Should we move to PAYT or fund through the tax rate?

Moderator: The Merrimack Volunteer Moderators

Should we move to PAYT or fund through the tax rate?

Pay As You Throw
33
48%
Disposal costs paid through property tax
36
52%
 
Total votes : 69

Should we move to PAYT or fund through the tax rate?

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Thu Dec 12, 2002 2:38 am

Which do you prefer?

-Nat
Last edited by Nat Fairbanks on Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
Nat Fairbanks
 
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 1:05 am
Location: Merrimack NH

Postby joe179 » Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:01 am

I personally don't know if PAYT as it is presented here gives an accurate accounting of what the program would actually entail. If PAYT is instituted, would people be reimbursed for the recycle items they bring to the TS? Would PAYT be per bag or receptacle or by the load? e.g., If I haul my trash to the TS would someone be there to count or assess the amount of trash I bring? Would I have to pay a bill on the spot, or would I receive a bill periodically in the mail? Would the contracted haulers have their loads counted or assesed when they drive into the TS? Whatever the "system", it would have to be the same for all haulers private ot contracted.

Unitl these questions are addressed it appears to me that PAYT could be a complicted affair as "equity" issues may exist. Additionally, from the surface it looks like it could be somewhat complicated as the only way to ensure equity would be for the TS to have personnel assigned to count/assess loads, issue billing, and manage the finances of such a program. This could represent long lines on certain days as one enters the TS to wait for their count/assessment of trash and recycles, and then agree to the result ...
User avatar
joe179
 
Posts: 1316
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 9:17 am
Location: Merrimack

PAYT

Postby Norman Phillips » Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:09 am

Joe, I think that before a poll is taken on PAYT, the subject should be explored in considerable depth. As you point out, the mechanics can be complicated. Most importantly, the need for PAYT is different for a transfer station than for curbside. And the simple poll does not allow for that aspect. Norm

PS. of course you might be interested in the sociological question of what do people think BEFORE, and what do they think AFTER a dialogue?
But I doubt that is your interest.

Incidentally, the original SWAC explored PAYT in considerable detail and concluded that it was extremely important. It was a shame that circumstances last March and April kept them from their assumed duty to publicize the virtues of PAYT.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Norman Phillips » Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:37 am

As a simple example, putting the cost of a transfer station on the tax rate would be an outlandish subsidy of the business and commercial trash GENERATORS by the residents. This is because the tax base for residents is around 1.8 billion dollars, while the Commercial/Industrial tax base is somewhat less than half a billion dollars. ( Everyone, residential or commercial, has the same tax rate applied in the levying of property tax on their property. ) I plan to address this problem before the BOS on December 19.


Consider on the other hand use of a tipping fee to pay for the transfer station operation. The per ton cost of running the entire transfer station operation is in the vicintiy of $140. Residents seem to generate about 1.2 tons per year as closely as I can calculate, translating into $168 per year. Since self-haulers cannot be assessed a tipping fee according to the vote on Article 17 last April, THEY WOULD GET A FREE RIDE FOR $165 per year if the transfer station operation were financed entirely by tipping fees. They constitute about one third of the residents. Their share of the total cost would be assumed mostly by the other residents.

AND ONE MIGHT EXPECT MORE AND MORE RESIDENTS TO BECOME "SELF-HAULERS", adding to the inequity. [For you engineers out there, this is an example of positive feedback

Hence, in my view, the turndown of Article 17 last April has effectively and completely removed a transfer station from the realm of equitable funding.


On the other hand, the conventional curbside program does not service business/commercial properties. However, since the tax base for them is less than one third of the residential base, the financial inequity is not large---most of the cost of a curbside program on the tax rate would be paid by the residents it serves.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Mark Fitzgerald » Thu Dec 12, 2002 9:02 am

Norman,

You have hit the nail squarely on the head. This has been the issue I most strongly object to about a transfer station. I stated in another thread, this known fact should have prompted our leadership to make any TS dependent upon PAYT approval. By now they are well aware of this problem.

I do have other problems with the TS such as the inability to justify the up-front capital costs of $2,000,000 and the additional expense in yearly costs of $560,000. While these are important facts to consider, the inequity is the biggest drawback.
Mark Fitzgerald
 

Postby Norman Phillips » Thu Dec 12, 2002 11:32 am

Those of you who enjoy exploring numbers may benefit from the following.
  • Generation of waste brought to the landfill is as follows.
  • Residential, whether brought by individuals or private haulers. 11,214 tons per year ( 57%).
  • Generated by business/industrial. 8470 tons per year. ( 43%)
  • Appraised Value( = tax base)
  • Residential $1,807,370,657 (79.4%)
  • business/industrial $468,345,943 ( 20.6%)
  • Residential tax base per ton of residential waste = $161,171
  • Commercial/Industrial tax base per ton of Commercial/industrial waste = $48,928


I got the appraisal numbers a week ago from the Assessor’s Department. The waste generation numbers are based on DPW data collected at the landfill for weighed trash, and then analysed using the rate at which Hudson residents generate trash as picked up in their curbside program. ( 1.22 tons per family per year.) It was also necessary to refer to the agreed upon estimates of 3250 households in Merrimack who self-haul, 3050 single residences who contract for pickup, and 2892 multifamily residences ( e.g. condos).
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Wayne » Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:15 pm

The membership list has grown substantially since this poll was taken. Can we hear from a few more of these 139 members now?
Wayne
 
Posts: 2866
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:47 am
Location: Merrimack

Postby Ann Goldman » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:17 pm

Is there a way to keep polls at the top of a topic board? I thought that this software had "sticky notes".

Annie
Ann Goldman
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 2:22 pm

Postby Norman Phillips » Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:24 pm

:?: :?: I am in favor ot PAYT, but not on the warrant this year. Wait until the method is known, so voters can visualize the PAYT operation clearly. :?: :?:
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Postby Ann Goldman » Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:59 pm

Dear Norman,

I understand your position but knowing the type of funding for trash disposal is part of the decision making process.

For example:
If I were a person who was not concerned with the environment and thought that our taxes were going to pay for trash disposal I may prefer a TS so I can dump as many bags of trash as I want and not have to deal with sorting etc. If there was PAYT I may be more inclined to recycle more and if curbside handled the recycling I would favor that.

For me, knowing how we are going to pay for trash disposal is just as important as knowing the method.

I believe that PAYT is the only way to get people in the habit of recycling. It is also empowers each individual to control their own costs for trash disposal. With all the other items that are going to increase our tax rate (school and library) this is one more thing that will add to our taxes.

Annie
Ann Goldman
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 2:22 pm

Postby Chuck Mower » Mon Jan 20, 2003 7:27 pm

Ann,

The BOS is not puting an article forward for pay as you throw. If you petition an article you will not know how to construct a program because you will not know whether we have a transfer station or curbside. Worse yet we are not going to be told what kind of curbside or what kind of TS at all. How could anyone reasonably consider a pay as you throw program for an unknown way of handling trash. The selectmen refuse to tell us what they mean by TS or curbside or how much they cost or how they will work. After we find out what the town thinks it wants to do we can craft a pay as you throw program to fit it but right now it is unknown to us. This is of course outrageous but the selectmen choose not to do better. It is beyond the citizens ability to do anything about it.
Chuck Mower
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:36 am

Postby Nat Fairbanks » Mon Jan 20, 2003 8:29 pm

Ann Goldman wrote:Is there a way to keep polls at the top of a topic board? I thought that this software had "sticky notes".


Good idea, I made this poll "sticky".

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

Postby Norman Phillips » Tue Jan 21, 2003 8:04 am

Chuck and Ann: This thought just occurred to me. The ban on charging residents who "self-haul" applies to charging a fee for access to the landfill, does it not? Perhaps the BOS can impose a PAYT fee for a curbside pickup program that does not need a vote to change the Town Code.
Sincerely, Norm Phillips
Norman Phillips
 
Posts: 5329
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:48 am
Location: 18 Edward Lane, Merrimack NH

Re:

Postby Fitzie » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:51 am

To all of us trying to mold the PAYT issue to our own ends, I copy below an email from Norman Phillips from 2002. This and another I will copy in a moment articulates the TAXPAYER equity situation in such a clear manner that it could only have come from Norman. That town misses his participation right now, but he has already done the work 10 years ago. READ AND LEARN DENNIS.

Norman Phillips wrote:As a simple example, putting the cost of a transfer station on the tax rate would be an outlandish subsidy of the business and commercial trash GENERATORS by the residents. This is because the tax base for residents is around 1.8 billion dollars, while the Commercial/Industrial tax base is somewhat less than half a billion dollars. ( Everyone, residential or commercial, has the same tax rate applied in the levying of property tax on their property. ) I plan to address this problem before the BOS on December 19.


Consider on the other hand use of a tipping fee to pay for the transfer station operation. The per ton cost of running the entire transfer station operation is in the vicintiy of $140. Residents seem to generate about 1.2 tons per year as closely as I can calculate, translating into $168 per year. Since self-haulers cannot be assessed a tipping fee according to the vote on Article 17 last April, THEY WOULD GET A FREE RIDE FOR $165 per year if the transfer station operation were financed entirely by tipping fees. They constitute about one third of the residents. Their share of the total cost would be assumed mostly by the other residents.

AND ONE MIGHT EXPECT MORE AND MORE RESIDENTS TO BECOME "SELF-HAULERS", adding to the inequity. [For you engineers out there, this is an example of positive feedback

Hence, in my view, the turndown of Article 17 last April has effectively and completely removed a transfer station from the realm of equitable funding.


On the other hand, the conventional curbside program does not service business/commercial properties. However, since the tax base for them is less than one third of the residential base, the financial inequity is not large---most of the cost of a curbside program on the tax rate would be paid by the residents it serves.
Last edited by Fitzie on Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Re:

Postby Fitzie » Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:53 am

Keep reading Dennis.....

Take the formulas and predictions Norman made back then estimating tonnage, apply the ACTUAL tonnage (which was much lower) and it's clear. K-A-P-U-T

Norman Phillips wrote:Those of you who enjoy exploring numbers may benefit from the following.
  • Generation of waste brought to the landfill is as follows.
  • Residential, whether brought by individuals or private haulers. 11,214 tons per year ( 57%).
  • Generated by business/industrial. 8470 tons per year. ( 43%)
  • Appraised Value( = tax base)
  • Residential $1,807,370,657 (79.4%)
  • business/industrial $468,345,943 ( 20.6%)
  • Residential tax base per ton of residential waste = $161,171
  • Commercial/Industrial tax base per ton of Commercial/industrial waste = $48,928

I got the appraisal numbers a week ago from the Assessor’s Department. The waste generation numbers are based on DPW data collected at the landfill for weighed trash, and then analysed using the rate at which Hudson residents generate trash as picked up in their curbside program. ( 1.22 tons per family per year.) It was also necessary to refer to the agreed upon estimates of 3250 households in Merrimack who self-haul, 3050 single residences who contract for pickup, and 2892 multifamily residences ( e.g. condos).
Fitzie
 
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:04 pm

Next

Return to Solid Waste, Landfill & Recycling

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron