Transfer Station NOW OPEN.

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby uscitizen03054 » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:28 pm

Dennis, thanks for keeping us abreast of the facts. As I said in a previous post, most folks I have spoken to have moved on and are handling their trash in the same manner as before the TS. I look forward to using it soon. Keep up the good work and Happy New Year.
User avatar
uscitizen03054
 
Posts: 7544
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 11:31 am
Location: Merrimack, NH

Postby Shannon Barnes » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:32 pm

Dennis,

You are only mentioning the subsidy of the tipping fee by the haulers on the trash they DEPOSIT. We are paying $15 per ton the HAULERS are bringing. The haulers are not subsidizing 88% of the whole cost to run the TS, just 88% of THEIR cost to use the TS. This means taxpayers are paying to run haulers' businesses. How many private businesses get local kickbacks like that?

Spinning the truth, Mr King.

S.
Shannon Barnes
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:32 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:38 pm

Dennis King wrote:One thing that is constantly ommitted from the analysis of others is the simple fact that our TS generates revenue!


Dennis, are you going to start telling stories about how big the fish you caught was? How can a closed market TS generate revenue when it doesn't even charge the full cost per ton to the haulers using it?

Dennis King wrote:The tipping fees pay for 88 percent of the costs.


LIE!!!!! The tipping fees pay 88% of the per ton amount brought in by haulers only. $110 is the per ton rate haulers pay. $125 is the amount per ton the town pays to transport the trash. Self-haulers pay NOTHING. Are you that ignorant that you think haulers paying only $110 per ton an a total cost of $125 per ton covers their share as well as the share of trash taken in by self haulers? Oh wait you are the same guy who things 2.26 million for the TS is 1 million a year cheaper then 1.8 million CS.

Dennis King wrote:The taxpayers only need to make up the 12 percent difference.


LIE!!!!!!!!!!! They have to pay 12% of the per ton rate taken in by haulers they have to also pay 100% of the rate taken in by self haulers who pay zero in tipping fees.

Dennis King wrote:Compared to the CS option, we save 1,500,000/year.


Dennis, if you really are this ignorant then I truly do feel sorry for you... if you think our having to pay 100% of self haul costs AND 12% of haulers costs subsidizing their businesses via our taxes saves us 1.5 million a year then I don't even know what to say to you any more other then I'm sorry, your wrong.

I doubt you’re this stupid though and the only other logical explanation is you are a bold face liar who cares nothing about the truth.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:45 pm

Constitution1 wrote:If anyone thinks that you can hire a company to pick-up trash at over 10,000 different locations and remove it from town for less than it costs to pick-up the same trash from one location and remove it from town, then that "anyone" is a fool!


Then explain the numbers we have...

Hudson pays 1.7 million for their town wide curbside. Merrimack has slightly more so we were quoted 1.8 million for town wide CS. This is verifiable..
http://www.cabinet.com/headlines/2002/10/021009mj.html
"The committee estimates that the curbside plan would cost $1,824,000 million a year"

Our budget committee has 2.26 million as the total cost of running the TS. This too is a variable number.

One thing you fail to account for is with a TS we have more employees, we have to stay open all week rather then an efficient CS plan where we may only have 3 days where trash is collected through the town, there's building maintenance, equipment rental and maintenance used within the facility etc. The TS is a middleman, we still pay a per ton rate to dump which is what makes up the majority of both options and we also pay a per ton rate to haul the trash regardless of how many stops it has to pick it up.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:04 pm

The only revevant analysis must include the INCOME the TS generates,

We pay only 12 percent of the cost.
12 percent of 2,260,000 is $271,200.

The difference between the CS contract of 1.8 million (the first year) and $271,200 is $1,568,800!

That is what we save with the TS.

Also, the actual costs per taxpayer would be lower because the tax revenue from businesses and the new homes over the past 3 years was not added into my pervious analysis. The 1.5 million is therefore a conservative cost savings analysis.

Any way you look at it, the TS saves us big time.

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

Postby Wayne » Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:22 pm

Dennis King wrote:The only revevant analysis must include the INCOME the TS generates,

We pay only 12 percent of the cost.
12 percent of 2,260,000 is $271,200.

The difference between the CS contract of 1.8 million (the first year) and $271,200 is $1,568,800!

That is what we save with the TS.

Dennis,

You have to be very careful how you phrase things. The "we" that you mention that are saving so much does not include many of the citizens in this town. To be technically correct, you should replace your "we" with "some of us". (And don't bother to say that "this is the choice made by all the rest...")

A problem with all your financial statistics is that they are quite dynamic. For example, my WM bill went up $24/year, so it's apparent that they'll be taking their loads straight of of town. Therefore WM's customers will not be subsidizing the self-haulers any longer. As this will likely put more and more costs on local haulers, some of that business is bound to shift to either self hauling or to large haulers like WM. I fear your subsidy will slowly be gone, and all of the TS costs will have to be revisited, and will be quite different than they are now.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Dennis King » Fri Jan 02, 2004 5:59 pm

Wayne, You make a good point on the large haulers but your rate increase may have been to compensate for the higher fees at our TS and not necessarily due to a move out of town. Another point to consider is your coment that implies a condo owner is paying extra.

That is a big can of worms.

For example, the average homeowner subsidizes the kids from the condos that go to our shools. The typical homeowner in essence pays twice for the same service. What about the seniors? What about homeowners who pay for a parochial school on top of their taxes, they pay 4 times what a condo owner pays.

Life is just not fair and conservatives have long accepted that fact.

What I have seen on the argument of adding in the "self haul" and condo costs is an effort to make everything fair when it just is not. Liberals often pursue this goal and it really doesn't work.

I would advise everyone to enjoy the new TS safe in the consolation that the tax rate increase is less than 60 cents per week for the typical homeowner. The big increases in taxes in 2004 is mostly due to the new school, the loss of education funding, and the HHNP bond.

Wayne you make the best case for not adding in the CS costs to the TS analysis, You now have to pay another $24 for a service you assume is out of town.

You selected that life style and that is what goes with it, Fortunately, there is nothing that stops your association from voting to self haul, just don't expect many votes because the choice of convenience is a big part of the condo lifestyle.

I envy you every time I get on a ladder to paint the house, mow my lawn, pay for the pool, and shovel the snow.

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

Taxes

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:11 pm

Rbarnes said:

For the record if you look at page 262 of the town report it states as follows:
“Based on various assumptions, the future property tax impact of curbside pickup is expected to be between $87 and $109 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.”


See my April 4th posting on this forum - I had predicted that my taxes would go up about $500 per year - and that was based on my old assessment and not losing state funding. The Cs would have cost me about $350 added to my tax bill on top of the $870 that it went up this last time. - so now my taxes would $7,000 per year instead of the mere $6650 I have to pay - isn't that ridiculous?
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Money

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:16 pm

Even Rod Buckley said in a recent BOS meeting that some of his customers are beginning to view pickup of their trash by Buckley as a luxury they will not be able to afford, when Buckley must raise his rates to allow for the $110/ton tipping fee.


IF people are that strapped for money, why did they say Yes Yes Yes to EVERYTHING else in April? Did they think none of these Yes votes would cost them money? My trash pickup went up $1.25 per week (I use Buckley) which is far less damaging to me than the $870 increase on my tax bill.
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Postby Wayne » Fri Jan 02, 2004 6:17 pm

Dennis, don't bother to envy me. I own a private home, not a condo. I switched to WM for my pickup in 2003 and am quite happy with their service. A $24/year increase sure says to me that they will not use the TS, where fees when up $70/ton.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:14 pm

Dennis King wrote:The only revevant analysis must include the INCOME the TS generates,


Using income in the analysis or not doesn't make your math correct. Let me try to explain this one more time very slowly so even someone like you can understand.

Dennis King wrote:We pay only 12 percent of the cost.
12 percent of 2,260,000 is $271,200.


For ever ton of trash taken into the TS regardless of it's source (hauler or self hauler) we pay an estimated $125 a ton. The town estimates to collect 18,000 tons (which I think is way to high but we'll use that for the math regardless).

We charge the haulers $110 per ton while the town has to pay $125 per ton even for those tons we only charge haulers $110 a ton for.

That's where your 88% came from... we pay 12% of the cost the hauler generate AND we pay the FULL COST of any trash taken in from self haulers.

Dennis King wrote:The difference between the CS contract of 1.8 million (the first year) and $271,200 is $1,568,800!


For this town to collect $1,568,800 at $110 a ton tipping we would have to collect 14,261 tons from the haulers.

Face it Dennis, your wrong.

Dennis King wrote:Also, the actual costs per taxpayer would be lower because the tax revenue from businesses and the new homes over the past 3 years was not added into my pervious analysis. The 1.5 million is therefore a conservative cost savings analysis.


Dennis you basic calculation of 88% percent is way off based to begin with so your getting further and further from any factually claims.

2.26 million for the TS will NEVER be less then the 1.8 million we would be paying with CS no mater how wild you get with your lies.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:21 pm

Wayne Johnson wrote:
Dennis King wrote:The only revevant analysis must include the INCOME the TS generates,

We pay only 12 percent of the cost.
12 percent of 2,260,000 is $271,200.

The difference between the CS contract of 1.8 million (the first year) and $271,200 is $1,568,800!

That is what we save with the TS.

Dennis,

You have to be very careful how you phrase things. The "we" that you mention that are saving so much does not include many of the citizens in this town. To be technically correct, you should replace your "we" with "some of us". (And don't bother to say that "this is the choice made by all the rest...")

A problem with all your financial statistics is that they are quite dynamic. For example, my WM bill went up $24/year, so it's apparent that they'll be taking their loads straight of of town. Therefore WM's customers will not be subsidizing the self-haulers any longer. As this will likely put more and more costs on local haulers, some of that business is bound to shift to either self hauling or to large haulers like WM. I fear your subsidy will slowly be gone, and all of the TS costs will have to be revisited, and will be quite different than they are now.


Wayne considering the 88% he got from taking the $125 per ton we as a town will have to pay for every ton in the station and the $110 the haulers pay in tipping (110 being 88% of 125) it isn’t just a matter of phrasing things. Dennis’s whole basic claim is incorrect. He is incorrectly trying to claim that somehow by paying LESS then their fair share local hauling businesses are subsidizing us the taxpayers, when in truth it's just the opposite. We the taxpayers have to pay for 100% of any trash taken in by self-haulers AND 12% of all the trash collected vial commercial haulers.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Norman Phillips » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:25 pm

Jeannine----If Merrimack had not approved the new Middle School, the indications were that the town would have lost a significant amount of money. I quote from the middle of column three on page one of today's Merrimack Journal ( in the January part of a recap of the events of 2003 )

"School Superintendent Marjorie Chiafery announced that the Mastricola Middle School could lose up to $10,000,000 in state aid if a plan for easing overcrowding was not in place by June 30. The school was in a position where it could lose foundation aid, building aid, and tuition and transportation aid. "

I recall that the State Director of Education ( ??) came to Merrimack last winter to discuss that probability, and was unable to assure the School Board that the axe would not fall.

I believe that it was this ominous possibility that led to the large majority in favor of the new school.
Last edited by Norman Phillips on Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Dennis King » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:27 pm

Dennis King wrote:harge the haulers $110 per ton while the town has to pay $125 per ton even for those tons we only charge haulers $110 a ton for.

That's where your 88% came from... we pay 12% of the cost the hauler generate AND we pay the FULL COST of any trash taken in from self haulers.

Dennis King wrote:The difference between the CS contract of 1.8 million (the first year) and $271,200 is $1,568,800!


For this town to collect $1,568,800 at $110 a ton tipping we would have to collect 14,261 tons from the haulers.

Face it Dennis, your wrong.

[
2.26 million for the TS will NEVER be less then the 1.8 million we would be paying with CS no mater how wild you get with your lies.


My response:
The TS tax impact is less than 300,000 so the 1.5 million savings came about when it is compared to the CS cost of 1.8 million (the first year).

I have already posted my analysis.

I expect most people understand it.

The TS saves us 1.5 million a year in taxes, it was a great choice.

It produces 88 perent of its revenue so we taxpayers only pay 12 percent of the costs.

Case closed, we have the TS and it was the best most cost effective choice.

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

I know

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Fri Jan 02, 2004 7:34 pm

Norm

I understood the Middle School situation but I felt that the final solution was not necessarily the most efficient or cost effective way to add space.

It would have been less painful for all to give up a ballfield at the school and build ballfields at the site now being used to build the school. Transportation costs would have stayed the same as well.

So now they will have a 1200 capacity school and all are happy! Personally I wish they would do something about curbing population growth in this town - put in a lot size limit - something, anything - just stop!! Why not a 5-year moratorium on building more than 10 houses at a time?
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

PreviousNext

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron