TC PAYT power grab

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Wayne » Tue Feb 15, 2011 11:00 pm

Fitzie wrote:What are the numbers TODAY?

Do you think that the CS vendors would provide a count of their customers at this time? I know that the trend in my neighborhood since then has been to go to CS. Your prediction back then of an inevitable switch seems to have been right on.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby RBarnes » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:40 am

Dennis King wrote:Rick, Read my quote, I said I agreed with Tim that 4,500 was not realistic, I suggested 3,000. Please read what I said before you slam me, after all, it is right in the quote you took


Dennis, I'm not trying to "slam you". I was simply pointing out what you wrote as "fact" was not fact since you had nothing backing it up.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby markcloutier » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:44 am

I'd like to know the plan for dealing with items and debris that will not fit in bags?

Weigh and Pay?
Are we forced to use bags?
markcloutier
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:47 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby RBarnes » Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:48 am

TonyRichardson wrote:
Dennis King wrote:Tony, sorry dude but the town is mandated by state law to provide a way for people to take care of their trash.


Quote an actual RSA if you are claiming the state is mandating something please.

The state does not however mandate a transfer station Dennis.

Without madating its use, it does not work economically.

That does not change.

Another solution must be found at some point, I agree with Fitzie in that it will die on its own if we stay on this path.

I want don't want to waste another 10 years of taxes subsidising it, apparently you do.


Once again Dennis has his "facts" wrong.

The RSA in question is 149 M-17 and when you read it you find that the statement "the town is mandated by state law to provide a way for people to take care of their trash" is 100% untrue. Here's the actual wording of the law:

"Each town shall either provide a facility or assure access to another approved solid waste facility for its residents. A town may choose whether to include any associated costs in its tax base."


In other words if a town has local hauling businesses operating as a 100% free market solution, that town has meet the requirements of this law. There is NOTHING in state law forcing us to tax a town for a government facility when we have adequate free market solutions in fact the law even states towns have the option of whether or not to even include any trash costs in their tax base.
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:32 am

Wayne wrote:
Fitzie wrote:What are the numbers TODAY?

Do you think that the CS vendors would provide a count of their customers at this time? I know that the trend in my neighborhood since then has been to go to CS. Your prediction back then of an inevitable switch seems to have been right on.


Hi Wayne. Probably not since the last time they did so it really hurt their position. I don't know though, some of them may realize that PAYT will mean much more business for them.

You don't actually need CS numbers right now though because they aren't relevant to the questions surrounding the TS and PAYT. CS participation numbers will be important later on. The way I initially arrived at the number of HH's using the TS was to research the traffic counts taken by the Town at the landfill. Chip Chesley gave me the counts and they were very consistent. If they still take the counts you could do the same with the TS and have the added ability to confirm the numbers by relating the tonnage (now recorded in the transport and tipping fees). It is not difficult to do.
Last edited by Fitzie on Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:52 am

RBarnes wrote:
TonyRichardson wrote:
Dennis King wrote:Tony, sorry dude but the town is mandated by state law to provide a way for people to take care of their trash.


Quote an actual RSA if you are claiming the state is mandating something please.

The state does not however mandate a transfer station Dennis.

Without madating its use, it does not work economically.

That does not change.

Another solution must be found at some point, I agree with Fitzie in that it will die on its own if we stay on this path.

I want don't want to waste another 10 years of taxes subsidising it, apparently you do.


Once again Dennis has his "facts" wrong.

The RSA in question is 149 M-17 and when you read it you find that the statement "the town is mandated by state law to provide a way for people to take care of their trash" is 100% untrue. Here's the actual wording of the law:

"Each town shall either provide a facility or assure access to another approved solid waste facility for its residents. A town may choose whether to include any associated costs in its tax base."


In other words if a town has local hauling businesses operating as a 100% free market solution, that town has meet the requirements of this law. There is NOTHING in state law forcing us to tax a town for a government facility when we have adequate free market solutions in fact the law even states towns have the option of whether or not to even include any trash costs in their tax base.


I would be remiss in not mentioning that I believe MMK would not only have to keep the TS site open but more importantly, it would want to. This would be true with PAYT, without PAYT or even were a town-wide CS contract let. Without doing so the program would be restrictive to a fault.

Nobody ever contemplated there wouldn't be a site available for people to go to with their large items, yard waste or even MSW. The point all along was the program A) should NOT be based on this site (or funded through the general tax rate) when it is handling only a fraction of the town's total waste volumes and B) given the service rates referenced in "A" any costs of this venture should be carried only by those using it. The solution to "A" is CS and the solution to "B" is PAYT, but BOTH would require a site for the items and situations mentioned above. These are grown-up and agenda-free solutions that have nothing to do with location but everything to do with service and fair apportionment of costs.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:10 am

RBarnes wrote:
Dennis King wrote:Rick, Read my quote, I said I agreed with Tim that 4,500 was not realistic, I suggested 3,000. Please read what I said before you slam me, after all, it is right in the quote you took


Dennis, I'm not trying to "slam you". I was simply pointing out what you wrote as "fact" was not fact since you had nothing backing it up.


Rick, since there is no current research on the exact number, I agreed with Tim that the 4,500 number Mr, Seymour was using did not make sense. I suggested 3,000 as a guesstimate. Looking at the prior SWAT numbers that were posted, it looks like it is more around 3,250 (going from memory here) but since we do not know todays numbers, it could have gone up or gone down since then so there are no facts, that is my point. Funny how they used the 4500 to determine what their income would be so now if we repeal it, it is a tax increase but when they want to push the old 1/3 to 2/3, how quickly they blew off Mr. Seymour's numbers.

I think it is safe to say the number is most likely somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Dennis King » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:28 am

Wayne wrote:
Dennis King wrote:The FACTS are these, 6500 single family homes of which 4500 have stickers so at least 2000 choice CS and it is more likely 3000 as Tim pointed out that some homes have more than one sticker.

I searched old internet sites to find some numbers that were, as Fitzie pointed out, the ones that were vetted and in the solid waste committee's final reports. Dennis, where you seem to be guessing to come up with your facts ("it is more likely 3000"), these were numbers that everyone seemed to agree on.

3250 Single Family Households That Deliver Their Own Waste
3050 Single Family Households That Use Private Collection
2770 Multi-Family Households That Use Private Collection

(And might I add that I have 3 stickers for 3 vehicles, but contract for curbside pickup.)


Wayne, Of course I was guessing and it appears my 3000 is much closer to the 3250 number you use (wonder if this was from a survey, an actual car count, or a best guess at the time, just because the group had consensus on the number, it does not mean it is spot on accurate and even so, that was then, this is now.

For example, if you add the 3250 private homes that self haul and the 3050 private homes who CHOOSE CS, the total is 6,300. We have since added 200 more single family homes so it the proportions remain the same, That would mean we now have 3365 self haulers and 3135 private homes who choose CS.

Now the other number of 2770 troubles me as even if I add the 2,213 condos in town to the 245 mixed family and the 72 Two family homes (assuming these other classification all use CS and that is a stretch but lets add them up anyway), the total is 2,530, not 2770. Something is not right here as one would expect some growth as there was in single family houses so it makes me question the number they used at that time.

Rick, as to the law, the town is indeed required to provide their citizens with a way to remove their trash, Town wide curbside and the TS were to two options and the town in a free and fair election, chose the TS. I know it is a pain especially since you live near the dump, but at least you were not as near as Mark, he was across the street. As I recall, he sold the house just before the TS vote but even though he sold his problem to another person, he is still obsessed with trash.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:45 am

Dennis King wrote:
Wayne wrote:
Dennis King wrote:The FACTS are these, 6500 single family homes of which 4500 have stickers so at least 2000 choice CS and it is more likely 3000 as Tim pointed out that some homes have more than one sticker.

I searched old internet sites to find some numbers that were, as Fitzie pointed out, the ones that were vetted and in the solid waste committee's final reports. Dennis, where you seem to be guessing to come up with your facts ("it is more likely 3000"), these were numbers that everyone seemed to agree on.

3250 Single Family Households That Deliver Their Own Waste
3050 Single Family Households That Use Private Collection
2770 Multi-Family Households That Use Private Collection

(And might I add that I have 3 stickers for 3 vehicles, but contract for curbside pickup.)


Wayne, Of course I was guessing and it appears my 3000 is much closer to the 3250 number you use (wonder if this was from a survey, an actual car count, or a best guess at the time, just because the group had consensus on the number, it does not mean it is spot on accurate and even so, that was then, this is now.

For example, if you add the 3250 private homes that self haul and the 3050 private homes who CHOOSE CS, the total is 6,300. We have since added 200 more single family homes so it the proportions remain the same, That would mean we now have 3365 self haulers and 3135 private homes who choose CS.

Now the other number of 2770 troubles me as even if I add the 2,213 condos in town to the 245 mixed family and the 72 Two family homes (assuming these other classification all use CS and that is a stretch but lets add them up anyway), the total is 2,530, not 2770. Something is not right here as one would expect some growth as there was in single family houses so it makes me question the number they used at that time.

Rick, as to the law, the town is indeed required to provide their citizens with a way to remove their trash, Town wide curbside and the TS were to two options and the town in a free and fair election, chose the TS. I know it is a pain especially since you live near the dump, but at least you were not as near as Mark, he was across the street. As I recall, he sold the house just before the TS vote but even though he sold his problem to another person, he is still obsessed with trash.


Dennis, this is where you fall flat on your face. You cry NIMBY when you're getting your head handed to you. The TS is failing Dennis, it was always doomed to fail. It's not your fault, you either couldn't figure it out or you were misled. Perhaps one of those books you read per week (of course during your down time between testifying as an EXPERT labor witness...too funny really) might help you understand why the TS was never viable.

PS - pretty soon you will have to argue that your God-given "right" to have your trash bills paid by others trumps the community's need for police and firemen. Good luck Dennis...........
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby tooth350 » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:23 am

I still feel the additional money collected from the PAYT and used for restoring town employee positions is cantamount to an extra tax on the citizens of merrimack, If those that argue this is forcing all to recycle, fine but the money should be used to reduce the Tax base and for no other use, The resident home owners are already paying for this facility through our taxes. I also feel that no municipality or state entity should ever get in the business of trying to make a profit on its services, NEVER, it should always operate on its sole or close.
tooth350
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: TC PAYT power grab

Postby Fitzie » Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:48 am

tooth350 wrote:I still feel the additional money collected from the PAYT and used for restoring town employee positions is cantamount to an extra tax on the citizens of merrimack, If those that argue this is forcing all to recycle, fine but the money should be used to reduce the Tax base and for no other use, The resident home owners are already paying for this facility through our taxes. I also feel that no municipality or state entity should ever get in the business of trying to make a profit on its services, NEVER, it should always operate on its sole or close.


Hi "tooth". Memory is a little fuzzy but most PAYT programs are designed to be revenue nuetral. First, t's probably the right thing to do and 2nd, if it turns a profit and that profit isn't recognized in the form of a reduced tax rate the program will run into the "it's just another tax" argument. The 1st year's costs may need to be estimated but beyond that budgets (in this case the per bag fee) would be developed based on the previous year's costs.

I admit I could be wayyyy off here. Can anyone more in the loop help?
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Previous

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron