SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Postby Fitzie » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:05 pm

For the benefit of those new to this issue who may think there wasn''t much done in the past to help avoid the waste of $800K, I thought it would be interesting to look back and see how the numbers created by the Ad-hoc SWAC have played out. The then BOS tasked the SWAC with developing numbers for every option, which it did. Options basically included 4 scenarios with 3 potential site locations for a total of 12 options. All numbers were verified.

The figures below were unanimously accepted by the BOS and all members of the SWAC but because the SWAC also provided a recommendation the BOS didn't like they buried these numbers, never allowing the public to see them. So again the public was left to fight it out amongst themselves with zero leadership from.....well those tasked with leading. To those complaining today about the actions this TC has taken, I think most people would prefer their leaders actually lead rather than posture for 12 months while doing nothing, only to at the last minute set the warrant and voter's guide in a way that suits only them. That's not supporting "the will of the people". That's manipulating the people.

Every scenario was investigated. RFP's were written, including one that would have allowed local haulers to participate in a district plan. Even CS using muni equipment and personnel was covered. The figures supported contracted CS as the least expensive option back then and this has been proven true. Have a look.


Financial Summary Sheet Revision -final


Terms:
"Capital Cost" is the total value of the up-front expenditures
"Amortized Capital Cost" is the yearly impact of the up-front expenditures
"Operating Cost" is the yearly municipal costs to operate the program
"Private Collection" is the out of pocket cost of private collection (non-municipally managed) used by Single and Multi-Families
"Self Haul" is the out of pocket cost to Single Families that deliver their own waste to a transfer station.
"Yearly total" is the total economic cost to the community for each program


Option 1
Up Front Capital Costs $873,000
Transfer Station at existing Fearon Rd site
13,300 square foot transfer station at the existing Fearon Road site.
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $110,329
Operating Cost $1,289,801
Private Collection / Self Haul $983,231
Yearly Total $2,383,361


Option 2
Up Front Capital Costs $786,320
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the existing Fearon Rd. site - all delivered to Merrimack facility
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $99,374
Operating Cost $2,115,688
"District Plan"
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,215,062


Option 3
Up Front Capital Costs $470,320
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the existing Fearon Rd. site - waste to Merrimack facility / Recycling out of town
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer station at the existing Fearon Rd site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $59,438
Operating Cost $2,058,000
"District Plan"
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,117,438


Option 4
Up Front Capital Costs 0
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by single vendor - both taken directly out of town, existing recycling center modified to small transfer facility
Existing recycling center modified to accept occasional resident delivery and bulky items.
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $-
Operating Cost $1,824,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,824,000


Option 5
Up Front Capital Costs $1,665,395
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken to Merrimack facility
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transferstation at the existing Fearon Rd site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $210,471
Operating Cost $1,583,688
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,794,159

Option 6
Up Front Capital Costs $2,353,000
Transfer Station at proposed Mast Rd site
13,300 square foot transfer station at the proposed Mast Road site.
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $297,369
Operating Cost $1,212,688
Private Collection / Self Haul $983,231
Yearly Total $2,493,288


Option 6A
Up Front Capital Costs $1,725,600
Transfer Station at Nashua Wood site 13,300 square foot full-service transfer station at the Nashua Wood site.
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $218,079
Operating Cost $1,212,688
Private Collection / Self Haul $983,231
Yearly Total $2,413,998


Option 7
Up Front Capital Costs $2,266,320
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the proposed Mast Rd. site - all delivered to Merrimack facility
"District Plan"
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer station at the proposed Mast Rd site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $286,415
Operating Cost $2,065,688
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,352,103


Option 7A
Up Front Capital Costs $1,639,920
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the Nashua Wood site - all delivered to Merrimack facility
"District Plan"
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer station at the Nashua Wood site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $207,251
Operating Cost $2,065,688
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,272,939


Option 8
Up Front Capital Costs $1,420,320
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the proposed Mast Rd. site - waste to Merrimack facility / Recycling out of town
"District Plan"
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer station at the proposed Mast Rd site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $179,498
Operating Cost $2,008,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,187,498


Option 8A
Up Front Capital Costs $1,427,920
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling combined with a Transfer Station at the Nashua Wood site - waste to Merrimack facility / Recycling out of town
"District Plan"
12,000 square foot primarily packer delivery transfer station at the proposed Mast Rd site
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $180,459
Operating Cost $2,008,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $2,188,459


Option 9
Up Front Capital Costs $167,500
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by single vendor - both taken directly out of town. Portion of the proposed Mast Rd. facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $21,168
Operating Cost $1,824,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,845,168


Option 9A
Up Front Capital Costs $267,500
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by single vendor - both taken directly out of town. Portion of the Nashua Wood facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $33,806
Operating Cost $1,824,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,857,806


Option 10
Up Front Capital Costs $3,206,395
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken to Merrimack facility. Portion of the proposed Mast Rd. facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $405,220
Operating Cost $1,532,688
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,937,908


Option 10A
Up Front Capital Costs $2,581,995
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken to Merrimack facility. Portion of Nashua Wood facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $326,309
Operating Cost $1,532,688
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,858,997

Option 11
Up Front Capital Costs 0
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken directly out of town
Existing Dan Ayer building modified to accept occasional delibvery of solid waste
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost 0
Operating Cost $1,461,416
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,461,416

Option 12
Up Front Capital Costs $1,212,575
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken directly out of town. Portion of the proposed Mast Rd. facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $153,244
Operating Cost $1,460,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,613,244


Option 12A
Up Front Capital Costs $1,313,575
Curbside Collection of Waste and Recycling by Municipal Employees - both taken directly out of town. Portion of the proposed Nashua Wood facility used for drop-off of occasional residential deliveries of waste and bulky items
Yearly Total Economic Costs
Amortized Capital Cost $166,008
Operating Cost $1,460,000
Private Collection / Self Haul n/a
Yearly Total $1,626,008
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Postby Dennis King » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:38 pm

I recall at the time, the method used to come up with the numbers was in question and the TS was supposed to save us a million dollars. That clearly did not happen and this shows the importance of getting numbers that the whole town can support (as per Finaly's rec).

I am fine for a town wide CS program as long as recycling is encouraged and not FORCED.

I have been consistent in this regard and am one of the few former TS supporters who has come around to accept the CS view. Sadly, intellectual honesty is mocked when you support part but not all of their view.

Concord at best has 43% recycling, we have between 15-20% now at our TS. I am sure we could get closer to that figure if we just encourage people rather than "force them". For example, the lions share of recycling in town is not from the CS but from TS.

Yes, those evil knuckle dragger's are doing far more to "save the planet" than the CS, most of whom just have dumpsters for all their trash.

I recycle and do support it as a concept. Just makes sense to me to reduce cost and to reuse our resources but as a Libertarian, I can never support a government that will FORCE us to do what they think is right, that is tyranny in my book.

What we need now is a committee to investigate a town wide CS plan (most likely a single hauler for the whole town will be the most cost effective and this would mean the local haulers would loose their businesses so maybe they should look into forming a coop under one parent company and each would then get a section of town. This should reduce the advantage of the economies of scale and give them a fighting chance. From a personal view, having met them all and knowing what great guys they are, I would surely prefer to keep them on board. Maybe even if they are a little higher we could put the vote to the TOWN and let them decide. Sometimes the lowest bidder is not the best value.

This committee should also research the value we have with our TS license to to see if other haulers want our TS. Either way, keeping it open on Saturdays for the town to use should remain.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am

Re: SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Postby TonyRichardson » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:39 pm

Only one option missing Fitzie.....

Letting the market sort it out.
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: SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Postby Fitzie » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:53 pm

Dennis,

I think the basic difference you and I have on this particular topic is how we each view PAYT. My perception is you view it as the gov't trying to force people to follow a green agenda, do the right thing, save the earth, etc....which depending on the politician's personal views may or may not be true. I actually don't care about the green aspects because as I've stated before, when our time comes as a species the earth will shake us off like a bad rash over a million years or so....like a 1/2 second in galactic time. Earth has shaken off much worse.

I view PAYT strictly through a business lens. It just makes sense from every angle, especially in a poor economy where towns are trying to save money and forecast costs. It takes an unknown variable cost and turns it into a self-funded fixed cost. That has to be good.

Tony,

Fair enough, that wasn't explored. Its funny how it was missed, but I think it was a combination of things. First, we never received very much guidance from staff on how to interpret the rules governing SW. For the most part it was assumed the town HAD to be "in charge" whatever that meant. Do you know of any community that has gone that route? It would b e helpful to have a reference or two.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re: SWAC 2 Final Numbers

Postby Dennis King » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:32 pm

Mark, I see we are indeed much closer on the main issue of solid waste. Yes, PAYT is the key difference. I look at the current 15-20% and the 43% with mandatory and feel is we just encouraged people, we might get close to that without spending $95,000.00 a year in bags (that is only for the TS, with town wide CS and MANDATORY PAYT it would be more than double that, say $200,000.00 a year for bags! Now that does not make sense to me since if we got to say 25% and no bags, it would be close to the 43 percent with bags.

I still feel their are many ways to encourage people to recycle and public recognition is just one of them. Say a hauler leaves a little sticker on your trash can thanking you for being one of the best recyclers this month. Now I know it sounds childish but didn't we all like those stickers when we were kids? Sometimes just a thank you can go a long way.

As for Tony's market solution, that is what the TC was supposed to look into. Dan said he was checking into renting the TS to a hauler that would provide town wide CS. I think this makes sense but not if we add MANDATORY PAYT.

Somehow this has been sold to the TC hence their end run around the warrant article process, much to my dismay. I can only hope they change their mind and look into a real solution for next year: town wide CS, with a vendor taking over the TS and Saturday TS for the town to use.
User avatar
Dennis King
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:37 am


Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron