PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Tim Tenhave » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:36 am

PAYT is more about Cost Avoidance than anything else!

Some people have questioned the money to be raised by the sale of bags and if we don’t get that revenue the budget will have a shortfall; it does not matter.

Some people have questioned the revenue we get from recyclables and if we don’t get that revenue, the budget will have a shortfall; it does not matter so much.

Let me explain why:

1.) If we don’t get the bag revenue, we are not selling bags. That means bags are not being tossed at the Transfer Station. If a bag is not tossed, the Town does not have to then “handle” it. Handling a bag means we spend money to deal with that bag.

If we don’t handle it, we avoid the cost of that bag of trash.

The bag price is to offset the cost of handling the trash to begin with. If we don’t get the trash, we don’t handle it and therefore we avoid the cost all together.

The best thing as far as the taxpayers are concerned is that the trash never comes to the TS.

The second best thing is that if comes to the TS it is actually recyclables and goes to the single stream facility.

The third best thing is that if it comes to the TS, it comes in a PAYT bag so that there is offsetting revenue to manage the cost of that bag.

2.) Yes the Town is hoping to increase recycling because if it does, that means it is not handling the recyclables as trash and is therefore avoiding the cost of that handling. Yes we want to get the most revenue we can for recyclables but that comes from both reduced costs and higher prices.

But, on the other side of this is that if the recycling does not come, we also are not handling it and we don’t have to worry about the going rate for it. If enough does not come, the Town can then take the steps necessary to reduce the cost of handling recyclables (reduce expenses, utilities, capital items, payroll, benefits, etc.)

Cost Avoidance.

We know from the yearly numbers that the TS handles around 9000 tons of trash per year. If we can reduce that 50% (which is a valid number when a PAYT system is in place) we can avoid the cost of that trash.

So: 9000 tons * 50% * $122/ton = $549,000

At a 60% reduction, we avoid $658,000

- If you get some money for the recyclables that is a bonus.
- If you get money from the sale of bags that is a bonus.

Do you see that if we avoid the bags from coming (either by increased recycling or decreased usage of the TS), the Cost Avoidance will happen and the Town will see the savings with PAYT.

----------------

As to my numbers:

- 9000 tons is close to what the Town has seen in each of the last 2 years (has been documented by the Town and posted others on this forum)

- $122 per ton is the cost for the Town to handle a ton of trash (includes tipping fee, capital costs, utilities, payroll, benefits, etc.) The Town did a study and that is why our commercial rate is $122.

- 50% reduction – Documented that communities are seeing 40-60% reductions (some in NH are seeing 72 and 78%)

http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools/payt/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/tools ... sdover.htm
http://www.nh.gov/nhes/elmi/pdfzip/econ ... onment.pdf
Tim Tenhave
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:18 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby ggkrupp » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:59 am

Tim,

Your cost avoidance only applies to the town but that cost savings is a result of shifting budget off the town books (and on onto the individual's books). Only if PAYT encourages more recycling is the cost truly avoided. I find it highly suspect that the 40-60% of trash reduction you site was a result of increased recycling. Users finding other waste streams to utilize seems more likely to me. I concede that the town may see a 40% reduction in the waste stream but it will be a result of people choosing to purchase private curbside (eating up any personal "savings" they may have experienced in their tax rate). Even if residents do not choose a private option, they will still have to pay to dispose of their trash at the TS and for those of us TS users who are already maxed out on recycling, PAYT is an increase in personal costs. I would rather see the TS closed completely allowing me to take the full savings to purchase a private option than PAYT. I don't want to pay to keep the TS doors open (staff, vehicles, pensions, fuel, etc.) and then be required to pay to use the facility.
Gary G. Krupp

America is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy (thankfully) :-)
User avatar
ggkrupp
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Ministerial Dr

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Tim Tenhave » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:20 am

Hi Gary,

But, realize when you shift the cost off of the Town books you also shift it off of 2/3rds of the residents that don't use the TS for their everyday trash and you shift it off of 100% of the commercial and industrial properties in Town that can not use it (without paying the $122/ton fee).

So yes, it is cost avoidance for the Town and it is a cost shift to some of the residents. Even more for some if they don't recycle. But, now they will feel the same pain eveyone does when dealing with their trash. The shift to the resident users is really a shift out of 2/3rds of the pockets of others to just being nearly all out of their own pocket.

I did not claim that the reduction will all come from recycling. You are absolutely right that some people will choose to use a private hauler. Those people will do a cost benefit analysis on their budget and lifestyle and will opt for a different solution than the TS. No doubt. My point is that it does not matter if they do that or recycle. The reduction in trash is the way the savings for the whole Town is realized no matter how the reduction comes.

And yes, I agree that removing the TS is an option that should be examined or we need a way to have a system that services 100% of the tax paying properties in Town.

Tim
Tim Tenhave
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:18 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby TonyRichardson » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:42 am

Tim Tenhave wrote:Hi Gary,

But, realize when you shift the cost off of the Town books you also shift it off of 2/3rds of the residents that don't use the TS for their everyday trash and you shift it off of 100% of the commercial and industrial properties in Town that can not use it (without paying the $122/ton fee).

<Snip>

Tim


I take issue with this bit right here.

I already use private hauler curbside, I am one of the "2/3" above.

I am not getting a nickel's reduction here so long as the TS is still town/public operated.


I also don't believe the projected numbers are going to be close to accurate for this program.

Just to be clear, no nefarious intent on anyone's part, just an insufficient weight being given to human nature in those projections.
Payt will be unpopular and under utilized in my opinion and the "revenue" generated will reflect this.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Tim Tenhave » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:10 pm

TonyRichardson wrote:
I already use private hauler curbside, I am one of the "2/3" above.

I am not getting a nickel's reduction here so long as the TS is still town/public operated.

I also don't believe the projected numbers are going to be close to accurate for this program.



Hi Tony,

I guess we will disagree on you gettting a nickel or not. I strongly believe if you are one of the 2/3rds you will see a reduced tax if Article 4 (the budget) passes. That reduced tax will come from some revenue and from cost avoidance. But you and I can disagree on this. I am ok with that :)

Which projected numbers?

The 9000+ tons is documented and measured.
The 40 - 60% reduction is documented and measured in communities in NH just like ours.

If it is about the revenue side, my original post was all about how that did not matter so much in the grand scheme, it is the reduction that gives the savings. If the reduction does not come, then the bag revenue HAS to come (or people will be dumping at the TS illegally and that can be managed even though I believe my neighbors are mostly honest people).

Tim
Tim Tenhave
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:18 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby TonyRichardson » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:49 pm

Tim Tenhave wrote:
TonyRichardson wrote:
I already use private hauler curbside, I am one of the "2/3" above.

I am not getting a nickel's reduction here so long as the TS is still town/public operated.

I also don't believe the projected numbers are going to be close to accurate for this program.



Hi Tony,

I guess we will disagree on you gettting a nickel or not. I strongly believe if you are one of the 2/3rds you will see a reduced tax if Article 4 (the budget) passes. That reduced tax will come from some revenue and from cost avoidance. But you and I can disagree on this. I am ok with that :)

Which projected numbers?

The 9000+ tons is documented and measured.
The 40 - 60% reduction is documented and measured in communities in NH just like ours.

If it is about the revenue side, my original post was all about how that did not matter so much in the grand scheme, it is the reduction that gives the savings. If the reduction does not come, then the bag revenue HAS to come (or people will be dumping at the TS illegally and that can be managed even though I believe my neighbors are mostly honest people).

Tim


I think that PayT might cause article 4 to fail and we are back to the default budget.

Agree to disagree.

Bottom line for me is....I am still having to pay for the TS, that number is not going down. So no savings for me.
Liberalism - What happens when emotional reactions are confused with and substituted for facts and reason.
TonyRichardson
 
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Dennis King » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:27 pm

Tim Tenhave wrote:Hi Gary,

But, realize when you shift the cost off of the Town books you also shift it off of 2/3rds of the residents that don't use the TS for their everyday trash and you shift it off of 100% of the commercial and industrial properties in Town that can not use it (without paying the $122/ton fee).

So yes, it is cost avoidance for the Town and it is a cost shift to some of the residents.
Tim


Again with the 1/3 getting a free ride from 2/3 nonsense. This is just a flat out wrong!

First, commercial properties do not even fit in as they always have chosen companies to dispose of their trash. They typically have dumpsters and any taxes they pay as well as their expenses is all part of their "cost of goods" and factored into the price we all pay when we purchase something from them. Now if you are concerned about the taxes of commercial properties, this PAYT is a pittance, control school costs, their taxes are 70% of our total tax bill and in the last few years, the budget has gone up by over 10 million dollars despite declining enrollment.

I have worked the numbers of single family homes to condos and apartments and it is not even close. Cost avoidance, what a funny concept, what Tim is really asking for is more revenue to spend on more and more programs. That was his very point when he asked the TC to "lead". You can add back personnel, give people raises, spend spend spend. Of course, the fact that more taxpayers have to pay over $150.00 a year in new "fees" makes no difference to him, it is all about what the town budget looks like and how much more he can spend.

At best, Concord has a 43% recycling rate, the biggest change was in the number of people who opted for a private hauler so they could avoid those darn PAYT bags. Once again, government telling us what to do, the nanny state of "good intentions", liberalism on parade.

Kind of reminds me of how the will of the public is taken from them when a TC can change an ordinance that forbid alcohol to one with exceptions by the TC and then later be the first to ask for the exception so now the town will be required to approve all the alcohol parties in town, the public be dammed. Also sort of like using an instrument of democracy asking the people to decide and then, psych, doing just the opposite.

If we now have an imperial TC, why not just implement town wide PAYT/CS. Hey, Tim pointed the way, forget about the will of the people, distort the numbers, demonize the people for simply using a facility they paid for and continue to support in their taxes. Liberalism know no bounds and when the end justifies the means, who cares about the real facts, so much more fun to get your own way. Oh the power, intoxicating isn't it, just like your party will now set the standard for other intoxicating parties in our town. Liberalism marches over the will of the people, they will give lip service but have no doubt, free speech is only for those who already agree with them.

We are losing our freedom and I have to wonder when people will wake up and see this tyranny for what it really is.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Fitzie » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:01 pm

Dennis King wrote:
Tim Tenhave wrote:Hi Gary,

But, realize when you shift the cost off of the Town books you also shift it off of 2/3rds of the residents that don't use the TS for their everyday trash and you shift it off of 100% of the commercial and industrial properties in Town that can not use it (without paying the $122/ton fee).

So yes, it is cost avoidance for the Town and it is a cost shift to some of the residents.
Tim



I have worked the numbers of single family homes to condos and apartments and it is not even close.


So Dennis, YOU did the numbers?? Really?? Pardon me if I'm not infused with confidence. I did the numbers too.....8 years ago. Told you what would happen.......and happen it has. The TS....YOUR TS is a complete and total failure. No commercial waste, ever increasing tipping fees, no control whatsoever and.....no way out. YOUR TS will soon look like one of those buildings on The History Channel's "Life After People". Congratulations on your victory.

There are 52 Condos paying more taxes than you, so stop hitchhiking on the value of single-family homes. I get the feeling that you hope with enough time people will forget when you get corrected.

Here's what's not close:

The total tax contribution of Commercial Property Owners, Condo Owners and 50% of the Single Family Homes not using the TS

VS....

The same of the remaining 50% of Single Family Households using the TS

Now THAT''S not close to begin with and when viewed from the perspective everyone in both groups is paying the same amount for the TS is just short of larceny. You make the same arguments for the schools, you just do it in reverse and hope we don't notice the hypocrisy.

Group A is getting royally screwed so Group B can throw their waste away for the big doughnut and social network within a plume of gas created by rotting organic matter. Pay your way like everyone else and stop reaching into your neighbor's wallet, especially those condo owners who are paying more than you are.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Dennis King » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:14 pm

Fitzie wrote:

So Dennis, YOU did the numbers?? Really?? Pardon me if I'm not infused with confidence. I did the numbers too.....8 years ago. Told you what would happen.......and happen it has. The TS....YOUR TS is a complete and total failure. No commercial waste, ever increasing tipping fees, no control whatsoever and.....no way out. YOUR TS will soon look like one of those buildings on The History Channel's "Life After People". Congratulations on your victory.

There are 52 Condos paying more taxes than you, so stop hitchhiking on the value of single-family homes. I get the feeling that you hope with enough time people will forget when you get corrected.

Here's what's not close:

The total tax contribution of Commercial Property Owners, Condo Owners and 50% of the Single Family Homes not using the TS

VS....

The same of the remaining 50% of Single Family Households using the TS


Ahh, so the great Mark Fitzgerald now admits it is now 2/3 supporting (or in your words being sc*****d by the 1/3), nope, now it is 50/50

Now if you take away the commercial properties (who never use town waste disposal, even when it was 'free") well then you are at the truth, and it sure isn't 2/3 of the people supporting the 1/3 but that has been the mantra to attack us with and to get it off your block. Even after all these years, you still love to talk trash.
Our democracy was corrupted because of this deliberate misinformation. Our town will not have a vote on PAYT, no choice it there, to quote Dan after he voted to put this in the budget, the TC will have to FORCE us to comply. Their boots are on us and it is because liberals do not care about the facts when they get in the way of what they want. The TC has exercised their power because the TS users were demonized. Even thought Tom K could see the numbers did not add up, he still voted to do what was "right". How many more edicts will come down for "our own good". Why even have a vote from the town, there is no real choice in the budget, the TC implements PAYT instead of asking us, they subvert our ordinances to help their pal have a alcohol party on town land and now the parks will be filled with drunks cause they made an "exception" and now we just have to accept our voice is nullified.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Fitzie » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:18 pm

Dennis you've spent a lot more time talking about trash than I have. I was just finishing lunch down here in Times Square and had some time to kill before the train.......

I told you what was going to happen.......

You didn't believe it........

Now you support what I told you to do 8 years ago........

and you find fault with me rather than yourself.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :lol: :lol: :lol:
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby RBarnes » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:14 pm

Dennis you can spin and use any numbers you want but even using the best case scenario our town pays more per user for a middleman station then any private hauler in town charges.

From day one the transfer station was the more expensive option. Nothing has changed but now people are waking up seeing that and they are realizing that the million in savings that you and others chanted to get them to vote for it was wrong.

We need to close the station down and hand the trash business over to the free market. That was the right choice (even though it wasn't an option) from day one.

PAYT is nothing but a band-aid on a festering wound that's bleeding the majority of the tax payers with no benefit in return. It's even bleeding those who do use it as they could use any hauler in town and have the trash picked up at the end of their driveway with a cheaper per person cost and it wouldn't take them the time they currently spend loading their cars with smelly trash and heading to the furthest northwest corner of the town.

Answer honestly Dennis, do you think the transfer station is working out? Do you honestly support a government option that costs more then any private market solution available?
$DO || ! $DO ; try
try: command not found
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Dennis King » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:27 pm

RBarnes wrote:Answer honestly Dennis, do you think the transfer station is working out? Do you honestly support a government option that costs more then any private market solution available?


I have stated this many times Rick, for your benefit, I will do so again.

Here is my position: I believe we should look into renting the TS to a hauler in return for a reduced town wide CS rate (this way we all save). I support Saturday TS hours from 8-6PM

Once the options are researched, it should not be implemented by the TC, it should be a warrant article put to the voters. That is the way we do things in Merrimack. We do not rule by fiat!

While I can support CS as noted above, What I can not support and never will support is:

MANDATORY PAYT!

This is about freedom and the way governments should work. Now if the town votes for PAYT, I will accept that but won't be happy about it and will fight to educate people so another vote can be made (one year with PAYT and trash left on your driveway because you did not have the right bag will convince people this was wrong)
I have always supported the will of the people, funny but some years back, that will said overwhelmingly, we want the TS. What part of that will do you and Mark not understand?
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Fitzie » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:05 pm

What part of that will do you and Mark not understand?


The part that didn't realize it had been misled by idiots who didn't understand or didn't care that they they supporting the purchase of a future terrarium. That part. You know, the part that you now recognize was and remains crap.

With respect to leasing the TS, what part of this equation don't YOU understand:

No business is going to take responsibility for the operation of a TS, car wash or hot dog stand without control over the costs. If you REALLY want to save the TS by having someone else operate it for your pleasure you'll eventually recognize (although clarity on these types of issues seems to take years for you) that the only hope is, in fact, PAYT.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: PAYT is about Cost Avoidance

Postby Fitzie » Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:01 pm

Think of it this way Dennis:

Even if MMK is able to overcome the problems related to:

The location of the facility cutting off access to Beford, Amherst, etc....

The existing lack of volume and the unlikelihood of it increasing because of the location issue above........

The very first thing any operator will do is.........

Institute PAYT. They have to. In the end waste is nothing more than a business and a business only operates on positive cash flow. So, while it may not be labeled "PAYT" and therefore not make a small segment of the population go into convulsions screaming they've lost their "liberty", it will in fact be.......PAYT. Just like everything else consumers buy or consume.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm


Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron