$110 tipping fee...

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

$110 tipping fee...

Postby RBarnes » Wed Dec 03, 2003 2:38 pm

Since this board topic has started to become overrun with people talking about everything BUT the topic I'm starting a new thread (open to ALL posters) to discuss the TS.

Let's start with the $110 tipping fee... any thoughts about it?
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:08 pm

Yes Rick, it's not enough.

The COST is $130/ton, therefore the CHARGE should be $130/ton.

Simple.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby RBarnes » Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:25 pm

There was an interesting comment in the Merrimack News this week that didn't even merit it's own article, it was buried in another one... The town is going to be spending I believe it was $50,000 for a new scale since the current one doesn't meet standards and is unreparable.

I'm curious to know when this scale will be put in and how the town plans to weigh in haulers during the tip they are ripping up the old scale and putting in this new one. Or are they going to give the haulers a free ride during this time and just soak the taxpayers?
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Wed Dec 03, 2003 3:39 pm

Rick,

The SWAC was told by staff last year that the existing sxcale was in fine shape and a new one would only be necessary if the site was moved.

I'm thinking that all the sand and gravel they had to weigh during the closure took a toll on the old scale.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby RBarnes » Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:06 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:The SWAC was told by staff last year that the existing sxcale was in fine shape and a new one would only be necessary if the site was moved.

I'm thinking that all the sand and gravel they had to weigh during the closure took a toll on the old scale.


It doesn't sound like it is being replaced because it is broken but because it fails to meet standards.

Here's the exact quote from the Merrimack New Connection:

"The board also agreed to send out bids for the landfill scale. The current scale does not meet citification standards and is not repairable, according to Chase. Costs are not to exceed $50,000."

Also in the same article:

"The board also approved Transfer Station contracts with We Care Corporation for loading and hauling, while Waste Management will handle disposal of solid waste. Costs for the former will be $243,000 per year, and for the latter, $52 per ton.”
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Re: $110 tipping fee...

Postby Wayne » Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:05 pm

RBarnes wrote:Let's start with the $110 tipping fee... any thoughts about it?

I view it as a reasonable compromise. The public hearing was open and fair to all. I was pleased that the BOS was not afraid to admit they were working in the dark, and to hear them commit to revisit the situation after six months. I wonder if the previous BOS would have done that?

I don't think anyone can guess what will happen next. We've heard all the predictions, and now it will be interesting to see who was right. The first critical decisions will be where the various haulers decide to deliver their trash and how much their rates will increase. As a WM customer, I expect an increase but not something outrageous. Since none of my trash will likely be passing through the TS, I'm relieved that the majority of the TS cost was not put on the tax rate so that I would subsidize the self haulers, and I do feel sorry that those who hire local haulers must continue to do that.

When I do have to make visits to the TS, I have no objection to paying for disposal of those items, so I'm still rooting for PAYT.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Re: $110 tipping fee...

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:30 am

Wayne Johnson wrote:The public hearing was open and fair to all. I was pleased that the BOS was not afraid to admit they were working in the dark, and to hear them commit to revisit the situation after six months. I wonder if the previous BOS would have done that?


I agree. No matter what side of the issue you fall on a public hearing will allow you a chance to voice your concerns or suggestions.

As for the prior BOS I think Norm Carr's comment during the meeting made it clear how he would have handled it and that would have been without feedback from the public.

Wayne Johnson wrote:I don't think anyone can guess what will happen next. We've heard all the predictions, and now it will be interesting to see who was right.


We do know what to keep our eyes on even though we don't know the outcome as you pointed out...

Wayne Johnson wrote:The first critical decisions will be where the various haulers decide to deliver their trash and how much their rates will increase.


The big factor will be how much waste actually comes to the station and by what means does it get there. You are 100% correct on this one.

Speaking of the haulers rates does anyone know if there are laws as to how quickly a hauler can change his rates? The cable company for instance I believe has to give the public 30 days notice before any rate increase (or decrease for that matter), are any other service industries subject to those same laws or could a hauler just up his price and give notice the night before?

Saying we get a large shift to self hauling then the money needed to run the facility will have to be shifted to taxes (and everyone will lose).

Wayne Johnson wrote:As a WM customer, I expect an increase but not something outrageous. Since none of my trash will likely be passing through the TS, I'm relieved that the majority of the TS cost was not put on the tax rate so that I would subsidize the self haulers


It's the people like you using WM or BFI who are getting the worst of it as far as taxes go. You are being forced to pay for something you don't even use.

Wayne Johnson wrote:I do feel sorry that those who hire local haulers must continue to do that.


Other then family members who feel obligated who would be forced to use a local hauler? I would think if the rates get to high anyone could pick up their phone and call WM and sign on with them instead.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:41 am

I think Norm was saying they could revise the tipping fee quickly in a BOS meeting. He was just trying to explain the current vote was a starting point but it did not sound right. I also think it does support the charges of his desire to bypass the public imput step. This may or may not be right but the percerption left does lead to that conclusion.

I like the open board policy and it appears the $110 compromise figure is acceptable to all. All voices were heard during the open discussion phase and I think it makes the town better when all interested parties get to speak.

BTW, I do recall the last BOS having a number of meetings with the LR supporters and they even sent invitations to one public hearing so I don't think the charge against Norm is all together correct.

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

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 10:52 am

Dennis King wrote:BTW, I do recall the last BOS having a number of meetings with the LR supporters and they even sent invitations to one public hearing so I don't think the charge against Norm is all together correct.


Dennis, the invitations sent to LR residents had to do with a public hearing where the town was buying up land through public domain. They had to notify those who's land they were buying. And for the record that land is directly across the road from my own and I NEVER ONCE received any notice to public hearings.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:35 am

Correction, the public hearing was on the bridges and the classification thereof. The LR residents were invited hence a large turnout by this group. The BOS voted not to change the rating an thus we paid nearly $100,000 more in trucking fees for more trips so the bridge was not overly burdened.

Move forward a year and a new BOS now looks at the same bridge and sees no problem with the heavier trucks on it. The chairman even uses the safety issue but this time it is to reduce the number of trucks to reduce the hazard to the kids vs the "hazard" to the bridge.

What was different this year than last besides the makeup of the BOS?

Simple, the TS is now a reality so the concern of the bridge which was needed to make the TS work was no longer an issue, now the reality had to be addressed and suddenly the planiff voices were silenced when the new board made this change.

The shouts of anger last year were replaced by the silence of this year.

If the bridge was unsafe last year, it should be this year too. Trouble is, it was never unsafe. The updated report proved it.

This issue and a number of other examples are the reason people take these "concerns" with a grain of salt. It all appears to be a NIMBY situation and until these voices stay consistant on issues, they will continue to be open to these charges.

I was one of the first to suggest a flager on the farm house curve as a necessary safety factor until the curve could be fixed. I saw the problem but my solution was inexpensive and did not stop the TS so it again makes you wonder if the issue is to solve a problem or to simply remove the TS.

Regardless of the efforts of the LR supporters, I am concerned over the aparent misstatements that were made in the analysis of CS vs TS. Now in that, we can agree. The most recent example is the scale which should have been included in the overall calculations. Clearly under CS we would not have needed this.

If people stay consistant and avoid emotional outbursts, ideas and discourse can move about freely. With all the effort to close the TS and with the nasty personal attacks from the key LR supporters, it is no wonder the facts were lost in this debate.

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

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:44 am

Dennis, you are confused by the fact there have been TWO public hearings.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:52 am

I also feel the need to make the following correction.

The public hearing on the bridge last year wasn't about the safety of the bridge, it was about the desire of MMK's consultant to cover the fact he had been ignoring the terms and conditions of the closure contract for months.

the contract was clear, I have a copy. ALL road and bridge designations were to be followed. The roads and bridges were even listed in the document. What SHOULD have happened was that the BOS should have forced the contractor to live up to their committment with NO ADDITIONAL charges to MMK. that wording was ALSO in the contract. But instead, what we learned (and what Dennis missed) was that the contractor was using the weather as leverage and threatening to delay closure activities (possibly compromising previous work) if they weren't compensated for having to use smaller loads. The BOS, feeling stuck, gave in. BUT clearly MMK had every right NOT to pay them another dime based on their contractual obligation.

THAT is the real story Dennis. It had nothing to do with LR, LR was used a the scapegoat for incurring additonal costs that should have been absorbed by the contractor. I challenge you to prove otherwise. I have the contract if you're really interested.

You really DO need to do more research before making such accusations about people's motives. This is a continuing pattern with you. If you take that as an insult, so be it, but it is the truth.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 11:54 am

Perhaps it was RB that was confused. I don't know if people across the street get a notice about the hearing on taking a piece of the land that they dont abutt, but it would appear the right thing to do and most likely was an oversight.

The other hearing I spoke of was far more important in my eye and it appears to be a NIMBY effort to stop the TS. The silence this year certainly supports that possiblity.

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

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:07 pm

OK, I'm going to slow down.

There have been TWO public hearing where LR residents were sent notifications. The FIRST was in relation to removing the E-2 designation during closure activities in 2002. This is the one you were alluding to in your most recent posting. OK so far? Good.

The 2nd was most recently and concerned the reconstruction of the farmhouse (Rick's farmhouse) curve.

K?

Now that that's settled the PH on the bridge last year was more about the precedent of reclassifying bridges than anything else. Almost all discussion centered around the possible impacts elsewhere, the only discussion relating to the bridge rating came from Hinch, who simply read the latest NHDOT report. Here is the important bit:

The "E-2" classification is granted by the TOWN, not the state. In the case of MMK, back some 15-20 years ago or so the state allowed towns to classify any bridges "E-2" they desired. While the designation does carry a weight rating, it has just as much to do with traffic type management as anything else. The E2 designation is placed on many bridges capable of higher rated loads as a mechanism to limit "industrial" type traffic in areas not suited for it. Its a "gate" of sorts, keeping traffic flows consistent with they type of area the bridge is situated within. Once you change the designation of one bridge, the flood gates are open for anyone who wants to rumble tractor-trailers through residential areas to demand they be allowed to do so. THAT was the topic at hand, not the rating of the bridge.

But then again, I'm just a LR groupie, right Dennis? All this is just a big plot. Gimme a break.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:11 pm

It was an oversight on my part in that I forgot about that hearing. But again I was not given an invite for that hearing either so the point I made still stands. I NEVER ONCE RECEIVED AN INVITE TO A PUBLIC HEARING regardless if there were one or two hearings regarding safety.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron