January 24, 2008
To the Editor:
In preparation for the March vote on garbage collection I think it would be quite useful to the town if you would post on your website your analyses supporting council’s decision not to allow residents to opt out. My preliminary analysis suggests there may be no substantial problems from including the opt-out option.
On the financial side supporters of the plan argue all residents must participate to keep rates low while opponents argue they are being forced to take the service just to subsidize the rates. There is some truth in both. However, my preliminary calculations indicate the subsidy probably only lowers rates about $30 at most even if a substantial number of residences opt out. Hence, it is certainly financially feasible to allow opting out.
On the administrative side permanent op-outs would not seem to present much of a problem since little action is required. However, some citizens may prefer to opt in or out as their circumstances change, e.g., summer residents. But if we had quarterly billing and only allowed opting in or out at the beginning of each quarter, there would be just four changes per year. Also, if those changing their status were required to give advance notice, the quarterly billing rate could be adjusted appropriately to maintain financial integrity. Perhaps in your postings you can firm up my estimates of the impacts of allowing opting out and address any other issues voters should consider in their decision making.
James Root,
Math provided upon request
To the Editor:
Mr. Blank’s letter to the Editor requested the math supporting my conclusion that allowing opting out of garbage collection probably would not pose a financial problem for the town. The following was included in my original letter but deleted by the editor. Suppose that as many as 20 percent of the 6,500 residents opt out and it costs them $100 to dispose of their own trash. Also suppose that the hauler’s marginal cost for providing service to the 20 percent is $115 and that he would agree to a reduction of his $1.5 million fee of $115 for each opt-out residence. To make up for lost revenues due to the opt-outs the town would have to raise its rate for the remaining 80 percent to ((6500 x $235) - (1300 x $115)) / 5200 = $265. The total yearly cost for the plan with opt-outs would then be 5200 x $265 + 1300 x $100 = $1.51 million; slightly less than the cost of 6500 x $235 = $1.53 million for the no-opt-out plan.
However, the main thrust of my letter to the Council and the Editor was to urge our Council to make widely available their rationale and analyses that lead them to a no opt-out plan. These data are conspicuously absent in the Town’s debate.
James Root,
