THROUGHPUT FOR THE TRANSFER STATION

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:13 pm

Contrary wrote:Do I have the right to demand that none of my tax money be used to offset commercial waste delivered to the TS? I mean, it sounds good and all, but will my tax bill really be reduced?


You can demand anything of the town, doesn't mean they'll give into your demands. Unless PAYT passes or some other way to pay for the TS is found our property taxes will reflect the cost of that station.

Unfortunately I feel there are those within the town that don't fully understand what the public actually wants. In looking for a way to lower the property taxes they actually discussed shifting some of the costs associated with the transfer station over to car registrations in the rate of $3 per car. Granted this is pennies when you look at the full costs of the station but regardless it isn't a solution. Taking money from your left pocket rather then your right still means you are paying money.

What they need to look at doing ASAP is cutting back the hours of operation. during work hours the only ones who would really use the facility would be businesses and people who do not work regular work hours (2nd and 3rd shift workers, retirees, spouses who don't work etc). Since there will soon be no commercial haulers using the facilities I would suggest keeping it open Tuesdays and Saturdays. That way businesses can dump their trash on Tuesdays and people who don't want the Saturday traffic can still dump when it's less busy during the week and we the tax payers wont be paying for 3 additional days during which it isn't really being used.

Contrary wrote:I was floored by how successful the campaign of misinformation was for the TS proponents. Voters were just so eager to unquestioningly believe the lies. It's a disheartening commentary on the gulability of so many MMK residents.


Careful now or Dennis King will start in that your one of those hate filled people like Mark and I. :wink:

But the fact is most people don't have time to question what they read. If it's in print they believe it. The haulers and TS supporters were busy posting incorrect and twisted numbers to try to show a savings that wasn't there or only presented half the facts to show things in their favor. The CS supporters unfortunately went about it the wrong way. We actually thought people would do the decent thing and be willing to stick up for the quality of life of those on the north end of town.

When I heard they were stealing signs made by CHILDREN that were posted along Bedford Rd stating it was a school bus stop and not a trucking route I knew the TS would stop at nothing.

Now the same haulers who lied their something or others off telling the town they would support the station regardless of the tipping fees and that it would be better to "keep the money in Merrimack" or support local businesses actually have the gall to say the town turned its back on them because it set the tipping fee at $110 (which is LESS then the per ton rate the town pays when operational costs are factored in). They have a lot of nerve to say something like that considering this town has bent over backwards and is even subsidizing the costs of their business with our taxes. If the town turned its back on the haulers what would you consider what it did to those on Lawrence Rd (remembering just a year before it voted not to even consider Lawrence Rd for any trash options)?
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:53 pm

Contrary,

The short version would be yes, you have the right and the BOS have the means to make sure that none of your tax money be used to subsidize self-hauled and other commercially delivered waste. This is easily accomplished by instituting a tipping fee that covers 100% of the costs, which are staffing, operation, maintenance, transport and disposal of ALL waste delivered. Here's the rub that TS advocates don't wanna face......this tipping fee would exceed $150/ton.

It (the TS) cannot compete with private enterprises without taxpayer blood money, and even then the private facilities will just lower their prices accordingly and retain the business. Typically, the private facilities are part of a much broader network that handles 10-20x more waste in one month than the municipality of MMK generates in a year.

The fact that previous administrations and boards thought for a minute that MMK could build a viable TS only verifies that they actually only thought about it for that one minute, if at all.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Wayne » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:05 pm

Does anyone know how much the typical bag of trash weighs? This would tell us the appropriate PAYT cost per bag, assuming $150/ton.
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

$1/bag

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:23 pm

I have paid between $0.75 and $1.00 per bag/sticker when I lived in PAYT communities. The price remains $1.00/bag in Worcester to this day. I believe Clinton MA has raised the sticker price to $1.00 recently from $0.75.

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

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:32 pm

Mark Fitzgerald wrote:The short version would be yes, you have the right and the BOS have the means to make sure that none of your tax money be used to subsidize self-hauled and other commercially delivered waste. This is easily accomplished by instituting a tipping fee that covers 100% of the costs, which are staffing, operation, maintenance, transport and disposal of ALL waste delivered. Here's the rub that TS advocates don't wanna face......this tipping fee would exceed $150/ton.


But Mark, without any haulers using the facility the tipping fee may as well be 1 million a ton, the money just isn't coming in. So the facility must be funded in some other way. The only ways I know of would be PAYT with blue bags or paying in our taxes. And for the BOS to go PAYT the town would have to vote for it.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:42 pm

Wayne Johnson wrote:Does anyone know how much the typical bag of trash weighs? This would tell us the appropriate PAYT cost per bag, assuming $150/ton.


If the facility only collects 4500 tons for the year and we have to pay about $900,000 for the facility for that year (that includes hauling, tipping and operational costs) it would average out to $200 a ton.

If as Norm pointed out we have 15725 cars a month taking in about 379 tons a month we would have to collect $4.83 from each car using the facility. With the average weight of each carload being 48.2 pounds of trash you would need to find the average weight of the blue bag and charge about a penny a pound for what would fit into it.

When you figure WM charges $5.80 a week to come to your house and collect your trash for you, paying $4.83 a week for self service doesn't look all that good and as fewer and fewer people use the facility the average cost per ton goes up and up being as the base operational costs will only drop if the hours are cut back.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

More costs

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:48 pm

RBarnes

Look at the number of people who have moved off Lawrence Rd. I know another number of people who have said point blank they will vote NO on every single issue this town puts up to a vote whether they agree with it or not just because they feel betrayed by the town. Whether it's the library, a new school or anything, they will no longer support it. And this feeling is spread to more then one person solely because of this station, and these aren't even just people on Lawrence Rd feeling this way. It’s really sad that a single thing such as trash pick up has created such a rift in this town.


YOu are correct in this assumption. Watch how people vote this year.

One thing that bugs me about you LR people is that you whine about the money being spent for the TS, but compared to the money increases in other areas of the town, the TS is peanuts. Please try to be more objective - I know you have a personal interest in the TS issue and I understand how you feel, but do not close your eyes to other issues.

I know you guys don't like me harping about the school but did you know that the SAU people (3 of them) account for over $250,000 between their salaries and benefits? Chiafery's salary is $106,000 which is a $26,000 increase in pay since 2001!! Her assistant makes 95K and their financial director makes 85K - why don't you complain about that too?
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 Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:00 pm

Not that I think Rick wants or needs my input, but I think the Town of MMK benefits more from her expertise than it does from owning a rest area for trash. Just my 2 cents. 'nite..........
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Re: More costs

Postby Wayne » Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:12 pm

Jeannine S. wrote:I know you guys don't like me harping about the school but did you know that the SAU people (3 of them) account for over $250,000 between their salaries and benefits? Chiafery's salary is $106,000 which is a $26,000 increase in pay since 2001!! Her assistant makes 95K and their financial director makes 85K - why don't you complain about that too?

I ought to question your "facts", but I won't bother. What's important is what is a competitive salary for these jobs? If their salaries fall in that area, then I have no problem with them.

Paying for someone else's trash, now that I have a problem with!
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Debra Huffman » Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:42 pm

Jeannine,
I know the actual dollars seem small compared with the bigger ticket items, but the topic of solid waste will not go away until it is resolved equitably.

As predicted by the CS supporters, the condo folks are now starting to get feisty over the idea that they pay for the TS whether they use it or not. They put forward a petitioned warrant article to address this fact. It probably won't pass, but that won't be the end of it. Eventually we'll go to a PAYT system. It's inevitable.

The frustration the CS supporters feel is perfectly justified. Last year's BOS did not provide the facts the voters needed to make an informed choice. This issue will not rest until there is a general acknowledgement of that fact and the solid waste issue is revisited.
Debra Huffman
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:41 am

The facts

Postby Jeannine Stergios » Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:19 pm

Wayne

I ought to question your "facts", but I won't bother. What's important is what is a competitive salary for these jobs? If their salaries fall in that area, then I have no problem with them.



Wayne do you really consider that sound logic? If Nashua pays 250K then it's OK if we do as well? These totals are for 3 people!!

Here are the numbers copied straight from the NH Dept of Education site. These are FACTS -

2001-2002
Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 96,000

Tracy, Sharlene 26-Merrimack 85,000

Shevenell, MatthMatthew D. 26-Merrimack 65,100

Total $246,100.00
73,830.00 plus 30% benefits

Total $319,930.00


2002-2003Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 100,800

Tracy, Sharlene 26-Merrimack 89,250

Shevenell, Matthew D. 26-Merrimack 68,355

Total $258,405.00
$ 77,521.50 benefits

Total $335,926.20



2003-2004
Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 106,848

Woelflein, Deborah 26-Merrimack 92,000

Shevenell, Matthew D. 26-Merrimack 72,456

Total $271,304.00
$ 81,391.20

Total $ 352,695,200
REPUBLICAN - BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE CAN BE ON WELFARE
Jeannine Stergios
 
Posts: 9306
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 6:36 pm
Location: Jessica Drive Merrimack

Re: The facts

Postby Muriel Lortie » Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:30 pm

Jeannine S. wrote:Wayne

I ought to question your "facts", but I won't bother. What's important is what is a competitive salary for these jobs? If their salaries fall in that area, then I have no problem with them.



Wayne do you really consider that sound logic? If Nashua pays 250K then it's OK if we do as well? These totals are for 3 people!!

Here are the numbers copied straight from the NH Dept of Education site. These are FACTS -

2001-2002
Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 96,000

Tracy, Sharlene 26-Merrimack 85,000

Shevenell, MatthMatthew D. 26-Merrimack 65,100

Total $246,100.00
73,830.00 plus 30% benefits

Total $319,930.00


2002-2003Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 100,800

Tracy, Sharlene 26-Merrimack 89,250

Shevenell, Matthew D. 26-Merrimack 68,355

Total $258,405.00
$ 77,521.50 benefits

Total $335,926.20



2003-2004
Chiafery, Marjorie C. 26-Merrimack 106,848

Woelflein, Deborah 26-Merrimack 92,000

Shevenell, Matthew D. 26-Merrimack 72,456

Total $271,304.00
$ 81,391.20

Total $ 352,695,200




Jeannine S.,
WOW! HOW IS JIM BASS GOING TO GET YOU OUT OF THIS ONE. :lol: :lol: :lol:

YOU ARE IN THE WR0NG THREAD! :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
Muriel Lortie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 10:23 am

Postby carmen vacchiano » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:12 pm

Gizzle ,dennis.AS president of one of the STUCK condo associations being illegally taxed twice by the implementation of the mmk transfer station, I believe time will be the factor that finally puts the dagger in the TS. As our local trash vendors prices rise to perform the service of picking up of our trash and our taxes also rise to subsidize THe mmk,s white elephant TS more and more condo associations will opt to go with the national Trash companies WM,BFI and quit using the local guys.This in turn will cut off the revenue stream that produced the disinformation campan appearing in last years newspaper ads and mailing campaigns.Petitioned warrant articles such as this years bradford woods will finally pass and put Merrimack back in the 21st century.The old guard will finally fade into the sunset and a new and fresh start such as PAYT and ,or CS will be implemented.Dennis BTW our condo associations mean house evaluation is 300,000 putting our annual tax rate at 6200.00 dollars .As you can see another attempt by the ts crowd at warping the numbers by stating condo associations in MMK are revenue negative for the town.This may be true of some of the clusters and Pud in this town but not all.THis too shall pass. as more and more clusters and pud's are built here to preserve our towns shrinking open space thus giving us more voting power. As I predicted last year the same folks that promoted the TS to save mmk jobs are now being replaced by the out of towners as their costs to use their beloved Ts outs them out of buisness making them utilize another towns cheaper site. we here at cwp our in the proces of gathering rfps for our curbside collection.We presently use Buckley the local. I will post the results of the bids for our trash pickup so you can see for yourself who is cheaper.HHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM
carmen vacchiano
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 8:36 am

Re: More costs

Postby RBarnes » Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:57 am

Jeannine S. wrote:One thing that bugs me about you LR people is that you whine about the money being spent for the TS, but compared to the money increases in other areas of the town, the TS is peanuts.


Not true, the solid waste line item on this past years budget rose 234.43%, which is the LARGEST single line item increase on last years town budget. The 2nd largest being Police at 11.77% and as I've stated many times I have no problem spending on police, fire or other protection.

And being as the town is aware of a cheaper alternative to replace the transfer station I see that as a big problem in that we are wasting all this money. As I pointed out to you before regarding the school, if you can show me how we can get the same or better education for our kids be spending less I'll back your idea 110%. So far all you've done is complain about salaries and as I've pointed out we have one of the lowest average salaries for teachers in this area, we are below state and national averages for teachers salaries, we are below state average on the per student cost. I don't see where we could save more on our schools without negatively impacting the school system.

Also for the record look who started the thread criticizing the BOS for wanting to spend money on town signs, that would be me. While the idea is novel and cute it's not something I want my taxes going to fund. So don't try to claim I support all town spending other then on solid waste, because I clearly don't. I go after spending I see as unnecessary or in areas where we have cheaper alternatives. School spending has not been shown to be over spending and schools are not something we can do without like we could with the signs.

Jeannine S. wrote:Please try to be more objective - I know you have a personal interest in the TS issue and I understand how you feel, but do not close your eyes to other issues.


As I said, I have pointed out other areas I feel the town is looking to spend in the wrong place. School so far has not been proven to be one of those areas. If you can show otherwise then I would agree but thus far you haven't.

Jeannine S. wrote:I know you guys don't like me harping about the school but did you know that the SAU people (3 of them) account for over $250,000 between their salaries and benefits? Chiafery's salary is $106,000 which is a $26,000 increase in pay since 2001!! Her assistant makes 95K and their financial director makes 85K - why don't you complain about that too?


As was already stated (and I also pointed out on the school thread) posting salaries alone doesn't show anything. If neighboring schools pay their staff twice that then all that can be said is we underpay even though those are high salaries.

Take the teacher’s salaries for instance... we pay on average I believe it was about 42k a year. That sounds like a good salary but when you consider the state average is 44k (which includes all the very northern NH towns were cost of living is a lot cheaper) and most neighboring towns pay more then we do it clearly shows if anything we UNDER pay our teachers.
User avatar
RBarnes
 
Posts: 6852
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:21 pm
Location: Merrimack

Postby RBarnes » Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:04 am

carmen vacchiano wrote:AS president of one of the STUCK condo associations being illegally taxed twice by the implementation of the mmk transfer station, I believe time will be the factor that finally puts the dagger in the TS.


Carmen, I'm curious as to why you feel what the town is doing is illegal? While I would agree it's unfair to the condo owners and a bit imoral, I don't see it as being illegal.

carmen vacchiano wrote:I will post the results of the bids for our trash pickup so you can see for yourself who is cheaper.


I've already found rates for a couple of the haulers:

$372 for Houle
$361.40 Less Mess
$325 for Buckley
$302 for Waste Management

Although these are household rates, the rates for a condo association (which would be more of a group contract) should average a little cheaper per condo (same as a town wide contract in which ALL the homes in Merrimack were negotiated as one big deal would be even cheaper yet).
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