Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay As You Throw topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eastham committee weighs pay‑as‑you‑throw study, says state grant could fund consulting
Summary
Eastham’s Solid Waste Reduction Committee discussed pursuing a state-funded consultant study to evaluate a pay‑as‑you‑throw program, emphasizing the need for data and modeling and estimating at least a two-year timeline from study to potential implementation.
The Eastham Solid Waste Reduction Committee discussed using a state-funded consultant to study a pay‑as‑you‑throw program that members said could reduce the town’s largest controllable expenditure: solid waste management.
A committee member asked whether the group was considering pay‑as‑you‑throw, and the committee agreed it is “a consideration,” noting that the state may pay for an initial consultant to assess viability and recommend fee structures. “That that initial grant is to come up with if you’re going to do it, you’re going to need this extra staff person to manage it,” the member said, adding the town could recoup those costs through reduced disposal expenses.
Members emphasized that the consultant’s work would need to include detailed data collection and modeling. “We need a lot of data, real numbers before we can present anything,” the member said, noting the committee currently lacks the tonnage, cost and usage figures required to model feasible fees or sticker/bag configurations.
Committee members described common design options: a seasonal transfer-station sticker that includes a set number of free bags, pay‑by‑bag systems, or combinations where stickers cover a base level of use and additional disposal requires purchase of bags. Members said the consultant would advise whether the town should charge at entry, issue stickers, or use vendor-distributed bags and would estimate staffing and enforcement needs.
The committee framed the discussion in budget terms: solid waste was cited as a major cost driver in recent town budgets and a candidate for savings. Members cautioned, however, that implementation would be long-term. “Even if we had everything together today, I think we’re still two years out,” one member said, pointing to the need for town approvals, vendor arrangements and public outreach.
Next steps in the transcript included planning the July 2 regional transfer‑station tour to study neighboring operations and signage and gathering the data a consultant would require. The committee did not vote or adopt a formal recommendation during the meeting; members said further fact‑finding and a formal consultant scope would be necessary before any action was forwarded to the select board.
