the company
of the people who show up to help, too. 

.2>I think that there needs to be a flier that get's put on every door in 
.2>town that explains what is accepted for recycling, but in 'user 
.2>friendly' terms - for example: 

Wasn't there some information in the flier which was distributed last Fall?
Anyway, I agree, this could be done again.  Since my wife, Cindy, lost the
School Committee election, she'll be doing her Middlesex News column again on
Mondays, so I'll nag her to print recycling information, too. 

.2>(aside - what is the story on cans?)

They collected cans for a while at recycling, and then didn't, and now they're
accepting them again. 

Also, try to separate the aluminum and steel cans.  (What people usually think
of as 'tin' cans are steel - try a magnet on it.) 

.2>How about a campaign in school for recycling?   If we get the kids 
.2>involved then they will get their homes involved.  

There is some of this now.  My daughter was supposed to go through our
trash a couple of weeks ago to see what could be recycled.  It was very
disappointing for her, because we already collect all we can for the
town recycling, plus all the vegetable scraps for the compost pile.

Another subject Jerry Collins talked about was disposal of large items, like
old appliances. In July, you will have to buy a sticker to have your
refrigerator taken away at curbside, or you will (likely) be able to haul it
down to recycling and get rid of it for free. This isn't sure yet, but if it
happens, it reduces the likelihood that people will just dump their old
refrigerators in the woods somewhere. 

-Steve

    Steve, I also hope your entry won't turn into a bashing session,
    because I think your correct in your comments.
    
    I see it this way:  There are certain town expenses that should be
    supported by the taxes that we pay.  Public Safety, Town Government 
    Administration, some Public Works functions, Education, etc, etc.
    
    As State and Federal funds to Cities and Towns continue to go down,
    the burden on the Cities and Town to pay for essential services 
    goes up.  No rocket scientist needed here.  Paying for other services
    on a usage basis is extremely unpopular and grounds for a public 
    flogging to some, but let's face reality.  Prop 2 1/2 has specific
    limits which we must abide by or choose to override.  Whether we 
    choose to use tax money for essential services or to put a dome
    over Alumni Field is of no concern to the Prop 2 1/2 law.  The fact
    is that we have a limited amount of money to spend each year. Prop
    2 1/2 is intended to control property taxes, not eliminate essential
    services or to put citizens in life-threatening situations. 
    
    In addition to Trash collection, Water and Sewer usage is a measurable
    expense that could be allocated to users without impact to the town's
    taxes.  Many, many neighboring towns now operate self sufficient 
    water and sewer departments, with no contribution from the Prop 2 1/2
    restricted tax base.  Concord, for one, operates a water and sewer 
    department that not only recovers its own expenses through user fees,
    it also funds it's own capital improvements program for water main
    renewals and sewer improvements, but it also turns over excess money
    to the Town to reduce the cost of town government!  They have a
    Municipal Light department which buys electricity wholesale and 
    charges users for measured power consumption, and returns any "profit"
    to the town in lieu of taxes.
    
    So, the idea of user fees for trash removal is not grounds for a 
    bashing, but rather a forward thinking idea to help the town to use
    tax money for essential town-wide expenses, without impacting a 
    restricted source of income (property taxes). 
      
    Let's look at the recently approved FY91 town budget.  For a start,
    consider that the Fire Department charges a user fee for some of
    the ambulance services.  This is a good start.  The Police Department
    gets back some of it's expense through parking tickets.  The various
    Code Inpectors (building, plumbing, electrical, gas, etc) recover
    their costs through "user fees".  The Public Library takes in some
    money to cover it's expenses, as does the Dog Officer. Some other
    departments also recover some of there expenses.  
    
    What would the budget look like if the trash collection recovered 
    it's $483,000 in expenses and the Water and Sewer Department recovered 
    all it's expenses without a tax subsidy ( sadly, I'm not smart enough 
    to figure out that number from the town budget or town report- but I 
    do know that we're paying $210,000 next year in water and sewer bond 
    payments, plus $67,000 in interest on those bonds for what amounts to
    a public utility that should operate the same as the gas company and 
    the phone company.
    
    I may get the bashing here, Steve, not you, but I just came up with
    at least $760K in tax money that could better be used to fund Public
    Safety and Education, etc., and keep the town within the guidelines
    of Prop 2 1/2.  
    
    My extreme point is that the Town of Maynard has only 3 square miles
    of potential taxable land versus 13 square miles of taxable land for
    Concord.   The burden on the taxpayers is most likely to increase in
    the coming years and the victims will be the essential services that
    we need and expect, if we do not look seriously at the user fee concept 
    that you mentioned.
    
    Thanks for starting this discussion. 
    
    Frank
              

    The Board of Health has discussed "fees" for trash pickup and one
    of their concerns is what happens if someone doesn't pay the fees;
    do we just leave their trash at the curb, how is it enforced and
    what are the consequences.
    
    The water and sewer rates are supposed to be set to fund those areas
    (water and sewer) 100%.  The DPW Commissioners set those rates and
    although they have raised them recently they didn't raise them to
    the 100% level.  They thought it would be too much of an increase.
    
    The Fincom has told the DPW that when they are going to submit articles
    for water or sewer projects the rates for water and sewer should
    increase enough to cover these projects for the Fincom to give a
    favorable recommendation with the limited funds available to the
    town from taxation.

    A transfer station would probably be the fairest way of collecting
    trash disposal fees.  I have a sister in Florida who pays a flat fee
    for curbside trash pickup, although I'm not sure what the cost is.  
    They also pay a MONTHLY water and sewer usage bill.  I do know this 
    charge is sky high, but of course we're talking the peninsula of Florida, 
    which has water problems similar to those of Cape Cod.
    
    Getting back to Maynard, the possiblity of a problem does exist in that
    some people just do not pay their bills.  Until a transfer station is
    formed, maybe the process of user fees could still be enacted for 
    curbside pickup.  Adjust the fee a nominal percentage above the actual
    cost, knowing that not everyone will pay promptly.  If all residents
    were to pay, then a surplus would be created to go toward the cost of
    building the transfer station.  True, this would create another layer of
    bureaucracy, and would cause some grumbling, but the town is pretty
    much in a state of crisis right about now (i.e., Monday the town hall
    employees went home because the building ran out of oil to heat the
    place.  The high school also had no oil, but the town meeting certainly
    distributed enough heat there to last a few days. :-))  Let's face it,
    curbside trash pickup is a luxury.  
    
    I'm also in agreement with 229.5 (is it Bill?).  The cost of water and
    sewerage should be self funding.  But, first the town will have to
    upgrade the water meters in some of the older homes, if they haven't 
    already.  The old meters can be easily tampered with.
    
    					Steve

>    I see it this way:  There are certain town expenses that should be
>    supported by the taxes that we pay.  

    one of the reasons that maynard was attractive to us was that the town
    provided more services than other towns. it's nice having town water,
    sewers *and* trash pickup.

    it really doesn't matter whether we pay for trash collection through
    taxes or by the pound -- the overall cost is the same. (That assumes
    that we all dispose of the same amount of trash, which isn't strictly
    true, but on the whole it probably is). The only difference then is
    whether we have to worry about proposition 2� or not. it's also going
    to be a *lot* more inconvenient to have to put stickers on every bag or
    barrel each week if they go to that. I'd much rather pay more taxes
    than have to run to store 24 at midnight because we're out of stickers.

>    ...Many, many neighboring towns now operate self sufficient 
>    water and sewer departments, with no contribution from the Prop 2 1/2
>    restricted tax base.  

    I thought the state required that water/sewer depts be self-sufficient.

>    So, the idea of user fees for trash removal is not grounds for a 
>    bashing, but rather a forward thinking idea to help the town to use
>    tax money for essential town-wide expenses, without impacting a 
>    restricted source of income (property taxes). 

    again, that's true based on prop 2�. I'd rather dump that unworkable
    law.
      
>    Let's look at the recently approved FY91 town budget.  For a start,
>    consider that the Fire Department charges a user fee for some of
>    the ambulance services.  

    they do, but if you can't afford it (no insurance, for example) I
    understand that you don't have to pay.

>    ...The Police Department
>    gets back some of it's expense through parking tickets.  

    that's not really a user fee, unless you consider overtime parking to be
    a service the town provides! similarly for library fines.

    I don't mean to be too picky, but I really don't like paying user fees
    in lieu of taxes. it's really the same thing. instead of working around
    the problem, let's just get rid of or modify the problem, which 
    is proposition 2�.

    I think we are all in violent agreement on this issue.  
    
    Nobody wants to see a complicated system of user type fees which 
    will only encourage non-users to find ways to abuse the system 
    which will result in a complicated penalty system which result in 
    a tangled mess for the town.
    
    I was only trying to draw on the present state of the Town within
    the Prop 2 1/2 law.  I feel that Maynard was doing a nice job of 
    managing it's own affairs prior to 2 1/2.
    
    The trash user fees will cause an obvious increase in litter and
    abuse of the system, and Rob Gogan is fully aware of this, and 
    that's why the Board of Health has delayed any decision on this
    issue. 
    
    As for the water and sewer fees, there is now a water meter person on
    the staff of the DPW, for the first time in many years.  He has 
    found about 50% of the meters in town to be either broken or 
    tampered!  This should improve the revenue situation of that 
    department.
    
    By the way, any town that seeks Federal or State funds for water or
    sewer improvments MUST be self sufficient, in order to qualify.
    No tax money can be used to offset user fees.  Period.
    
    Thanks for all the replies to this note so far.   I think that 
    Maynard is a GREAT town and I'm impressed with the response and
    concern of the readers who have taken their time to offer their
    opinions.  We'll get through this!
    
    Frank
                      

    RE: Last few - the subject of water meters was mentioned several times.  
    I know that some towns allow a customer to have a separate meter for 
    outside-only water and bill that meter only for water use, not sewage 
    treatment.  Does Maynard have such a plan? 
    
      I'm not exactly sure how payment for the meter itself is handled - if
    the town absorbed the cost, then everyone in Maynard with an outside
    faucett would potentially want one (big town expense).  Of course,
    most homes would require some degree of piping alteration in order to
    get all eligible points of usage on the cheaper meter - that might hold
    demand in check.
    
    If the customer pays for the meter, doesn't he then become owner of the 
    meter?  ("It's my meter, I can run it backwards, if I want.")  
    
    (By the way, composite-body meters are available for $45 ...)

I don't know if this would save money for the town or for the homeowner but 
many towns have/are installing water meters that can be read from outside the
house.  This way there is always an accurate meter reading since no one has to
be home to read the meter.  The way it works now is that if no one is home a
post card is left (the town pays the postage for the card); the homeowner then
reads their meter, fills out the card and mails it in.  I believe that if the
card is not sent in an estimated amount is used.  I do not know how the 
estimated amount is arrived at.

I am not proposing a blanket replacement/upgrade of all water meters.  Perhaps
implementing a program that would have/require any new or replaced water meters
to be the type that has a remote read-out outside the house.

    not only do they leave a post card, but they attach it to your door
    with a brightly-colored sticker so it's clear that no one is home.
    that's especially good for people who happen to be away for a few
    days around meter-reading time. i wonder if anyone's had problems
    because of that.
    
    					-- hs

    In one of my prior lives, I worked for a municipal water and sewer
    department for nine years.  Let me see if I can answer some meter
    questions.
    
    Seasonal meters are quite common in towns that have farms.  They
    are installed in the spring and removed in the fall and are used
    for watering gardens, etc.  The town still owns the meter, and the
    user pays an install and deinstall flat fee.  The consumption is
    not subject to sewer use charges, since it is obviously assumed that
    none of the water goes into the domestic (sanitary) drain system.
    The customer pays for the valves on each side of the meter and has
    the plumbing installed to specifications supplied by the town to
    accept installation of the meter.  The customer is responsible for
    the care of the meter (protection from abuse and freezing).
    
    Remote meters are very common in water systems today, and they are
    usually installed on the outside wall near the location of the meter.
    Remote meters feature a small generator that sends an impulse through
    a small ribbon cable, to an outlet that is read by a plug-in reader
    that registers the reading on the meter.   The advantage to remotes
    is that the occupant need not be home, and there are no cards to be
    filled out, mailed, and manually entered.  There is no time delay
    involved in sending out bills.
    
    The only problems I've had with the card system are that a card on 
    the door is an indication that no one is home, and that the sticker
    itself stays stuck to my storm door, and has to be scraped off.
    
    The idea of calculating sewer usage based on water usage is an
    inexact science at best.  In theory, the philosophy is that every
    gallon that goes through the water meter eventually goes down the
    sanitary waste line.  We all know that this is not true, but the
    feeling in Maynard seems to be that the inaccuracies are uniform 
    throughout the system, and built into the charge rate.  I think
    we can all come up with examples of the unfairness of the this
    gallon-in/gallon out system, and every time I water my new lawn,
    I think I am making a donation to the sewer department.  Maynard
    is not alone in this situation, since there really are very few
    methods of calculating sewer usage.  Some towns use number of 
    bedrooms, number of occupants, etc.  There are no sewer meters
    in use, anywhere.
    
    There is a provision in the DPW regulations that allows for a sewer 
    use abatement for filling of swimming pools, and perhaps one could
    file and justify for a garden abatement, but I'm not sure this has
    ever been allowed in Maynard.
    
    The best way to calculate sewer use is to go to quarterly water meter
    readings, and to use the winter quarter (January, February, and March)
    as the base for sewer billing, since this is the period when the 
    highest percentage of water will be returned to the sewer system.  The
    problems with this include the expense of adding two more readings 
    per year, and the rather large one-time sewer bill that will be a 
    hardship for some.  On the other side, quarterly readings will allow
    for a better method of estimating readings if necessary, and will
    pick up inoperable/tampered meters quicker.
    
    Finally, as for the meters themselves, any malfunction in a meter
    will always be on the negative side, unless mis-read or tampered
    with.  They cannot read more than what passed through them. Period.
    Nine times out ten, a sudden increase in water consumption is a 
    result of a leak, running toilet, or increase in teenagers!!
    
    I'd be happy to answer to any other questions on this topic. 
          
    
    Frank

    .11
    	A number of year ago the DPW came to the Fincom with a proposal to
    change all the indoor water meters to outside ones for the reason you
    stated. This was going to be done over a number of years, however like
    so many out project in this town there was no money to start the
    program on continue it. Such program have work the fire alarm system
    in town was changed over a 5 year period with a minor inpact on the
    fire budget. 
    	All new construction I think requires outside water usage
    indicators (the meters are still in the house).
    
    If anyone has other ideas on ways to save money or inprove services in
    the town please send them to me and I make sure the Fincom and the
    approxiate dept gets copies of them.
    
    
    Art Filz (fincom member)

    The sewer abatement for filling swimming pools is a one time deal.  If,
    for any reason, you have to drain and refill your pool, you will not 
    be allowed another abatement.  If you provide the before and after
    meter readings with the regular reading, your bill can be adjusted at
    billing time rather than filing for an abatement later.
    
    Chris
     

    RE: .12
    
>    Remote meters feature a small generator that sends an impulse through
>    a small ribbon cable, to an outlet that is read by a plug-in reader
>    that registers the reading on the meter.   The advantage to remotes

There is another type in which the pulse triggers a remote mechanical counter -
no need to plug anything in.  This feature adds about $20 (quantity 1) to the
cost of a meter.
    

    Regarding .13
    
    Thanks, Art.  Here are a few suggestions:
    
    1.  Paint the town house trim before the cupola rots out.
    
    2.  Re-roof the Crowe Park Bandstand before it falls over. A little
    TLC now will preserve this beautiful monument for many years.
    
    3.  Re-paint the street lines downtown before someone gets killed 
    at the intersection of Summer and Nason.
    
    4.  Teach someone how to take care of the Roosevelt School before
    it's totally destroyed.
    
    These may not seem like cost savings to you, but not doing the
    above will cost the town serious money in the long run.
    
    
    Please pass these suggestions on via the Finance Committee to the
    appropriate town agency.
    
    Frank