The Boothbay Region Refuse Disposal District is requesting a 2.95 percent increase in town subsidies to make up for a $30,999 budget shortfall. 

The proposed budget also includes a 1.98 percent increase in operations costs due to a 3 percent salary increase, an impending rise in health insurance premiums, and the promotion of a part-time employee into a full-time position. 

According to BRRDD’s Operations Manager Steve Lewis, the increase was unavoidable.  

“When we do the budget we factor in the revenues from recycling and sales, and then the remaining shortfall, so to speak, comes from the towns,” Lewis said. 

Although the budget has maintained a relatively flat line, Lewis said in the past two years, there has been an increase in subsidies that the refuse district has requested from the towns of Boothbay, Boothbay Harbor, Southport and Edgecomb.

Lewis estimated that the average local taxpayer spends between $80-$100 per year supporting BRRDD. Since the towns’ subsidy is lumped into the municipal budget, the district’s increase probably won’t yield a noticeably big change when the townspeople vote at their respective town meetings, Lewis said. 

 Subsidies vs. pay-as-you-throw

BRRDD is considered a flat-rate tax supported system, as oppose to a pay-as-you-throw program being implemented in other Maine municipalities. 

Pay-as-you-throw programs have been on the rise in some Maine communities in recent years, but according to Lewis, the practice doesn’t fit the business model of BRRDD, which relies on the influx of seasonal residents for financial support. 

“Pay-as-you-throw” means residents pay a fee for each bag they discard. The practice has grown popular, particularly in Maine’s urban and inland communities that utilize curbside pickup collection.

But for Lewis, it makes more sense for a town like Boothbay to tax both full-time and seasonal residents equally. 

Lewis said in some of the towns utilizing pay-as-you-throw programs, people are paying up to $2 dollars a bag, which works out to be a lot more than what residents of the Boothbay region are paying annually in taxes. 

“We have people who come here for 2 to 3 months that are paying full year-round taxes. They’re subsidizing us,” Lewis said. “Whereas, if you go pay-as-you-throw, they would pay nothing for the facility because it wouldn’t be in their taxes anymore.” 

According to a 2011 study conducted by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, the state of Maine generates approximately 4,800 tons of municipal solid waste every day by residential and commercial activity. In 2011, at least 39 percent of the annual waste stream was recycled. The percentage of in-state recycling has remained relatively steady for the past 10 years ranging from a low 33 percent to high 38 percent. However the report was inconclusive as to how much the recycling percentage can be attributed to pay-as-you-throw programs. That state’s goal is to recycle at least 50 percent of the annual waste stream, according to the DEP.  

Lewis said he regards BRRDD as a sort of model for Maine refuse districts because of their commitment to recycle everything they possibly can.  

But last year some citizens criticized BRRDD’s decision to stop accepting mixed plastics. While the transfer station only accepted mixed plastics for a brief time period, according to Lewis, the choice was made because ultimately, there was little money to be made from plastics other than “No. 2” recyclables. 

“Once you accept something and then stop taking it, it upsets people,” Lewis said. “So the reality of it is, when people say we are throwing the plastics away and it’s going to landfill, well, no it isn’t. It’s being recycled.” 

BRRDD sends its municipal solid waste, including mixed plastics, to Penobscot Energy Recover Company (PERC), a waste-to-energy facility in Orrington. There, the waste is incinerated and processed into fuel to generate electricity. Ninety percent of the garbage is turned into electricity and sold back to power grid, while the other 10 percent is residue and put into a landfill, according to PERC’s website. 

But there’s a big problem looming in the future.

BRRDD is one of 186 municipalities that sends their waste to PERC. After 2018 that option may no longer exist.  

The 187 municipalities are represented by the Municipal Review Committee (MRC). The MRC’s current contract with PERC expires in 2018, leaving a giant question mark on how the municipalities will dispose of their garbage in a manner that keeps costs down and business sustainable. 

 How it works 

Each year BRRDD pays a tipping fee to ship their solid waste to PERC, but when the contract expires in 2018, it’s predicted that electricity sales rates will drop, leading to a significant increase in what municipalities will have to pay to ship their garbage. 

“When you add up what the municipal tipping fees would have to be to make up that difference, it becomes clear to us that PERC is uneconomic for our group of communities after 2018, said Greg Lounder, the executive director of the MRC.  

In 2014, BRRDD paid an average gross tipping fee of $79 per ton. For each quarter, BRRDD receives some of that money back, thanks to the MRC issuing cash rebates called performance credits. 

Last year, BRRDD received $72,853 in performance credits from the MRC; however, it still cost BRRDD a total difference of $285,353 to send its waste to PERC that year. 

If the tipping fees were to soar as high as $100 per ton as some have predicted, doing business with PERC would longer be an option, Lewis said. 

After 2018, PERC stands to lose 10 to 20 million in revenue from electricity sales per year, Lounder said. 

Calls to PERC were not immediately returned late Tuesday. 

“The MRC needs to figure out an alternative solution that will allow the municipalities to keep processing the waste and getting the energy value out of the waste,” Lounder said. 

So what’s the alternative solution? In December, the MRC announced plans to construct a new solid waste processing plant in Hampden. 

If approved, the proposed processing plant will be a lot different than PERC. Instead of a waste-to-energy facility producing electricity, the MRC would use anaerobic digestion and hydrolysis to produce industrial sugars, a product that can be sold for high value in certain manufacturing processes, Lounder said. 

According to Louner, the capital costs for building the facility might not fall entirely on the MRC, but a private development partner instead.

According to Lounder, there is also talk of the MRC just owning the land, not the plant and extending the infrastructure of roads, water, sewer and natural gas. This would minimize the risk for the municipalities, but still retain the right of participation in the project.

There are still many variables that are subject to change, but in the long run, the new facility would need to meet the needs of the municipalities the MRC serves, Lounder said. 

Other than some healthy skepticism and concern,  Louder said he’s received overwhelming support for the project from at least 80 percent of MRC’s municipalities. 

In the meantime, municipal waste managers like Lewis are keeping an eye out on the situation. 

“We’re not at a point of panic. It’s going to happen at the end of 2018, so we’ve got four more years,” Lewis said.

“The reality of it is, garbage is one of the necessary evils. You’ve got to pay to get rid of it.”