Date: Fri 20-Sep-1996

Publication: Bee

Author: STEVEB

Quick Words:

trash-recycling-Holmes

Full Text:

with photos: Volume-Based Fee For Trash Loses Favor

B Y S TEVE B IGHAM

Will the town ever implement a plan that would require residents to pay for

their garbage based on the amount of volume? Probably not any time soon,

according to town officials.

The proposed volume-based system was originally put before the town nearly two

years ago by the Newtown Environmental Action Team (NEAT), which said charging

by the weight would give residents an incentive to cut down on their waste and

improve their recycling habits, but no action was ever taken on the request.

The Board of Selectmen reviewed the issue last week after NEAT continued its

push toward a volume-based system. However, town officials believe the

complicated procedure would end up costing the town more money than it is

already spending.

Public Works Director Fred Hurley said charging residents by the pound just

isn't practical in Newtown.

"Philosophically, it makes sense, but administratively, it's difficult to

handle," Mr Hurley explained.

The public works chief said the system has been successful in other parts of

the country, but as he points out, Newtown families produce about half as much

garbage as the national average.

NEAT's Judy Holmes said her research has found that Newtown is one of few

towns in the area that do not charge a fee for garbage based on weight or

volume. She predicted a volume-based system would also discourage the pooling

of neighborhood garbage. In Danbury, residents are charged $2 per 50 pounds of

garbage.

Last week, Selectman Jim Mooney said he wouldn't stand for paying more and

predicted the proposed plan would end up costing taxpayers even more than the

$80 per year they are currently spending.

"Next year, the town will be charging me by the foot to plow my road," he said

in jest.

But, as Mrs Holmes pointed out, the $80 annual fee allows residents unlimited

dumping.

In the past, residents have voiced opposition to the volume-based system,

especially those with big families who produce more trash.

The selectmen have been discussing several other transfer station issues

brought up by the local environmental groups, as well, including the heavy

traffic congestion.

For years, residents have complained about the traffic problem at the transfer

station, especially on Saturday mornings. Its inconvenient traffic

configuration, according to Mrs Holmes, has yet to be rectified by the town.

Currently, traffic for both recycling and trash is filtered into the same area

causing congestion. A person using the center for dropping off recyclable

items is often stuck in line until those dropping off garbage move on.

"It is extremely frustrating for a recycler to come on a busy day and have to

wait to get out," explained Mrs Holmes.

Mr Hurley said one option his department came up with was to create an extra

lane for recycling that would loop around the drop-off center and then come

out on the other side, merging with the original exit. However, with the

construction of the new transfer station, that option is no longer possible.

As for routing the recycling traffic around to the right over to Turkey Hill

Road, as has been suggested, Mr Hurley said that option has far too many

drawbacks because of the liability issues.

The only thing left to do, he said, is to straighten up the recycling area to

allow for easier access by cars, but as Mrs Holmes points out, that won't

solve the current problem of those cars having to cross over into the garbage

line.

NEAT is also concerned that there are no restraining walls separating

residents, especially children, from the 40-yard recyclable containers.

The public works has put up a temporary barriers and plans to install a more

permanent railing system, according to Mr Hurley.

The Board of Selectmen is expected to continue its discussions on improving

the transfer station at its September 30 meeting.