The Commission took another step closer to implementing a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) program. The waste fee, not to be confused with our recyclables, would be charged to all residents in Mt. Lebanon and promotes a unit-based pricing approach to solid waste management. For example, if you throw away a bag a week, you would be charged less than your neighbor who tosses ten bags a week.
I spoke against this new fee at last night's commission meeting. After watching
this presentation during the discussion session, I thought that it would:
- Boost hoarding
- Provide us with an incentive to dump our garbage in with our recyclables
- Charge us with another fee
- Start illegal dumping of garbage in public places
- Make it more difficult for those who rely on wheeling their garbage to the curb
This opens up a can of worms for me. Why will we paying for stormwater fees, block parties, and garbage collection, when we have a commissioner who wants to use our tax dollars to kill deer? Why not make that "Pay as We Kill?" Why should my tax dollars pay for something that I am opposed to in Mt. Lebanon? Are we going to have "Pay as We Plow?" How about "Pay as We Collect Your Leaves?" Will they charge admission for July 4 fireworks? What about "Pay as We Turf?"
80 comments:
Sad to say, leaf collection cost has already been removed from the general budget and added to the stormwater collection fee list of uses and justification. Uncollected leaves in the streets would clog the stormwater drains is the excuse or justification ! Next will be tree trimming and removal.
Look closely for a coming increase in the fee because of claims of rising costs overall, not because they're adding things to the list. There will be no commensurate reduction in millage. Consider this like a 2-step tax increase.
So will we have to guard our garbage piles to make sure no one is dumping bags on our pile to avoid fees?
The system works now, don't disguise increases as new fees.
Sure it looks like a deal now to those that might throw one bag, but how much do you want to bet the fee will quickly escalate and we'll wind up paying far more.
After all who's is going to handle all the paper work and billing on this. That cost money and time and somebody will pay for it. You know who that'll be.
How can this possibly be more efficient than the current system.
I can see it... "hey, Feller, I got charged for 5 bags of garbage last week! I only put out 2! The other 3 were my neighbors."
Neighbor: "No they weren't!"
Feller: "Somebody is paying for those 3 bags."
"Hi, I'm an attorney with Chasem, Fleecim & Billum." We're professionals in resolving garbage problems."
"Think you are being billed for garbage pick up that wasn't your garbage to begin with? We're experts in creating so much paperwork the municipality will never know what hit 'en. Of course it'll mean more paper work for you, but who's counting.. Just call 1-NOT-MINE for a no-cost consultation."
Sexy - but woefully lacking in analysis and justification
Report shows a $269,000 savings to MTL, is this net of PAYT fees to residents?
As always the devil is in the details
Aw quite your whining!!!!
We have a $1,000,000 park in Scott where you'll be able to walk your dog for free.
You people here complain about everything. Next you'll want to charge MTL magazine for dumping their rag at your door and adding to your garbage pile.
Not mentioned. You get to deduct state and local taxes from your Federal Income Taxes. Fees you can't!, there is no deduction for fees.
Wait a minute---we're ALREADY paying for garbage/recyclable collections through our municipal taxes!
A tax on top of a tax or a fee on top of a tax is too much. Go back to the drawing boards, folks.
To 1:05 PM:
Maybe it's time to put Mt. Lebanon Magazine online or simply put it to rest.
It's been around too long to be fresh
any more, and not publishing it would save money.
Next Mt; Lebanon will start to charge for air, the fee will be prorated based on the size of residents' nostrils! The more sets of nostrils per household the higher the fees.
This place is ridiculous.
12:52 PM, my mistake. You are correct. Leaf collection is being funded by our "rain tax."
It was brought to my attention that the current system is fair. Larger houses are theoretically assessed more, so larger families pay more in taxes, which in turn, have more garbage. I say theoretically since our reassessments weren't always equitable and larger homes may be empty nesters.
Elaine
The next fee will be in the form of rent for that 5' of property the municipality actually "owns" in your front yard.
Bill has a good point.
If they reduce our tax by the amount being collected by residents, that would be the most efficient way to do this.
Currently trash collection is included in our tax bill. This is both good and bad.
Good because the municipality can bid trash collection out to the lowest bidder. Bad because people who throw a ton away are subsidized by those that don't.
In the new scheme I wonder if there is some balance that can be had because I certainly won't be able to bid my garbage collection out to anyone except for the one approved by the municipality. I will be at their mercy.
Anyone know what WM charges for those sacks you can fill with up to 3,800 of trash cost?
Maybe I'll just buy one of those every few months, keep it on the lawn and call WM when it's full and cut Lebo out of collection fees altogether!
Screw 'em!
Looks like $124.00 for a pick up and around $30 for the bagster.
http://www.thebagster.com/products/collection_fees_details.aspx
Elaine
Actually, Pursuing Ketchup has this on their list for fundraisers. Dan Remely is stock piling bagster bags and will charge residents $18 a month as an activity fee.
Bill Cooper will have a pizza stand. The details were worked out at the combined Sports Advisory Board when the Rec Department discussed turfing and lighting Mellon field.
Elaine
Hi Anonymous,
The only government that listens to people is the National Security Agency.
We already have a PAYT. It called the 2nd bond for the HS project when the district will tear down a structurally sound building C and truck it off to a land fill.
All thaOrin exchange for new wings with leaky roofs, cracked, uneven floors and leaning walls.
So what is the plan? $5/40 gal. Garbage bag? Or will it be per pound?
How is that going to work? The collector will pick up all your garbage and weigh it, log the total and the muni will send you a bill.
Our beloved leaders spent millions purchasing useless land and now they're going to fix a garbage collection system that wasn't broken. If there is any homeowner that believes this is going to save them money...I have a bridge over Horsman I'll sell you for only $8/month. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahs!
If we're going to go to to PAYT what do we need the municipality involved for?
If I'm writing checks, I want to be able to shop for the best deal, or maybe the day I want my trash picked up or container I use.
The municipality doesn't get to tell me what paper I read, what phone system, what TV service or grocery store I patronize. So why garbage pick-up if we're paying our own!
Let's carry this a step further... Pay As You Swim, Pay As You Use Fields, Pay As You Read MTL Magazine. Get the municipality out of it all. The commissioner run only the very basic essential services. Recreation... a fee. Library... a fee. Magazine... get a subscription. What else and how many municipal employees can we eliminate?
Want to walk your doggie in the woods in Scott Township woods... You got it -- Pay As You Walk!
If I live on the other side of Lebo or have a cat, why should I pay for a place for Manor folks to walk their dogs.
Need a place to park if your work in Lebo... Pay a parking fee. Get it teachers. Most of us already do if we park at the Noth or South garages.
I think it's time to contact the legal firm of our dreams, the one and only www.Dewey-Cheatham-Howe.com
5:04,
Did you know that International Business Machines Corp and Amazon.com Inc. are competing over a $600 million contract to set up a cloud-computing system for the Central Intelligence Agency? Maybe the only government paying attention to the people isn’t just the National Security Agency
Let's not forget that the municipality may "need" to hire more staff to handle garbage fees. More bureaucracy in action.
I agree with 10:49 PM; perhaps legal counsel is needed.
Elaine,
I am usually with you on things. On this I am 180 degrees different.
The current trash pickup plan is nothing less than a communistic way to pay for things. That is, no matter how little or how much you trash, you shall pay the same amount.
On top of the pay structure, there is absolutely no incentive for people to reduce waste. Why should they if 100% of their trash gets picked up?
A pay as you throw program is the most capitalistic approach of waste services. YOU will control how much you pay based on how many containers of trash you have picked up.
I'd urge you and others to learn more about the program before completely deciding against it.
Right now my understanding is that the municipality is weighing the merits of a number of different programs, all of which will cost residents less money.
For instance, if the municipality was to reduce its budget and millage by $500,000 and residents were to be charged fees per containers totaling $300,000, this is a nice savings to all taxpayers.
Your fears, I think, are overblown. Single Payer systems (like Obamacare) are what I thought we were all trying to fight against.
You lost me at incentive for people to reduce waste. The municipality has electronic recycling events. They also have yard waste pickups frequently, previously known as woody waste but was changed for obvious reasons. I cheerfully recycle newspapers at local churches. If my neighbor has five garbage cans out, and I have five recycling cans out, what's the difference?
How many rain barrel credits have been issued in Mt. Lebanon? Sorry, 6:16 AM, I have sat through a couple of presentations and I'm not buying it. Just as I had said that the high school renovation is a bad plan, I am saying that this is a bad plan too.
Elaine
6:16, the problem is, residents have to get rid of their garbage one way or another.
Having to pay for it will only force residents to find more creative ways to get rid of the stuff.
I could list numerous ways, but don't want to give people any ideas, most of which are illegal.
Picking up our trash, however much we generate from our households, is a function of our municipality. We already pay dearly for this important role of government in our lives. It helps improve sanitation, cleanliness, public health and overall appearance of our town. Changing the way people pay for refuse service will have a negative effect on our quality of life.
I understand the theoretical economics behind pay as you throw - but have not seen any details that indicate those economics have any application here in the bubble.
All I have seen is that the Municipality can save money to spend on other things, if they pass all or some of the cost of collection on to residents. There is a possibility for a tax reduction - but who believes that would ever happen?
I went to look at the Environmental Sustainability Board's agendas and minutes to see what can be gleaned from their work in this area - they don't even have a link on the Municipal website for minutes and agendas. No help here.
Note to Mt. Lebanon Commission: Let's start with identifying the problem.
We have plenty of examples of wasteful decisions in our Community (some more expensive than others, but nevertheless wasteful) all with the common element of following bad process - let's not add another one to the list.
6:16 PM, do you seriously and honestly believe that the muni would lower millage to reflect cost savings by transferring the cost to residents as an added cost in the form of a fee ? If so, you are either terribly naive or a spokesperson for the muni !
And further to Elaine's points, here's an example of how the governments conspire to screw the masses. Taking her rain barrel example the next step, are you aware that the muni provides a 50% reduction in the storm water fee to the school district for each of the 10 school building properties that offer only 2 hours of environmental conservation instruction during an entire school year ? That would amount to $ thousands a year that would have to be made up by individual property owners. And then the muni has the nerve to offer the individual property owner a measly $25 storm water fee credit if they purchase, install and operate an approved rain barrel that costs over $100. And then there are hundreds of property owners whose property is not connected to the muni storm water system at all who have to pay the full freight.
Yeah, 6:16 AM, keep believing the government is really here to help us.
8:33 AM, we have hoarders and we have rats.
Reading up on PAYT, education is a big part of a successful PAYT program. I like to think that residents already make a conscious effort to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Elaine
6:16 here again.
The issue from what I gather is that the municipality, if it continues providing trash pickup service as it has for years, is facing a huge spike in costs for dumping trash. The current systems is a pay-by-the-pound scheme. The per pound cost is skyrocketing.
Rather than be content to pass this rising cost onto the Mt. Lebanon taxpayers, the commissioners are trying to get ahead of the spike and figure out if there is a more efficient way to deliver the service, or to reform the service altogether.
One such way to reduce overall cost of trash pickup is to implement a form of some PAYT program. There is absolutely 100% chance that on a per-resident basis and total cost basis, a PAYT program would cost less than the current single-payer scheme.
That's the problem that is trying to be addressed. If we change nothing, if those complaining about changing the system get their way, they will force a nice fat tax hike onto the backs of the already overburdened Mt. Lebanon taxpayers.
I don't want to go so far as to say the current system is unsustainable. It clearly is sustainable, but only with significant increases in taxpayer funding.
On this issue I appreciate the Commission looking 6-8 months down the road instead of waiting for something like this to hit them like a ton of bricks.
If/when any PAYT program is implemented in this town, it will be incumbent upon the current commission to refund saved tax dollars back to the community. In fact, that was part of the presentation the other night...ways to refund the savings.
I'd like to look at this in three phases:
1. What do the increased costs to our entire community look like if we do nothing?
2. How much would it cost the entire community to move to a PAYT program?
3. How will those savings be passed along to the taxpayers?
Numbers 1 and 2 above should be pretty hard numbers.
I'd suggest that readers of this blog think of it in those terms as well.
I get that many don't trust government but that works both ways. This decentralization effort on the part of trash collection is removing governmental control of a part of your life. That's a good thing. At the same time, you have to trust that the government will refund tax dollars that it has already budgeted for. But, I suspect if you raise hell about that one issue, they will have not choice but to realize it is the right thing to do.
PAYT is a municipal shell game otherwise the specifics and economics of the plan would be spelled out in black and white.
6:16 how much does each household pay for garbage collection now, EXACTLY? How much does it cost the municipality to run the current system, EXACTLY?
None of this "for instance" stuff. Let's see real numbers!
Then let's see what the charges for the new program are going to be.
As far as the Environmental Sustainability Board, it's a feel good, busy body committee with very little facts on anything.
8:38
I never said the govt was here to help us. Exactly the opposite in fact.
So get them out of unilaterally negotiating your trash pick up. How about you determine if you want to throw away one or two barrels of trash on trash day. Instead of your commission telling you you MUST have two barrels and you WILL pay this much, why don't YOU want to make that call.
You will likely recycle MORE. You will likely throw away LESS. And you will likely pay LESS. Those are three good outcomes!
Next thing, the Environemtal Sustainablity Board will have volunteer trash pick-up days on Washington Road.
Not only will taxpayers pay taxes for refuse pickup and public works cleaning, law-abiding ones will pay for their own bags individually and be expected to pick up after those who both don't pay for PAYT and litter on public highways.
Garbage fee for Garbage turf !!!!!
Thanks, Dave(s).
9:47, Here is where you have it wrong.
Instead of modifying behavior by charging a different way, how about taxing residents based on what it actually costs the municipality?
Suppose it is 30% cheaper to use PAYT. What if the municipality could purchase an insurance policy to pay for refuse disposal in excess of the current average, for 10%. The municipality can then reduce our taxes by 20%, we still have PAYT, but the residents would be none the wiser!
6:16, 9:31, I get what you are saying, but I am still cranky over the stormwater fee. I doubt that the savings will be passed on.
If we can go to a system where residents have to pay out of their own pockets to have deer killed, then I could be onboard for PAYT. If we could get the sports people to pay for their beloved turf, then I could be onboard for PAYT. If Mt. Lebanon magazine would be through subscription only, then I could be onboard for PAYT.
We do have some control over our expenses. I think that starting with PAYT is premature.
Elaine
I suspect 6:16 is either a commissioner or my first guess a municipal "public servant." Why else employ "doublespeak" to promote the PAYT scheme?
I'll offer the following 6:16 claim:
"There is absolutely 100% chance that on a per-resident basis and total cost basis, a PAYT program would cost less than the current single-payer scheme."
If something is absolute or 100% it is no longer a chance! So why not just show the absolute rather than conjecture? They're waffling, protecting their butt that it probably isn't going to cost less. If it was going to save taxpayers money they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
Since the Environment Sustainability Board has been brought up.
Curious, these do-foisted that are advocating these green policies... has anyone ever checked to see if they practice what they preach?
Do they drive fuel efficient vehicles like Prius or Volts, bike or walk whenever possible.
Anyone check their lamppost... Incandescent, CFL or LED?
How about reusable canvas bags when they go to market?
Just curious.
10:40
Isn't the suggestion that it costs less simply confirm what Mr. Matthews said in his 6/12 1:01 comment?
The numbers have already been published.
And no, I am no commissioner nor do I work for the municipality. Heck, I don't even work for the garbage company. I am a resident who thinks it is better that we not raise taxes to pay for too expensive garbage collection.
The bulk of this board seems to WANT higher taxes. Given the history of this blog, that just boggles my mind.
The commissioners will say that this is a fair share means to pay for garbage. These same commissioners when asked to fair share the cost of athletic fields think we already do and maybe we do not even fair share enough. The fare sharing should be fairer.
Many communities in PA have a large standardized trash can for all residents - anything above that amount of trash is charged extra. Would that be acceptable? And frankly, if we have hoarders, I doubt that limiting the trash they can put out each week would help - hence, the term "hoarders." They don't get rid of their stuff!
Who wants to bet on how long it will be before Lebomag crew will present a completely objective, unbiased report on the joys and cost-savings of a PAYT garbage collection plan?
The usual we'll cover your departments back if you protect ours quid pro quo.
10:47 I didn't read Matthews 1:01 comment as a confirmation that PAYT cost less. In fact, I thought he was suggesting that the devil is in the details and it might not be less costly.
Bill will have to tell us what he meant.
You mean like this, 11:28 AM?
http://lebocitizens.blogspot.com/2013/03/pay-as-you-throw.html?m=0
I shared a link to a Feb. 26 lebomag.com article.
What happens if road salt continues to increase as it has? Will we be paying a salt fee?
11:08 AM, I understand the concept of hoarding. Paying for trash pick up will encourage more people to start hoarding.
Elaine
There is no question that our current trash collection system is collectivist and does not allow for free market choices. The cost for collection is calculated and then spread out across the polity. Because it is built into the property tax, the actual cost of trash collection for any given homeowner bears no resemblance to the actual cost incurred; i.e., a particular homeowner's "share" of trash collection is consigned to the "value" of his or her (or their) home in proportion to the total costs to the community. Because of this system the "little old lady" living on a social security and a dead husband's retirement plan, and who generates very little in the way of trash, is paying not only for her garbage but is subsidizing everyone else as well.
From a libertarian perspective, PAYT should not be dismissed out of hand (see "From Oakland to Chicago to Jacksonville, Mayors Are Using Privatization" from the Reason Foundation). The important questions are these:
1. Will PAYT result in savings to the municipality?
2. Will those savings be returned to the taxpayer?
3. Does PAYT impose additional legal burdens upon the homeowner?
4. Is PAYT voluntary?
Number 4 may be out of the question in Mt. Lebanon, but in some towns - particularly out west - private contractors compete for a homeowner's business based on services provided to the homeowner.
Having listened to the Commission's discussion session I was left with more questions than answers. Although the speaker from Waste Zero did offer one example of a municipality that offered "credit back" through a debit card scheme, he seemed to indicate that most places he dealt with did not change their tax structure to rebate the cost savings.
To their credit, the commissioners have not made PAYT a "done deal" as yet, and are apparently looking to get more information and other ideas.
They want us to pay a user fee for solid waste always paid for with our taxes; but, they steadfastly refuse to charge a user fee for athletic fields paid for by our taxes ?
Of course they do charge user fees for golf, swimming, tennis, ice rink and paddle tennis. Go figure. Talk about convoluted thinking !
Yep, exactly like that Elaine, thanks for the reminder.
Here we are 3 months later and still no numbers, but we do have conjecture.
10:47 says they aren't a commissioner or public employee... fair enough, but where do they come up with the hard numbers supporting their claim that PAYT will be absolutely, 100% less expensive for the individual taxpayer? It may indeed be, but before I'm signing on to support it I want to see some hard, verifiable facts.
Remember 10:47, we got an Expensive FAQ in the mail that suggested our high school project would bid in far below the cap. It didn't, but Cappucci, Posti, Kubit, Birks, Remely were absolutely, 100% sure it would. The VOICE/BOSN/REALLEBO bought that line too.
It's been suggested a fair system would be everybody gets say 2 free cans picked up and anything over PAYT. How's that fair? The little widow that generates little more than a Giant Eagle bag every week pays for 2 cans she doesn't use, fee still not equitable, hun?
The systems not broke, leave it alone. If the commissioners are so hot on saving taxpayers money, get rid of the money draining McNeilly and Scott properties. Kill the climbing wall at the pool. How many residents do you think will use it?
Scott Park, will we be charging dog walkers per doo-doo bag?
Seriously, the muni will be paying staff to go into the park and collect and dispose of people's dog shit.
Should I have to pay for their crap collection?
If Me. Gideon's #4 appears in the PAYT scheme, where I'm free to shop for the best deal that suits my needs AND the municipality reduces our tax bills by all the money spent for tax collection I could be on board.
Conpetition always results in lower cost or better service.
Wait a second, how the heck did this become about BOSN/High School Project.
I don't understand the mentality here unless it is just a gripe forum.
Do you want the municipality to figure out a way to reduce garbage collection fees (and the resulting tax hike) or not?
If you have ideas that are better than PAYT, then put them out there. So far I have only heard that you want to keep the existing, escalating cost system and not be open to PAYT.
Those like Bill and Richard are rightfully keeping at least one ear open to the possibility that a new way to pay for garbage collection could be a solution.
How did we get $800,000 to pay for turf and now need a garbage fee? Please explain that to me like I am a sixth grader.
John
12:59 this has not become about the high school project. It was only brought up as an example of where we have heard from certain factions in the community that something was an absolute certainty. It was an absolute certainty that the HS project would be around $100 million or less.You're also wrong in your second paragraph. It is not just a gripe session. I've suggested that I like the current system, but if the community finds it too expensive to continue then by all means investigate all options. My ideas which you don't seem to want to acknowledge are:
1. If we go to a PAYT, all taxes collected by the municipality need to be taken out of the millage rate. They don't shift to a collection fee and use the current millage for something else... Like turfing athletic fields.
2. As Me. Gideon suggest, if we go PAYT, I'd prefer to be able to shop around, say we do now for cable. I'm free to use Comcast, Verizon, Dish. If I'm PAYTing why does the municipality get to dictate my garage "provider."
3. I could accept a composite plan, which I actually thought was in place when I first moved here. I actually thought residents were limited to 2 - 50 gal. cans and arrangement had to be made for anything above like furniture etc.
Not crazy about 3 since it doesn't seem fair to seniors and singles that might not even fill 1 can each week.
So, it's not about griping here as you so like to accuse.
It's about opinions and discussions.
So you can draw up sides or engage in nature conversation.
John,
Here is what I have found out about that. The unassigned fund balance is to go toward capital improvements. David Donnellan went to the Turf Board and said that there is about $850,000 available in the fund. Froggy Franklin bullied the Women's Golf representative when she brought up concerns about the golf course. He said that we already spent $ on holes 4 and 5. Of course, it doesn't matter that we are fixing up Brafferton for a multi purpose field, or that we have improved Bird Park. They were so rude to her. The turf bullies can even say that a vote was taken at the Turf Board for turf, because the video of the meeting was damaged and there is no audio available. The only time that has ever happened. Huh! What a coincidence! Fortunately, the podcast on lebocitizens.com proves that no such vote transpired.
So that is how we have the vultures circling for turf. Two different funds, John.
Elaine
I'm thinking we need a MTL vehicle fee.
After all Cadillac Escalades, Lincoln Navigatiors, Lexus LXs and Chevy Suburbans are harder on roads, take up more space and spew more hydrocarbons than VW Golfs, Toyota Matrixs or Nissan Sentras.
So why not a PAYDrive fee? It was only a few years ago that the commission was going to float a bond to pave streets.
Its fair, the more car you put on the road-the more you should pay, and it'll work as a carrot to get all those PTA moms to drive more fuel efficient vehicles and save the environment. After all, you can get your kid to scouts or soccer and still carry 2 Trader Joe bags in a mini Cooper. Plus if everyone drove compacts we could get more cars in the municipal lots.
Elaine,
Dollars can be transferred from one fund to another. I still need an explanation why we need a garbage fee to pay for turf.
Also, where is the usual public/private partnership promise of $125,000 from the Soccer Association?
Thirdly, why are golfers paying to play and the parents get turf for free?
I don't want to pay a garbage fee so Franklin can bully his way to freebee turf. Cut the garbage fee and the fees for resident golfers.
We could all help curtail costs out by lowering our waste stream. Furthermore, if we bought and consumed less, utilized yard sales and flea markets to dispose of items we no longer want (also donating useable items to charitable organizations), we could have more discretionary funds to pay taxes and fees that are inevitable. Hope to see you a Trader Jacks!
I think this is a great idea IF we first determine the actual cost that we are paying, reduce our municipal taxes accordingly, and start at a zero basis.
Concord, Massachusetts has a curbside collection program that is fee funded and tax dollars do not support the program. You can opt in or not. Subscribers pay two separate fees: a semi-annual subscription fee ($105.00) and a disposal fee ($1.50 per tag or $39.00 for a six month barrel sticker). The barrel sticker allows you to dispose of the contents of one 20 gallon can per week. You buy tags for $1.50 for more than the 20 gallon can - like a bag of garbage. Recycling is unlimited and you can actually recycle just about everything. We had a trash compactor and three kids and rarely exceeded the can limit. It was a great system that did not require me to subsidize my neighbor throwing out a sofa or a refrigerator. They also had a municipal lot where you could dispose of just about everything that the town then sold to recyclers.
It is funny to read some of these posts. You guys really don't like change of any sort. I'd encourage our Commission or staff to contact Concord to see how they implemented it because they have been recognized for many years as best in class. I fully support this presuming we can trust our officials to REDUCE our taxes by our proportionate share of the current collection.
Where did you see that we don'tlike change?
Why don't you focus on we expect fiscal responsibilty?
If we indeed need to change your "zeroing out" is the place to start.
But, pay close attention because the commissioners never zeroed anything when they implemented the storm water fee. Our municipal taxes prior to the fee were suppose to be paying for the maintenance/upgrades of the stormeater system., maiintain roads, parks etc.
But instead of upkeep, the leaders chose to buy parks and, ket adding stuff they also didn't provide funds for maintenance.
We have $2 million invested inwoods and about all they are good for is dog sh*t disposal sites.
7:37 - I offered a suggestion to a model that works. Please don't insult me - read my first sentence. It says IF... Why don't you focus on THIS issue and see if we can get the Commissioners and staff to demonstrate that they are capable of not pulling a bait and switch.
As for not liking change, this valid topic denigrates into concern about hoarders, paperwork, my neighbor leaving their garbage in my pile, parks, dog s##t, and other topics which have zero relation to the topic at hand. I plan to call my commissioner with a valid suggestion to explore. No wonder that the officials don't listen all the time. Read this thread and it is easy to see why. I'd suggest rather than insulting me that you do some research and provide at least one meaningful solution to the problem. That being said, if my taxes are not going to be proportionately reduced, I will be yelling foul.
10:57 where did I insult you, I agreed with you except for one point.
I'm not as yet convince that we need to change our current system. How much will they have to raise taxes to keep the current collection system in place?
If it is a huge increase and the community doesn't want to pay that, them I'm on board with your suggestion.
Zero out the millage for the old collection plan and start from scratch.
Why are you so angry?
Remember the $8,000,000 pledge from the deadbeat athletic supporters? We could sure use that money now!
I checked with an official in a neighboring local community that I know charges a fee.
Peters charges $52 a quarter for the collection of both household solids and recyclables.
The collection is NOT paid for with any tax money.
Fair enough and thanks for the info.
So now, what does MTL charge each homeowner for garbage collection through taxes?
3:19 PM, according to page 42 of the budget found here
http://www.mtlebanon.org/DocumentCenter/View/9101
"Weekly Garbage and Refuse Collection and Bi-weekly Recycling" the number listed is $2,071,470. What does that equal? A mill?
Elaine
Thanks for the numbers. One comparison would be there are supposedly 13,640 households in Lebo. Divide the $2,071,470 by those households and it works out to $151.87/year for garbage collection.
Compared to Peters $208/year PAYT fee.
Seems to me we've got a nice system for a nice price.
Even if WM wanted to tack on a 10-20% increase we'd still be ahead of Peters PAYT in my opinion.
Unless of course there is something wrong in my math!
Now the other reason there may be a push to PAYT is that homeowners in the MacMansions figure they'll pay less by can in PAYT than they pay now for garbage collection thru millage.
Oh, by the way if you charged MTLs 13,640 households at Peters annual PAYT rate of $208 the yield would be $2,837,120 for garbage collection.
A substantial increase over what we pay now in MTL.
So who now thinks the commissioners are looking out for our interest?
MTLs line item for garbage collection of $2,071,470 divided by 13,610 households equals $151.87 for household. Substantially less than Peters $208/yr PAYT.
I vote we keep our current plan.
I'm betting some Mansion homeowners are thinking they'll benefit from a PAYt plan as opposed to millage related fee.
A commissioner said that we are due for a large increase in 2015. I wonder if there should be another request for proposal.(RFP)
Elaine
Getting numbers from other communities is a great idea, but the best comparisons are between communities of the same (or nearly the same) area and density. Consequently, comparing Mt. Lebanon to Peters Township needs some qualification.
Peters Township covers 19.6 square miles, while Mt. Lebanon is 6.06 square miles. Population? Peters Township's 2010 Census figures show 21,213 compared to 31,137 for Mt. Lebanon. Any trash company setting rates for a community, whether they do it by contract with a local government or private pickup, has to consider not only how many stops they have to make, but how much territory they have to cover. It is likely more cost effective to pick up trash for 30 houses along 1000 feet than 30 houses along a half-mile.
I'm not commending or disparaging the system in Peters because I don't have enough total information to make a scaled comparison - and I think that's the point.
A good point, Richard. But it is also the point behind the conversation here.
A thorough discussion of where the rates are headed, the total cost of a PAYT should occur. Unfortunately, our governing nodules aren't known for their transparency lately.
The point, as I see it, is that is residents are going to have to pay for garbage collection, they deserve a millage reduction. No paying twice for the same thing.
Just for the sake of saying that a few related facts were included in this long string, here are a few facts about Mt. Lebanon :
~ $2.1 million/yr. 2013 budget for refuse collection,
~ 2010 Census population of 33,137
~ $63 per capita per year
~ annual report says tax cost is $59/capita/yr.
~ 14,300 tons/yr. of garbage/trash
~ 2,200 tons/yr. of recycling
~ 1 mill = $2,600,000
Maybe someone can figure out and demonstrate what a millage reduction could potentially amount to for adopting PAYT. It will be OK to use TERC Investigations math in developing the answer.
Bill Lewis
Hi Bill,
Since I can use TERC Investigations to compute the offsetting millage reduction for a PAYT fee increase, I think 2.1 billion in assessed value divided by 2.6 billion in assessed value is about 0.81 mills reduction in property taxes to offset the PAYT fee. Of course it really should be higher than 0.81 mills because the municipality just relieved us of the tax deduction on 0.81 mills if we itemize our taxes. Applying a modest 25% tax rate the millage reduction would bring us to 1.00 mill to make us whole again.
Actually, 11:26, if you were to reduce the Municipal tax rate by 0.81 mills, that would reduce your federal tax deduction, not increase it. So, using your 25 marginal bracket, a reduction of 0.81 mills would only yield you about 0.61 mills (you'd lose the rest in higher federal income tax).--Neil Berch
Then the opposite would be true wouldn't, if we stayed with the current garbage collection billing?
The municipality raises the millage the necessary amount, then the federal tax deduction would actually reduced the end impact on taxpayers wallets.... Right?!
So the quest is to find the beat plan for the best price. Hopefully, our public employees will do the hard work necessary and the present our commissioners with ALL the facts so they can approve the best plan, not the most convenient solution.
There are, of course, other considerations, but, in general, one argument for localities using taxes rather than fees, is that taxes are deductible on your federal income tax. While not everyone in MTL is in the 25% tax bracket (and not everyone itemizes deductions), it could be argued that the federal government subsidizes local income and property taxes, probably to the aggregate tune of 10-15% of the total.--Neil Berch
Today's PG has an article about smaller sanitation companies who don't stand a chance against the industry's major players.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/a-big-problem-for-pittsburghs-small-garbage-haulers-691827/
Elaine
Neil,
Please show us the Federal subsidy in our municipal and school budgets that amounts to 10%-15% of their budgets.I really would like to see that document.
11:30: I said that was the effect. Since your state and local income taxes (but not your sales taxes; you can choose one or the other, and it virtually always makes sense to choose income taxes), as well as your property taxes (but not user fees) are deductible on your federal income taxes (if you itemize deductions), the effect is a federal subsidy of state and local income and property taxes. Sticking just to the simple case of the school property tax, if the rate goes up by 1 mill, and your house is assessed at $200,000, your property tax goes up by $200. If you're in the 25% marginal federal tax bracket (as many people in MTL are), you would save $50 on your federal income tax. Thus, the federal government subsidizes the local property tax (but doesn't subsidize user fees).
Not everyone is in the 25% marginal bracket (the percentage you pay on your last dollar of income, not the average percentage that you pay). Some are in higher brackets, more are probably in lower brackets. I would guess that the average for MTL is probably in the 18-20% range. When you factor in that some people don't itemize deductions (and thus don't benefit from this subsidy), a reasonable guess is that the federal government subsidizes 10-15% of local property taxes in MTL.--Neil Berch
Excellent explanation, Neil.
Here is something that no one ever considers when they fall for the lure of switching to fee based charges for services that government used to provide from one tax fee.
Here's what happens and ask yourself... How is this more efficient, more cost effective or environmentally sound than our current garbage collection system?
On a fee system the municipality will bill households quarterly (most likely).
So they send a bill to the 13,600 households. What's that around 40 cents in postage for each bill, not including the cost of printing, stuffing envelopes, paper and envelopes. So each quarters billing cost around $5,440 (at least $20,000 annually).
Then to pay these individual fees, 13,600 households must spend $6,256 quarterly to send in their payment. $25,024 annually.
So this one little fee sucks $45,000 out of the community's collective wallet annually that does nothing more than pay for something that came out of a one time tax.
Then figure the same thing happens on the rain water fee. Now we're approaching $100,000 annually for two fees no one ever thought about.
Now residents must do additionally bookkeeping, check writing, watch due dates. Add on the escalating fees the district is tacking on... Student parking fees, participation fees, lab fees, book fees and on and on.
All of which complicates things, adds staff, and paperwork.
And our elected officials want us to believe they're looking out for our interest!
Are we idiots or what?
Plus, who is going to monitor and execute these fills and records?
The current municipal staff? Do they have so much free time that they'll be able to monitor who's putting out two garage cans and who is putting out more?
Eventually, somebody is going to add office personnel, WM, the municipality or Weinstein. Therefore increasing cost once again.
The busybodies in the PIO office have plenty of time to harass Post-Gazette editors.
Post a Comment