To the Editor:

I’ve read with interest about the city council’s discussions on the matter of citywide recycling. I’m not sure how long the current system has been around, but I know that recycling is a worthwhile effort and it’s everyone’s duty to do their part.

Originally, I subscribed to the program. The cost was about $2.15. People I knew complained about having to pay anything to participate, stating that the city makes money off the sale of these materials. Not true. This fee just offsets the cost of recycling. If the program went from voluntary to mandatory, I knew we wouldn’t get off that cheaply anymore.

It seems that time has come. With anticipated costs of about $20 extra per month, I know these folks will definitely not be happy. What concerns me the most is that only homeowners and home renters seem to be targeted. There’s been no mention of apartment dwellers, businesses, churches or even the city’s own departments being part of the program. To be fair and equitable, everyone should participate. Making the program as painless as possible would go a long way to assuring its success.

Projected start-up costs for the new program are over $3 million to buy the trucks, containers and other equipment. I’ve got to wonder if it would be feasible to sort these recyclable materials at the city’s transfer station, eliminating most of this cost. Hiring people to quickly sort on the site materials would create jobs. The company tasked with removal would take it from there.

By only bagging nonrecyclable items and leaving recyclables loose to ease the process of sorting, things would stay simple, which makes it more likely for residents to participate. The most work that residents would have to do would be rinsing out bottles, jars and cans. Items like junk mail might require being bagged to keep it from getting blown around but these bags could be color coded to distinguish them from actual trash.

While this type of program would still require some sort of additional monthly charge, I believe it could be done at a cost more acceptable to everyone.

Bill Paquette


(2) comments


For the business and apartments - Belton allows the owners of the business to have dumpsters, with a company that already contracts with the city. It is cheaper for them.
My advice to all of the citizens who use private trash service,NEVER switch to city service until you do trial run for three years without. Watch the price jump over three years. Belton is the biggest bunch of crooks ever to set foot on council and city management, They lied to annexed people. Trash service missed me more than half a dozen times, they promised a better level of service. But, if I had stayed with my original service, I would have saved $50 - now, they won't let annexed people switch back. If you do, they will force you to pay your old bill even if you are using a better level of service. Its a wonder a bolt of lightening doesn't come out of the sky and strike lieing, thieving city managers and council members, like Belton TX


The cost of recycling has gone from a free program to now over $20.00. The method of picking up this recycle material moved from using 'new' containers to using existing containers to once again purchasing new containers with a cost of $3 Million. I wonder 'why', with all things considered and with or without the 'study', the cost remains $3 Million? As I understand it, the recycle materials are going to be 'purchased' from the city, the cost of transporting the bulk materials will be materially diminished, and the cost of each house hold has increased to now $20.00. What happened to the 'free' program?
As mentioned at last nights city council forum, it was announced that the city had $7 Million dollars in a, 'not so visible city account', is that where the funds for the 'new water plant' that the city manager used to buy down the cost? If that be the case, what other funds are being kept from view? Is that, where the $750,000.00 that was used to 'pay off' the previous city manager? It makes one wonder just what the city is doing and where do thy have additional monies 'hidden'. I reviewed the budget last year and I don't recall seeing a surplus of $7 Million Dollars or anywhere near that figure. What came in, went out, no surplus.
As to the city and the new water treatment facility, it was stated, again during last nights forum, 'if we don't start conserving, the new treatment plant will be sucking mud'. Has there been no thought as to what avenues can be used to economize, such as recycle water to use in new facilities to be slated for construction? That is one avenue that can 'save' when planning for parks, shrubs, etc. As was stated by the city manager on the plan to use recycle, or Grey Water in the water use at the Stonetree City Golf Club, this will 'save' up to 500,000 Gallons per day and amount to a cost savings of at least $78,000.00. With that kind of savings, where else can the city 'save' money.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.