The "case" for the transfer station

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

The "case" for the transfer station

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:01 am

Picking up from a conversation started under a different topic...

uscitizen03054 wrote:
Mark Fitzgerald wrote:
While some may disagree with his position I think he made is case well.


Really??? How's that "case" holding up today?

It was a case based on lies, but that's nothing new these days. The truth always comes out, and in this case MMK pissed away $3M so three private companies could stay in business.....and then not even give MMK their business.

Yea, it was a great case alright.


Mark, can you please show me some data to support this.


That’s just the point US, there is NO data. The haulers who stood before the town claiming they would support this station (even if the tipping rates hit $140 as claimed in a town meeting by one of the haulers, and this statement is on public record) have skipped town. They aren’t using it hence no data.

Look back at the town records from before the vote… look over what Dennis, the haulers and other transfer station supporters claimed… none of it is holding up. The amount of “revenueâ€
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:38 am

Whao, hold on!

It appears I am once again being accussed of lying.

To set the record straight, I trusted the the previous BOS who did not, in my opinion, put forward correct numbers. This was only learned after the vote and I publically acknowledged this and reworked my calcualtion of savings.

I trusted the numbers put forward by the previous BOS.

When Norm voted for the multiyear contract with a town hauler for this year when he said last year the town could not engage in mulit-year projects of this kind as "one BOS could not obligate another BOS", I then realized the comparison of the numbers was unfair.

Prior to the town vote, I had suggested the BOS but in a statement from the curbside supporters along with the official BOS position on the TS in the town education pamphlet. I had made the same request going back to Chris Christianson's days as chairman. I felt that on a contentious issue such as this, providing the alternative view was important and only fair.

When the vote was taken, I immediatedly reduced the 1 million in savings by $600,000 which was the difference on the multiyear vs single year contracts. True the haulers are not using our facility but that only means we are not paying to remove their trash. The remaing $400,000 savings does not appears to be significant when divided among the townspeople and the loss of projected revenue lowered this number even further. The data will not be known until the first year of operation to be for sure.

I acknowleged this and noted there were a number of ways you can look at the data (i.e. condo owner vs self hauler, self haul costs vs none, condo fees added or not, etc.) The bottom line is the TS will probably end up as a brake even from a taxpayer point of view and additional expense for others, again depending on how you view this.

The sad thing is I have spent countless hours posting on this topic and it has been hard for me to "out" people who I feel are my friends.

What is the most gauling part of this jouney is the continued attacks by the CS supporters and by RBarnes in particular who likes to call me a liar.

I have always stated an intellectually honest analysis and can only use data supplied to me (by Bob Levan no less).

Funny, even when you agree with them, they still attack you.

Oh well, I guess that is the price you pay for having an opinion and trying to better the town you live in.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:37 am

Dennis King wrote:It appears I am once again being accussed of lying.

…

What is the most gauling part of this jouney is the continued attacks by the CS supporters and by RBarnes in particular who likes to call me a liar.


Dennis, for the record I didn’t say you were lying… I said you made incorrect claims. You admit to this in the remainder of your post. If you knowingly stated things that were incorrect THEN you would be lying.

I’m going to leave it to people to draw their own conclusions as to whether you were deliberately lying or just ignorant. But let’s move on to what you state now…

Dennis King wrote:To set the record straight, I trusted the the previous BOS who did not, in my opinion, put forward correct numbers. This was only learned after the vote and I publically acknowledged this and reworked my calcualtion of savings.


Problem is even your “reworked calcualtionsâ€
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:16 am

Yes I admit the mistake but still I am being lumped in with a group the misrepresented the facts!

Can't you see the difference here.

Anyway, I do not want to rehash the TS/CS debate.

There was always a cost involved in removing our trash, the analysis was on the Difference in costs between the CS and TS!

RBarnes, you have now attacked me by linking me and my credibilty with Michael Moore.

I do take that as a personal insult.

You and I have nothing else to say.

I will leave it up to the reader to determine whether my posts were intellectually honest and consistent with the quest for truth, wherever it takes me.

Dennis
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Postby uscitizen03054 » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:34 am

Dennis I agree with you this issue is old and benefits no one to bring it up.
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Michael Thompson » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:54 am

WOW USCitizen I couldn't agree with you more.

The past is the past and it is done. If we want to look at the EXISTING cost and then determine weather there is a better way or not then lets move forward with this.

If you feel you have been overlooked or information has been misrepresented then you will have to live with it since I don't see any other way of fixing the past, except moving on and finding the best solution for the future of the community.

If you don't like the current situation then there are only two other options.

One: PAYT

Two: Shut down the TS and go to CS

Either way we have to go to a vote again.
Michael Thompson
 
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 8:25 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Devils Advocate » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:48 pm

World Class Facility
Devils Advocate
 

Postby Norman Phillips » Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:39 pm

uscitizen03054 wrote:Dennis I agree with you this issue is old and benefits no one to bring it up.


As an aside--------just like WMD and collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda?????
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby joe179 » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:05 am

The Transfer Station is built and operating. The facts are--- the costs are exceeding the revenue. Therefore, the only method available now to fill the gap is taxation.

Once we get some "solid" figures on TS tonnage, and revenues from the recycling facility, some action should be taken to work out a plan to increase revenue. Some ideas:

1. Pay as you throw (PAYT). This has been debated on the forum as we all know. However, it is the only FAIR method to handle the solid waste. If we enact this procedure, I'm sure we will be able to reduce the commercial tipping fee thus resulting in even more revenue for the town.

2. Mandatory Recycling. I'm sure we've all looked into the TS and seen quite a pile of items that could have been recycled. From what I've heard the recycling operation is losing money and thus represents negative revenue. This situation is very unfair to the community. We should work to enact a policy of mandatory recycling. The revenue for the recycling operation would drastically increase, while the tonnage of solid waste we must pay to haul away would decrease accordingly. A win-win situation for all.

Just a couple ideas to make the TS an economically functioning concern....
User avatar
joe179
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 9:17 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Norman Phillips » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:40 am

Joe, the actual dollars received from sale of recyclables are not the only item on the plus side of the ledger. The last time I looked, the recycling operation paid for itself, if allowance is made for the diversion of trash from the usual tipping operation. A typical diversion was about 900 tons per year. ( This included only stuff that could have been put legally in the landfill. ) At the current operational costs, this would amount to something in the vicinity of $80,000. Adding in the sales returns makes it more than $100,000.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Mon Jul 26, 2004 6:56 am

One year before the current contract for remote disposal expires the voters of MMK will institute CS.........

By the way Mr. King, your misrepresentation of the financial estimates went way beyond the multi-year issue.

You simply sided with those who'd have you.....and in the meantime verified the discretion shown by those who shunned you. Try acknowledging that rather than half-heartedly blaming Carr for your own weaknesses.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:11 am

PS.....the money that's being urinated away each year the TS stays in operation is enough to cover the financing of the new school.....so anyone in this forum bitching about the school who also happened to support the "world class" TS should clearly shut their mouths.

The idea that the TS is a "break even" proposition would be funny were it not such a strong indicator of complete ignorance regarding this matter.

I am glad to see an acknowledgement that any waste not taken there by the private haulers is a good thing because the town therefore doesn't have to pay for it.......someone oughta copy this statement and read it aloud while giving full credit to the author when they hold the next tipping fee public hearing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here it is before he deletes it......Friday, July 23rd 8:38 AM
True the haulers are not using our facility but that only means we are not paying to remove their trash.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby uscitizen03054 » Mon Jul 26, 2004 11:53 am

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:PS.....the money that's being urinated away each year the TS stays in operation is enough to cover the financing of the new school.....so anyone in this forum bitching about the school who also happened to support the "world class" TS should clearly shut their mouths.

The idea that the TS is a "break even" proposition would be funny were it not such a strong indicator of complete ignorance regarding this matter.

I am glad to see an acknowledgement that any waste not taken there by the private haulers is a good thing because the town therefore doesn't have to pay for it.......someone oughta copy this statement and read it aloud while giving full credit to the author when they hold the next tipping fee public hearing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here it is before he deletes it......Friday, July 23rd 8:38 AM
True the haulers are not using our facility but that only means we are not paying to remove their trash.


Dennis, it never ends!
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby RBarnes » Mon Jul 26, 2004 12:41 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:someone oughta copy this statement and read it aloud while giving full credit to the author when they hold the next tipping fee public hearing.


Speaking of the next tipping fee public hearing, does anyone know when this will take place? I thought they had said at the first hearing that they would re-review the fees after 6 months of operations... well we're nearing the end of the 7th month now and I still haven't heard anything.

I couldn't imagine they would change it either way based on our current data though since there is so little waste coming in from commercial sources even though it is currently at a rate that is less then the cost to this town. And it seems based on the statements made here everyone can agree that getting more waste coming into the station would be a BAD thing for the town of Merrimack unless we could bring in a revenue even higher then what our current tipping fee allows and since we are not getting any hauler business at the current rate I don’t think it would change at a higher rate.

So based on that it raises the question will pay as you through be put up for a vote this year? Although I support it and will be 100% behind it (despite the fact it would cost self haulers such as myself MORE since the rest of the town would no longer be covering the costs of my waste) I will have nothing to do with putting it up for a vote. Being as Lawrence Rd. is considered such a bias factor in the solid waste scene I’m going to keep my name off any future articles dealing with that topic (although I will continue to spout off my opinion on the topic).
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Muriel Lortie » Mon Jul 26, 2004 7:21 pm

RBarnes wrote:
Mark Fitzgerald wrote:someone oughta copy this statement and read it aloud while giving full credit to the author when they hold the next tipping fee public hearing.


Speaking of the next tipping fee public hearing, does anyone know when this will take place? I thought they had said at the first hearing that they would re-review the fees after 6 months of operations... well we're nearing the end of the 7th month now and I still haven't heard anything.

I couldn't imagine they would change it either way based on our current data though since there is so little waste coming in from commercial sources even though it is currently at a rate that is less then the cost to this town. And it seems based on the statements made here everyone can agree that getting more waste coming into the station would be a BAD thing for the town of Merrimack unless we could bring in a revenue even higher then what our current tipping fee allows and since we are not getting any hauler business at the current rate I don’t think it would change at a higher rate.

So based on that it raises the question will pay as you through be put up for a vote this year? Although I support it and will be 100% behind it (despite the fact it would cost self haulers such as myself MORE since the rest of the town would no longer be covering the costs of my waste) I will have nothing to do with putting it up for a vote. Being as Lawrence Rd. is considered such a bias factor in the solid waste scene I’m going to keep my name off any future articles dealing with that topic (although I will continue to spout off my opinion on the topic).


RB,

Residents who reside near our ponds/lakes (millfoil problem) and the residents on Camp Sargent Road (quality of life) why should LR be considered any less?


Keep your name and the truth in the forefront.
Muriel Lortie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:23 am

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron