‘Pay as you go’ in South Portland shouldn’t stop with trash collection | Opinion
South Portland Resident Calls for “Pay‑as‑You‑Go” City Services
A 39‑year resident of South Portland is urging city officials to rethink the way municipal services are funded, arguing that taxpayers should only pay for the services they actually use.
Micah Engber, who has lived in the city since the mid‑1980s, wrote a column in which he detailed how he has never attended a South Portland public school, never used the community center, and has only visited Bug Light Park for brief moments. He added that he has rarely called on the police or fire departments and has never needed the city’s general assistance program. “I’m paying for services that I never use,” Engber said.
Engber’s analysis of the city’s tax bill suggests a possible 61.57‑percent reduction, which would amount to more than $50,000 in unpaid property taxes over his 39‑year residency. He says that the city owes him back payment for those unused services. His proposal extends beyond schools and parks to include the city’s street system; he suggests turning all streets into toll roads that would require EZ‑Pass or license‑plate readers, so drivers would only pay for the roads they actually use. He also notes that biking or walking residents could save money if they were exempt from such tolls.
“Pay‑as‑you‑go trash collection is a regressive tax that would be highly detrimental to large families and those with low or fixed incomes,” Engber warned. He added that while the city should maintain its current trash‑collection system, the same principle should be applied to all other services. “If the city of South Portland wishes to change how services are paid for and charge taxpayers on a pay‑as‑you‑go basis for services like trash collection, then it is important to logically follow through and allow all residents to save on all services not used,” he wrote.
Engber also pointed out the communal nature of many city programs. “We all pay for some things we do not use for the benefit of those in the community who do need or use these services or programs,” he said. He acknowledges that community services such as public safety and parks have a broader societal benefit, but he believes that a restructured funding model would create more equitable tax burdens for residents who do not utilize every service.
The column does not reference any official city response or data on the feasibility of such a system. City officials have yet to comment on Engber’s proposals.
South Portland’s current municipal budget allocates property tax revenue to a wide range of services, including schools, parks and recreation, public safety, and community outreach programs. Engber’s suggestion would represent a significant shift from the existing collective funding model.
While Engber’s proposal has not yet been formally considered, it has sparked conversation among residents and policymakers about the fairness and efficiency of municipal taxation. The city’s next steps remain unclear, but Engber’s call for a “pay‑as‑you‑go” approach underscores a growing debate over how public services should be financed in a small New England municipality.
