$110 tipping fee...

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:14 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote: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.


For the record Mark I'm not sure who received invites to the first hearing but I wasn't sent one. I heard about the hearing over the bridge through Roger Lawrence's daughter.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:17 pm

Last year weight restrictions (which are determined by the town) were enforced after much public pressure from the INVITED LR people.

This year, the weight restrictions were lifted without a any "concerns" from the same people.

Last year, the TS still could be voted out and the bridge would have been a good way to stop it.

This year, the TS is a reality so the BOS changed the weight restrictions without any contraversy.

Oh, and it cost nearly $100,000 for the extra hauling charges.

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

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:18 pm

Dennis King wrote: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 the simple fact that we are now and have been on this board discussing the road safety shows there isn't silence about it. Many of us have just lost faith in the town that they actually would be willing to take safety into account.

Further more as far as I’m concerned it isn’t the weight as much as the SIZE of the trucks that cause it to be unsafe. You can look back at my posts going back as far as you want and you will see I continued to raise the SIZE as the issue on the bridge.

Maybe you’ve forgot the pictures of the trucks going into the oncoming traffic…

http://home.adelphia.net/~lildog/Merrimack.htm
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:26 pm

Dennis King wrote:Last year weight restrictions (which are determined by the town) were enforced after much public pressure from the INVITED LR people.

This year, the weight restrictions were lifted without a any "concerns" from the same people.


First off many of the same people have since moved since they have lost faith in this town. Many of the ones left have also lost faith in this town. Although I have (as I already stated) never once received an invite to any public hearings have continued to fight this town before and after the TS passed on the issues I feel are the safety issues.

As I've stated I do not see the weight as the big problem... the SIZE is the problem. Fixing the bridge to allow larger traffic will in turn also fix any weight problems.

Dennis King wrote:Last year, the TS still could be voted out and the bridge would have been a good way to stop it.

This year, the TS is a reality so the BOS changed the weight restrictions without any contraversy.


Dennis, your conspiracy theories need a little work. You've also claimed we are now trying to inflate the costs so people will eventually reject it... so if we wanted to keep the costs high wouldn't continuing to fight the weight and thus cause more trips to be needed keep inflating the costs?

See Dennis, this last comment you made is a perfect example of the types of INSULTS you dish out whether you realize it or not.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:38 pm

My heavens Dennis, you see a conspiracy behind everything. Was LR involved in the JFK assasination too? Here are the facts for a 2nd time concerning the bridge question of last year, they have nothing to do with a TS.

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.

The $100,000 should NEVER have been paid by MMK. I said as much at the PH and so did Norman. Just when it was becoming clear the entire matter was about the consultant's errors concerning enforcing the contractual obligations of the vendor, Norm Carr CLOSED the PH to stop the bleeding. Get the tape, WATCH it, and then maybe you'll see you're chasing ghosts blaming LR for the additional costs. Better yet, rather than just blindly accusing people of being dishonest, get the contract, READ it and come back to the debate informed.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Wayne » Thu Dec 04, 2003 12:56 pm

Guys, you're getting just a little off track...
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 1:45 pm

OK Wayne.

The $110 fee doesn't cover the costs of handling the material that's being delivered against it, which is $130. Therefore it results in a loss of $20/ton for a total loss of $240,000, or if viewed from the other side of the issue, a $240,000 subsidy of private industry in MMK.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:02 pm

AS I recall, Ed Chase estimated a $100 tipping fee would cover the cost for the commercial trash, since it is $110, it is actually a subsidy for the self haulers.

I have made it clear that PAYT is not worth the effort at the cost it incurrs on our life.

If you take $240,000 and divide it by the number of homes (I believe it is 9,600), it comes to $2.50 a year!

That is before the commercail and industrial taxes are added making the number less than $2 dollars per year.

Given all we pay for, this is not an issue.

PAYT is not the way to go!

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

Postby Dennis King » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:07 pm

correction, my calculator batteries are weak, it should be $25/year or about $2/month BEFORE the commercial and industrial taxes are taken in effect. I suspect it will reduce the cost to around $20/year or $1.67 a month Again, small numbers

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

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:34 pm

Can anyone tell us how much the staffing and operation is going to cost each year? NOT hauling and tipping now, I'm referring to the labor, overhead and bennies to staff the facility. I recall these same costs for today's LF are about $450K/year. I believe Mr. Chase isn't including this in his cost estimate of $100/ton. When this taxpayer cost is combined with the hauling and tipping costs and then divided by the assumed number of tons, the per ton average is approximately $130.

Definately time to change the batteries.

See ya tomorrow.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:35 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:I said as much at the PH and so did Norman. Just when it was becoming clear the entire matter was about the consultant's errors concerning enforcing the contractual obligations of the vendor, Norm Carr CLOSED the PH to stop the bleeding. Get the tape, WATCH it, and then maybe you'll see you're chasing ghosts blaming LR for the additional costs. Better yet, rather than just blindly accusing people of being dishonest, get the contract, READ it and come back to the debate informed.


Do you know if the minutes to this meeting are posted on the town website?
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:47 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:The $110 fee doesn't cover the costs of handling the material that's being delivered against it, which is $130. Therefore it results in a loss of $20/ton for a total loss of $240,000, or if viewed from the other side of the issue, a $240,000 subsidy of private industry in MMK.


What I found interesting was that Ed Chase gave a break down of some of the costs related to the TS and what percent he felt haulers should handle and what percent should be put into taxes. Now keep in mind that his suggestions amounted to the highest recommended tipping fee being $102.11 per ton. The foreman’s wages he suggested only 33% be covered in tipping and the rest put on our taxes. The scale operators wages 66% on tipping. Uniforms only 25% covered by tipping fees. The cost of the new scale ($50,000) 66% covered by tipping.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:57 pm

Dennis King wrote:AS I recall, Ed Chase estimated a $100 tipping fee would cover the cost for the commercial trash, since it is $110, it is actually a subsidy for the self haulers.


You need to read the bread down Ed provided at the meeting... some costs such as uniforms he suggested only 25% of should be covered in tipping so by his point of view $100 would cover their share. If you look at the total cost and break out the 60% of the cost and tonnage coming in from haulers (depending on which tonnage estimates you use) the amount needed to cover the 60% could range up over $130 a ton.

Dennis King wrote:I have made it clear that PAYT is not worth the effort at the cost it incurrs on our life.


What cost Dennis? You've built no such argument that I can see. If anything PAYT would cause people to be more responsible for their own trash and if they recycle and keep their trash amounts low they would SAVE MONEY.

Dennis King wrote:If you take $240,000 and divide it by the number of homes (I believe it is 9,600), it comes to $2.50 a year!


Would you mind explaining what the $240,000 is? If you are talking about the total cost of the TS you need to add another zero.... its 2.4 MILLION a year and that would make it $240 a year per home (by the way your math is wrong $240,000 divided by 9600 is $25 not $2.50). Also does the 9600 include condos and apartments, I think it does. Since they on average are lower in value then most homes the average cost in taxes using your formula to a home owner would far exceed $240 a year.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 3:58 pm

Dennis King wrote:correction, my calculator batteries are weak, it should be $25/year or about $2/month BEFORE the commercial and industrial taxes are taken in effect. I suspect it will reduce the cost to around $20/year or $1.67 a month Again, small numbers


Sorry I see you've already caught that one yourself but your still off on the total with $240,000... it's 2.4 MILLION.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:09 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:Can anyone tell us how much the staffing and operation is going to cost each year? NOT hauling and tipping now, I'm referring to the labor, overhead and bennies to staff the facility.


In the handout Mr. Chase gave at the town meeting he accounted the amount of labor alone that the haulers are responsible for to be about $75,008 a year. This number in the report by the way excludes any building maintenance, hauling and tipping, the new scale and everything else.

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:I recall these same costs for today's LF are about $450K/year.


Maybe someone from the budget committee can give the full number... now in light of the fact that the $102 covers only $75k of a possible $450k it is very clear $110 does not come close to covering the 60% of labor caused by the 60% of the trash coming in from haulers.

Mark Fitzgerald wrote: I believe Mr. Chase isn't including this in his cost estimate of $100/ton. When this taxpayer cost is combined with the hauling and tipping costs and then divided by the assumed number of tons, the per ton average is approximately $130.


Correct, Ed accounts for only $75 in labor costs.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

PreviousNext

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron