PAYT

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

PAYT

Postby RBarnes » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:58 am

Does anyone know if the selectmen have looked into what the rates for a PAYT program would be? I recall last year the reason Dick Hinch gave for not putting it up as a warrant article was because the town didn’t have enough data from the transfer station… as it’s been running for well over a year now we should have that data. If they’ve changed their mind about wanting to go PAYT I would certainly want to know why.

And while it’s cheaper for me to have two thirds of this town pay the majority of my trash bill it isn’t exactly fair to them to have to pay the majority of my trash bill and then pay for their own trash service on top of it. Those living in condos would greatly benefit from a pay as you throw system since they don’t even use the transfer station.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Fitzy » Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:00 pm

Rick,

The knuckledraggers won't go for it. They know they're getting a free ride and will fight to keep it that way.

I can already hear the half-witted "its just another tax" mantra, totaling ignoring the fact all it would be is user fee. Its exactly the same philosophy that all those who whine about having to pay for schools (without kids in the system) have been wailing for. You pay for what you use. Use nothing, pay nothing.
It's better to be discontent with knowledge than happy due to ignorance
Fitzy
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:40 pm

Postby Michael Pelletier » Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:09 pm

Apparently, in violation of Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution, towns are required by law to be in the trash business under the public health code. I wonder if we can get that changed. We have so many different options for trash disposal from many different competitors, there's no real reason why the town should be in that market as well.
User avatar
Michael Pelletier
 
Posts: 4219
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:43 pm
Location: 3 Woodbine Lane

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Wed Aug 17, 2005 2:29 pm

Fitzy


The knuckledraggers won't go for it. They know they're getting a free ride and will fight to keep it that way.


Please enlighten me on how we are getting a free ride. If I pay for trash pickup and use the transfer station (I pay for both). Is that a free ride, Mr Socialist?
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Postby Fitzy » Wed Aug 17, 2005 3:32 pm

God, not again.

Listen Jeannine, nevermind.

:D :D
It's better to be discontent with knowledge than happy due to ignorance
Fitzy
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:40 pm

Postby Shannon Barnes » Wed Aug 17, 2005 5:40 pm

Jeannine,

The free ride is really for the local haulers with the "say anything" attitude to get that thing built. They are not giving back (except Buckley, but he has stated he felt the town turned their back on him because the tipping fee was not subsidizing his business enough per ton. Let's see, we charge $110 and it was expected to cost the town $130. Too high indeed!!!) as they said they would to create a (anti-Merrimack term) revenue against expenditures. Now we have the abhorrition and we are paying through the nose to subsidize it. What are the local haulers getting--guaranteed open market in Merrimack because they busted up the curbside option with false propaganda. It reminds me of a union busting campaign by management in a company. Make the promises until they get the desired outcome and then break all of the promises. American law calls that illegal, though.

It may not be the free ride Mark was talking about, but it is the one that sticks in my mind every time the big black truck vibrates my house.

S.

Let me ask AGAIN. How much less or more is the Transfer Station to run vs. having curbside (including condos))?
Shannon Barnes
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Wed Aug 17, 2005 9:41 pm

Shannon


Let me ask AGAIN. How much less or more is the Transfer Station to run vs. having curbside (including condos))?


You ask a good question. Now if only we had an answer.

My response to Mark was due to his disparaging remarks more than anything else.
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Wed Aug 17, 2005 10:54 pm

From a purely financial point it's clear that PAYT to finance solid waste disposal is untenable. The Solid Waste portion of the 2005 budget is more than $1.3M. Approximately 1/3 of Merrimack households (3,000 of 9,000) use the Transfer Station. That leads to an annual cost per household served of ~$433.

Quotes for trash pickup last year ranged from $302 to $372 for a household. Since $302 is much less than $433 households would quickly transition to curbside in this case. Clearly PAYT as a method of financing the Transfer Station will not work. PAYT at a lower rate as an economic incentive for recycling might work, but would still leave all paying for a service only a few use.

I supported the transfer station for non financial reasons, but the cost savings for most homeowners would be significant if the town moved to curbside. Those (~3,000 homes) who currently use the transfer station would see an increase of ~$160 in annual costs if curbside were implemented. Those (~6,000 homes) who don't would save ~$144.

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Fitzy » Thu Aug 18, 2005 6:58 am

Its simple.

Volume buys price, whether its diamonds or crap.

If properly leveraged, MMK's total volume would save every resident money.

But instead the people elected to subsidize a market in exchange for a place to meet on Saturdays and shoot crows on Sundays.

Live Free or Die.
It's better to be discontent with knowledge than happy due to ignorance
Fitzy
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:40 pm

Postby rmorrissey » Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:45 am

I've seen the phrase "only 1/3 of the town" uses the transfer station a lot.

I assuming the majority the other 2/3 are made up of by condo owners and apartment renters, who have smaller properties that are for the most part assessed for less, and therefore pay lower property taxes on the property, so while they may represent 2/3 of the total households, they do not represent 2/3 of the property taxes the town collects to finance the transfer station.

And since they are smaller properties, they probably have fewer occupants, producing less trash, and do not represent 2/3 of the trash the town of Merrimack generates.

I'm also assuming the rest of the 2/3rd's are property owner who elect to hire a third party company to haul away their trash rather then go to the dump.

Am I correct here?
rmorrissey
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:36 pm

Postby lowerrtaxes » Thu Aug 18, 2005 7:56 am

Can You really shoot crows on Sundays?

Is that legal over there?
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Postby Shannon Barnes » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:12 am

rmorrissey,

You are incorrect. Many people hire local haulers to pick up their trash for the convenience or because they are not physically in a place to use the transfer station (e.g. handicapped, elderly). Mark may have the #s who are in apartments or condos from his SWAC days, but I would be surprised to see that be more than 20% of the town.

S.
Shannon Barnes
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby rmorrissey » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:15 am

Can You really shoot crows on Sundays?

Is that legal over there?


I believe it used to be. I remember a few years ago a couple of guys (from Manchester I believe) were arrested for shooting at the dump, but not because the shooting was illegal, but because they were doing it before 7:00am on a Sunday morning and the neighbors were complaining.
rmorrissey
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:36 pm

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:22 am

rmorrissey wrote:I assuming the majority the other 2/3 are made up of by condo owners and apartment renters,
[...]
I'm also assuming the rest of the 2/3rd's are property owner who elect to hire a third party company to haul away their trash rather then go to the dump.


The numbers that I recall from the ad-hoc SWAC were roughly 1/3 condo, townhouse or apartments that managed solid waste disposal on their own, 1/3 of households were stand alone houses contracting privately for curbside, and 1/3 of households used the dump. The breakdowns weren't exactly 1/3 each, but were within a couple of percentage points for each.

-Nat
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby Fitzy » Thu Aug 18, 2005 8:26 am

RMorrisey,

I don't expect the usage situation has changed since MMK opened the TS and therefore, knowing what we knew back when the dump was open, you're evaluation concerning the tax allocations would be incorrect. I can't remember the exact figures, but I seem to recall 9200 households and roughly 2300 of them were condos or rentals.

You are correct about the 2/3 contracting.

The argument is simple, but apparently not convincing enough to MMK residents: A single contract for the collection and disposal would be far less than the sum of taxation for the TS and private collection fees. Its not even remotely close, something like $1,000,000 per year cheaper. When you add the fact that CS would have included CS recycling its even more advantageous than the dual system in place.

But hey, the majority of people didn't seem to mind. That's why I have to laugh when I see people bitching about any school costs.
It's better to be discontent with knowledge than happy due to ignorance
Fitzy
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:40 pm

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron