There's nothing stopping the BOS from going to PAYT now!

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby Norman Phillips » Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:58 am

Mr. King posts, in conclusion--
Time to move on.

Dennis


Mr. King, I will never forget your telling people that curbside would cost them one million dollars more per year. You can move on, but I wonder how well you sleep at night knowing that, as you once posted, you take some credit for selling the transfer station.

I, for one, will think of you every time I visit the recycling center and the transfer station, and when I pay my tax bills. :evil: :x :x :x
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Mon Nov 17, 2003 11:21 pm

I was wrong. While the wording of the warrant article that ammended the town code refered to the "landfill", the town code refers to a "solid waste facility". Merrimack Town Code Section 138-4

In fact the BOS must decide in November what the new tipping fee will be, or it will remain $40 for at least part of the time the transfer station is operational. Town Code says they must act 30 days before the change takes effect.

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

Postby Debra Huffman » Tue Nov 18, 2003 6:57 am

I am very interested in this PAYT concept. We recycle. We will generate less trash to throw in a hole somewhere than families who choose not to recycle. Frankly, I resent that I might have to pay for their choice.

But I have some questions about the money end of things. The costs of throwing a 10 lb bag in a hole are the cost of hauling it out of town and the cost for permission to through it in the hole. But what are the costs of a 10 lb bag of recyclables? Will the hauler take it out of town or does the town have to take it to a recycling facility? Is there a fee for either service? What about the local haulers, do they charge differently for recyclables?

I apologize if I'm asking things that have been covered elsewhere. There have been so many TS discussions that I've lost track.
Debra Huffman
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:41 am

Postby RBarnes » Tue Nov 18, 2003 7:44 am

Debra Huffman wrote:The costs of throwing a 10 lb bag in a hole are the cost of hauling it out of town and the cost for permission to through it in the hole.


From what I understand that will be a topic of discussion in this Thursdays BOS meeting. The contract, which will determine the tipping fee we pay as well as how much it will cost for us to hire truckers to drive the trash to where ever it's going.

Debra Huffman wrote:But what are the costs of a 10 lb bag of recyclables?


It was pointed out earlier (and agreed on by all mind you) that recyclables are a break-even business. While we do spend money to process them we also make some money on their sale but over all that money is about equal to the money we spend processing them. BUT the advantage to this is that as recyclables they are break even while as trash we would definitely have to pay so increasing recycling would decrease the over all cost of the TS.

Debra Huffman wrote:What about the local haulers, do they charge differently for recyclables?


Good question. Maybe someone here who knows the local haulers can find out for us. (Dennis, you're good friends with Mark M and he's constantly stating at town meetings his company recycles, can you ask him this question?)
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:13 pm

Norman Phillips wrote:Mr. King posts, in conclusion--
Time to move on.

Dennis


Mr. King, I will never forget your telling people that curbside would cost them one million dollars more per year. You can move on, but I wonder how well you sleep at night knowing that, as you once posted, you take some credit for selling the transfer station.

I, for one, will think of you every time I visit the recycling center and the transfer station, and when I pay my tax bills. :evil: :x :x :x


Norm, I am saddened that you appear to also hold animostiy towards me for having a divergent position. In your own analysis, you showed where the 1 million figure came from and then went on to dispute it by adding in other costs. I did agree with your point on the mulityear contract and how this would reduce the savings to $400,000 over CS if such a contract could be done. I do not accept the other add ons such as self haul costs and curbside costs. WE simply see it differently. I just do not understand why my view is not as valid as your own. Further, this demonization of a person with a different view is troubling.

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

Postby RBarnes » Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:29 pm

Norman Phillips wrote:This is a description of the monetary effect on our new tax impacts of the decisions made last April about Solid Waste. I post it here mostly as a record of the effect of SW on our new tax bills. Each of us has a different house value, and a different exposure to revaluation. Therefore you will have to apply my standardized tax rate calculation to your own property.

That ballot of last April for SW was not straightforward, since there were four articles involved. This makes it somewhat complicated to disentangle the resulting effects on taxes to answer questions about the effect of that vote.
    AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER
  • THAT THE OPERATING COSTS WERE FOR ONLY SIX MONTHS OF POST CLOSURE OPERATIONS, and
  • The budget for 2004-2005 will be for a FULL YEAR of post closure operations.
    For those not interested in the details, my answers are the following increments to the tax rates per $100,000 of property.
    Transfer Station PLUS $103
    Curbside MINUS $6


    THESE IMPACTS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE IMPACTS OF LATER YEARS, SINCE THE LARGE CAPITAL COST OF A TRANSFER STATION IS A ONE TIME DEAL.
    The four financial Articles dealing with SW were
  • Article 11, the Operating Budget. This included a variety of items for Solid Waste unique to this current fiscal year 03-04. They were summarized in the Voter’s Guide as follows.
  • Personnel $295,388
  • Other operating costs $1,353,144. ( This is a euphemism for the cost of taking our Solid Waste out of town. )
  • Bulky waste drop-off area $250,000,
  • for a total SW expense of $1,896,532
  • Article 12. This Article appropriated $1,500,002 from the Solid Waste Disposal Revenue Fund (SWDRF) to build a transfer station. ( This fund is where the $40/ton tipping fees paid by commercial haulers were accumulated during the past 15 or so years. It was dipped into occasionally for equipment expenses for the landfill.)
  • Article 13 for Curbside appropriated $1,500,001 for operation of a curbside program and some capital costs.
  • Article 21 appropriated all money ( about 1.5 million ) in the SWDRF for tax relief if that money had not been appropriated by either Article 12 or 13 .

    The $1,353,144 for “other operating costs” in Article 11 was designed to cover the operating costs of either curbside or transfer station, plus some capital expenses-- straightening the curve on Lawrence Road and some upgrades to the Dan Ayer recycling building. . ( These capital expenses had been proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee on SW as necessary for either the Curbside or Transfer Station scenario. )
  • ACCORDING TO THE EXPENSIVE ONE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR CURBSIDE CHOSEN BY THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE OLD BOS the Curbside scenario needed all of this 1.3+ million, whereas the Transfer Station scenario would have used only $976,453.
  • The Article did however promise that if it failed, a curbside program would be installed.

    Let me now list the consequences if Article 12 passed and if it failed.
  • PASSAGE OF ARTICLE 12 FOR A TRANSFER STATION
    would have resulted in direct appropriation of $1,500,002 plus spending of $ 976,453 in the budget Article, for a total appropriation and intended payments of $2,476,455. The tax impact ( described below ) would have been $103 on each $100,000 of property valuation.
  • FAILURE OF ARTICLE 12 WOULD HAVE USED THE ENTIRE $1,353,144 IN THE BUDGET FOR A CURBSIDE SCENARIO. However, if Article 13 had also failed, Article 21 would have then used the 1.5 million in the SWDR fund for tax relief. The net balance of 1,500,000 minus 1,353,144 = $146,856 would have been available for property tax relief. The net result would be a tax impact of MINUS $6 for each $100,000 of property valuation.
  • Now, how did I deduce the tax impact??

    The “tax rate” is expressed in dollars per $100,000 of property. The present assessed value of the total property in town, both business and commercial, is in the vicinity of 2.4 billion. Thus a $100,000 piece of property is a fraction 0.00004167 of the total property in town. It would accordingly be liable for that share of any appropriation. Thus, the tax impact of the appropriation of $2,476,455 is
    $2,476,455 X 0.00004167 = or $103.

    For the $146,856 we would compute
    MINUS $146,856 X 0.00004167 = MINUS $6

    If your home is evaluated at say, $300,000, these amounts would triple.

The reader should also remember that the above amounts apply to a complete fiscal year, split up into two tax bills.

I invite questions and criticisms.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Wayne » Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:33 pm

Dennis King wrote:Rick, I am against PAYT for a number of reasons.

First, except for the aluminum cans, it doesn't pay. It simply costs more to collect and separate it out then it returns in revenue.

I also feel throwing away your trash is an essential service the town should provide and in fact they are REQUIRED TO PROVIDE.

There are many people on low incomes in town and the less expensive option of dumping it themselves should be available. PAYT is just a user fee on top of the taxes already paid for the TS and the land. I think we need to find the right number for the tipping fees and the rest will be paid by taxes which are paid by all. Just like we pay for the schools, PD, FD, waste water, etc.

Dennis,

I was just wondering if you still hold the same position on PAYT after hearing more about it.

1. Recycling (encouraged by PAYT but not part of it) does pay, in that it's break-even, rather than just more expense for us all.

2. The "less expensive option of dumping it themselves" does not conflict with PAYT. Implementation of PAYT would mean they will be paying NO TAXES for the TS or the land. It also means each person pays for exactly how much trash they generate instead of putting the burden on someone else (who perhaps can't afford it).

Do you still not think the fairness of this and elimination of taxes makes it the logical way to go?
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:56 pm

Dennis, I question why if you worry so about being constantly "attacked" do you continue to go back to the same subject?

Dennis King wrote:I did agree with your point on the mulityear contract and how this would reduce the savings to $400,000 over CS if such a contract could be done.


You agree we may have been able to get a contract for 1.8 million a year in a multi year CS deal but still think it is $400,000 cheaper? Dennis, next years budget has the TS listed at 2.4 million, where’s the savings? How do you get $400,000 cheaper when we have actual budget values of 2.4 million to work with for the TS and a quote of around 1.8 million for CS? Your continuing to use faulty numbers Dennis. If you disagree then please show me $400,000 in savings using the budget amount from next year budget of 2.4 million for the TS and the 1.8 million curbside quote which you are now seemingly willing to accept as a valid quote.

Read over the analysis Norm posted in another thread. There is NO savings with a TS station.

Further more it has also been pointed out to you that unless you consider as you have been that tipping fees are just money from heaven they cannot be used to just drop the costs to show a savings as Norm pointed out you would had to have done to come up with the original million in savings you claimed. The fees still come from Merrimack citizens. But since you seem to continue to agree otherwise why then do you avoid the question of putting 100% of the TS cost into tipping fees, which by your logic would make it free.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:56 pm

Wayne, I see no specifics behind the assertions.

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

Postby Wayne » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:37 pm

US, what specifics? The recycling program is historically break-even, and a PAYT rate will be chosen that counterbalances any TS costs not covered by local tipping fees.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby uscitizen03054 » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:51 pm

US, what specifics? The recycling program is historically break-even, and a PAYT rate will be chosen that counterbalances any TS costs not covered by local tipping fees.


Wayne, I think you may be directing a question to Dennis??
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Wayne » Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:55 pm

Sorry, yes.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Wayne » Tue Nov 18, 2003 5:05 pm

Dennis, can you please tell me why PAYT is "a big waste of time, money, and effort "???

(the detailed question is down below)
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Previous

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron