A Glimpse At Our Future....

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

A Glimpse At Our Future....

Postby pnaber » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:12 pm

There is an article in the Union Leader, Friday Jan 9 2004 page B1 that is interesting reading. Apparently Raymond has a transfer station and is paying close to $500,000 a year for disposal of trash. The article describes the measures the Raymond Selectmen are taking to reduce that amount.

Raymond is putting three initiatives on the ballot in the spring. These initiatives are to implement curbside recycling, pay as you throw, or a new scale house. These are all attempts to reduce the cost of trash.

Pay as you throw is self explanatory as those who trash more pay more. Curbside recycling is cost effective due to the town pays $65 a ton for trash, but only pays $15 a ton for recyclables (note => recycles still cost money, just not as much). Raymond currently recycles 1% only, they have a goal of 40% recycled. The new scale house is to weigh resident's trash, not commercial haulers.

How long until we implement plans to reduce the cost of waste?
pnaber
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:53 pm

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:06 am

Pat,

It is only a matter of time. MMK is now the largest community of it's type in NH that doesn't employ 100% CS or a TS combined with CS. MMK is just too big for such a program to be in the best financial interest of the users. The money to handle waste in that town is flying in three directions that are independent of each other and therefore have zero buying power.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Re: A Glimpse At Our Future....

Postby RBarnes » Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:17 am

pnaber wrote:There is an article in the Union Leader, Friday Jan 9 2004 page B1 that is interesting reading. Apparently Raymond has a transfer station and is paying close to $500,000 a year for disposal of trash. The article describes the measures the Raymond Selectmen are taking to reduce that amount.


Couple things to keep in mind... Raymond has a population of 2,839 (according to their 2000 census). That means they are paying on average about $176 per person for their transfer station (divide the $500,000 by their population). If the average home has 2.5 people in it that's $440 per home. You can see clearly by the Raymond example TS are NOT cost effective. I wonder if like Merrimack they too have people hiring haulers that skip the TS, because that would help drive down the per person cost since some people are paying for an alternate waste service. If that were the case then the real per person cost of who actually uses it would be even higher.

By the way is there a link to this article online? I would be very interested in reading the whole thing. From what you posted it sounds like they are looking to go with curbside as the cheaper alternative. It would be silly to do curbside just for recycling alone.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:14 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOOKS LIKE MARK HAS HIS HANDS FULL. GOOD THING HE'S WELL SCHOOLED IN TRASH:

Opinions differ on city trash spending


By ANDREW NELSON, Telegraph Staff
mailto:nelsona@telegraph-nh.com
Published: Thursday, Jan. 8, 2004

NASHUA - Dissension has broken out on the committee looking at how to deal with a growing deficit in the city’s trash program.

A citizen representative on the City Hall task force, Robert Sullivan, has complained the committee is not examining money-saving alternatives before issuing its recommendations, which could include residents paying for trash pickup.

Sullivan, a leader in the Nashua Taxpayers Association, objected via an e-mail to committee members about the slow pace of the review and its direction. He could not be reached for further comment Wednesday.

“I do not believe that this committee has met their obligation. Therefore, that being the case, I do not believe that the city is anyway near making the case for charging the citizens a fee to collect their trash,” Sullivan wrote in the e-mail obtained by The Telegraph earlier this week.

City Treasurer/Tax Collector David Fredette, the committee leader, said Sullivan’s objections are untrue.

“We most certainly have looked at alternatives. A lot of them are dead roads,” Fredette said.

Fredette said no final decision has been made on what options the city should pursue.

The committee’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, and a report to Mayor Bernie Streeter is due by the end of January, Fredette said.

The committee formed in May to explore closing a growing deficit in the city’s Solid Waste Department. The shortfall is expected in five years to be some $6.5 million.

The committee’s initial deadline was December, which was pushed back a month.

“We’re about a month behind. I’m sorry, but everybody was busy,” Fredette said.

Meanwhile, Streeter is laying the groundwork for changing the status quo.

In his inaugural speech this week, Streeter said city residents could no longer rely on commercial haulers to solely pay for the operation of the Solid Waste Department.form for trash removal, which has long been a self-supporting city department, he said.

“Up to this point, the taxpayers do not pay for our trash collection. Unfortunately, with this budget cycle, that will have to begin to change,” he said Sunday.

Streeter said Wednesday that he was not advocating for one option over another, but letting people know changes are coming. If the department has a funding deficit, it’s natural that changes will have to take place, he said.

Presently, commercial haulers pay for the operation of the Solid Waste Department. Fees for tipping trash at the Four Hills Landfill pay the bills, without any contribution from local property taxes.

The city charges commercial haulers $80 a ton to use the landfill, and $90 a ton for construction and demolition debris. In the current fiscal year, the department’s budget is $6.16 million.

However, the economics of the trash industry are changing.

One reason for the red ink in the department is the slump in the economy, said Richard Reine, who directs the Solid Waste Department.

Another reason is a key hauler, Waste Management, purchased a Londonderry transfer station. The company, which did about $1 million of business annually at the landfill, cut its use of the transfer station nearly in half, he said.

In response to those who have pointed fingers at the new automated collection system, Reine said the new system in fact is saving money. He said the savings from the planned reduction in labor costs is approaching $200,000.

In April, the Division of Public Works proposed what it called a “solid waste generator fee” as one of four ways to close the deficit. The City Hall task force was formed in response to that recommendation.

Based on preliminary estimates, the fee could range from $120 to $225 a year for trash pickup.

However, Sullivan believes the committee has not examined the alternatives to avoid any fees.

In a report sent by e-mail Sunday to the committee and Streeter, Sullivan suggested the committee examine the value of the recycling program, consider “outsourcing the landfill operation,” or possibly cut out items like the new storage facility, greenhouse, and other projects not necessary for the department to operate.

Aldermanic President Brian McCarthy, a member of the committee, said there is a lot of expertise on the committee, which is reviewing every possibility.

“It’s perhaps true we could have moved faster on it. But there were a lot of other things going on,” he said.

Fredette, head of the committee, said a lot of the areas that Sullivan is pointing to have been covered in the committee’s six meetings.

“Unfortunately, he hears only what he wants to hear,” Fredette said.

Sullivan’s recommendations to consider privatizing the operation of the landfill have been discussed, but that is unlikely, Fredette said.

State laws would govern a change like that, and there are requirements in regards to the city’s labor agreement, he said.

And McCarthy said lower costs would not be automatic with privatization.

“You’d have a tough time convincing me that you’d save a lot of money going that route,” he said.
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

trash

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:48 pm

LT Wrote:

LOOKS LIKE MARK HAS HIS HANDS FULL. GOOD THING HE'S WELL SCHOOLED IN TRASH:


IS this creepy or what? I just mentioned on this forum last week that MF would stop obssessing over MK trash only when Nashua trash became an issue!!
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 RBarnes » Wed Jan 14, 2004 7:14 am

lowerrtaxes wrote:In his inaugural speech this week, Streeter said city residents could no longer rely on commercial haulers to solely pay for the operation of the Solid Waste Department.form for trash removal, which has long been a self-supporting city department, he said.


LT, you posted a very good point and I don't think you even realized it. Merrimack is starting to see this same thing happen. Everyone has been talking about the revenue from the haulers as a way to keep the TS affordable, well guess what? They aren't using it.

lowerrtaxes wrote:In response to those who have pointed fingers at the new automated collection system, Reine said the new system in fact is saving money. He said the savings from the planned reduction in labor costs is approaching $200,000.


Maybe Mark can answer this, but isn't the automated system they are discussing that saved all the money a curbside plan?

lowerrtaxes wrote:Based on preliminary estimates, the fee could range from $120 to $225 a year for trash pickup.


LT, based on the fees we are now seeing in Merrimack of $300+ at the LOW end you think this is somehow a BAD thing? Merrimack could learn a lot from what Nashua is doing if they are able to charge $120 to $225 for trash service while we are charging $300 and up for people who don't want self service AND still need to hit people up with taxes to pay for the TS.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby pnaber » Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:12 pm

The automated service was not new curbside, just a new approach to curbside.

Instead of three men to a truck, households now use a large 90 gallon container that can be picked up by a machine. The machine replaces two people, thus saving money over time.
pnaber
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:53 pm

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 12:33 am

i see now, it's okay to fire garbage men to save money in nashua, but to consider firing teachers or town employees or police or firemen is out of the question.

why do your bleeding hearts not pump for garbage men?
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:35 am

If you need to ask that question you're dumber than we thought you were.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:50 am

that's not an answer to the question.
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Postby RBarnes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:55 am

Let's see LT...

Firing garbage men with an automated system that can do the same exact job they were doing for much less and firing teachers with no replacement for the job they were doing... if you fail to see the difference then there isn't a whole lot I can do for you.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 9:59 am

right.
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:19 am

Hey Barnes, wasn't it you on this very forum who,

when talk of firing some town employees,

brought up the families they had to feed?

I think so.

Less teachers would make no difference in the education of Merrimacks children. NONE.
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Postby RBarnes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:27 am

lowerrtaxes wrote:Hey Barnes, wasn't it you on this very forum who,

when talk of firing some town employees,

brought up the families they had to feed?

I think so.


Can you supply the exact quote of what I said in the context of where I said it? I do not recall ever saying such a thing.

But you are correct, in either case of someone losing their job it would be hard on them and their families. You also have to ask yourself should we subsidize someone's living with our taxes just because we want to when we can save money by having an automated system?

lowerrtaxes wrote:Less teachers would make no difference in the education of Merrimacks children. NONE.


I disagree.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby lowerrtaxes » Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:37 am

regarding your quote, it's in here,

what would be the benefit of me finding it? Would you say oh you're right, maybe i misspoke? or yeah, i only care about teachers families, not a garbage mans?

regarding less teachers, I disagree.
STOP GOVERNMENT GREED
STOP GOVERNMENT SPRAWL
lowerrtaxes
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 11:48 am

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron