As of today, PAYT is still a possibility. It certainly got Waste Management's attention. On October 15, Waste Management looked at this blog EIGHTEEN times. There seems to be some conflicting information. WM told me that Cranberry does not have PAYT. Kelly Fraasch disagreed. When I spoke (briefly) with Kelly today, she said that she is working on a blog post, and will post it soon.
Matt Kluck wants to have a discussion as to the pros and cons of PAYT. He asked Tom Kelley to present them at the October 28, 2013 Discussion Session.
PAYT, contrary to the anonymous comment indicating otherwise, may still become a reality.
24 comments:
If I'm paying as I'm throwing I want to pick my own trash service provider, just like commercial businesses do!
The municipality has no authority to dictate which service I use if they're not writing the checks.
WM said that it is an accounting nightmare - for the trash collector, the fee collector, the municipality, and the resident. It will be interesting to hear the comparison.
Elaine
Kelly also said that Cranberry residents were given three cans each, through a grant. One is for recycling, one is for trash, and one is for yard waste. I hope she updates her blog soon. Come to think of it, Kristen should too.
Elaine
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/a-big-problem-for-pittsburghs-small-garbage-haulers-691827/
It sounds like an accounting nightmare that requires more paperwork, more fuel use, more electricity usage (computers to keep track of accounts) and slows collection. the guys picking up the stuff need to monitor and log each households waste.
You know, I think WM said it was an administrative nightmare, not accounting nightmare. I think I better go to sleep!
Elaine
Don't see how it could not be a nightmare in accounting, administration and imolimentation for residents.
They want a couple of pizzas more a year for the current collection
Plan, give it to them.
Screw the ESB, they wouldn't know how much energy or waste would be cut or increased if it fell on them.
It sounds good so they back it!
Matt is right to have Mr. Kelley have us look both ways before crossing PAYT Avenue.
Wondering though does Mr. Kelley have enough information to offer adequate guidance?
Can he even begin to answer the question why does the commission want to cross the road?
How will the commission get to the other side?
What is on the other side?
How does the commission know we want to be on the other side?
What is wrong with this side?
Should the commission cross at the crosswalk or jaywalk?
Should trans associates do a study or will the commission dart into traffic expecting the residents to yield to their all knowing wisdom?
Do we ever learn?
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/recycle/payt/payt.htm
Thanks for that link, Jim. Here is what I found for Cranberry using three containers, which is exactly what Kelly explained. Cranberry PAYT
I wish Mr. Jantz would have explained this more in his article about trash found here. new trash, recycling contract on deck
I wish commissioners would communicate with the PIO more so that shareholders would better informed. It would be so much easier to hear it from the commissioners, rather than relying on Lebo Citizen readers to do the research.
Elaine
I don't know but have heard that government, school district, religious, hospital, commercial office & retail, and non-profit facilities and entities make individual and direct arrangements (contracts,billing, payment, etc.) for refuse removal. If true, then my understanding is that PAYT is being considered for Lebo would apply only to residential households? If this is the case:
The minimum annual Cranberry PAYT FEE cost per household applied to Lebo would be greater than our current average annual TAX cost per household, assuming : only one small garbage container, and no charges for recycling cart or composting cart fees or necessity for bulky item pickup's. Remember that tax costs are tax deductible for fed purposes while fees are not!
As soon as more than one and/or larger cans are required and/or bulky item removal is necessary, the PAYT cost escalates rapidly - assuming still that there is no PAYT fee charge for recycling and composting cart for grass clippings and removal of leaves, etc..
The Lebo 2013 budget for Refuse Removal is $2,088,170 and there are 14,600 residential households or $143 per household-year average.
Now lets hear some actual facts about why PAYT makes economic sense to Lebo taxpayers.
Great information 11:34!
Now lets see, if we take $2,088,170 out of the municipal budget and we cut the $857,000 the municipality puts into MtL magazine, that is is nearly a cut of $3 million!
Which should result in the municipal millage rate being lowered to reflect that cut.
I'm anxiously awaiting to hear from the Commissioners officially and irrevocably that transferring the PAYT fee cost to taxpaying residents will result in an automatic equivalent millage reduction, with no sleight-of-hand budgeting tomfoolery.
11:34, its not about economic sense.
It is about a bunch of environmentalist that believe you generate too much garbage and want to change your behavior.
They wouldn't care if you pay 500% more in garbage fees as long as they can declare they are the great Mother Earth protectors.
If recycling is such a great idea across the board just examine the price of paper.
Recycled is far more expensive than 'new' paper.
Rag which is made from recycled rag and has been for years is even more expensive.
Why is that you might ask.
Because it is simply a matyer of economics. It takes more energy, creates more environmental pollution to recycle paper than it does to make new paper from a renewable resource... trees.
But recycled sounds so much more progressive!
This isn't about the environment; it's about the officials finding another way to take more of our money.
Its about both, I think.
The ESB gets to puff out their chests about how THEY are saving the environment and the municipal public servants find one more way to take more money - without having to own up to a tax hike!
According to the MTL Green Team:
"Curbside trash removal is NOT free!
Did you know:
• Mt. Lebanon spends over 2 million dollars per year on waste removal?
• Each Mt. Lebanon household pays an average of $162.48 in 2013 taxes for its share of solid waste?"
Now you claim 11:34 that each household pays $143 for trash collection under the current system.
I don't know if these are acceptabled answers under Terc math or not, but they aren't for me and I hope the commissioners come up with definitive answers.
How much does the average household pay for trash under the current system and what will the real cost of PAYT be to each homeowner.
I suspect, like the under reassessments for high priced homes, PAYT will shift the burden of trash collection onto the lower and middle priced homeowner.
The Manor and like-assessed homeowners will see another tax cut.
Hey, MTL Green Team. Thanks for informing us that curbside trash removal is NOT free! We didn't already know that. We thought WM was just picking up our trash because they like us. Maybe we should alert the media? This PAYT bait and switch scheme will just end up costing the taxpayers more while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.
Actually 1:14, if recycling was such a smart idea WM would be paying you.
People steal copper downspot and wire because recyclers will pay good money for it.
Turning you gold and silver in for cash is recycling.
Collecting aluminum cans and turning it in for cash is recycling.
I'm thinking, I'll pay WM to take my garbage, but they should pay me for my recyclables. Suppisedily they're worth money, so why shouldn't I get paid for them!
Just wait.
Officials are going to be surprised just where people will start throwing their garbage.
1:14 here. I actually agree with you, 1:52!
1:14 what do you think of this idea and hopefully the Green Team will love it too.
From what I understand, FieldTurf, Mr. Franklin's favorite, is made from polyethlene plastic.
Yep, the same stuff used to make water and soda bottles.
So here's the plan. Screw WM, lets make a deal with FieldTurf.
We generate the plastic bottles for recycling into plastic grass.
We and FieldTurf don't have to pay WM as a middleman.
Its our plastic that has been already paid for at the supermarket going into our plastic grass field, so FieldTurf can give us a big break on the cost of the turf.
We win because we're already buying the plastic and we don't have to pay WM to haul it away!!!
4:29, We could donate our old tires for the base of the turf field and save a disposal charge when we get our tires changed.
I agree with you 4:29. Although, I've heard that the chemicals that are in polyethylene are extremely toxic to the environment. Could be a problem for the green team!
Post a Comment