Loading...
01/02/1996 - City Council SpecialAGENDA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL ,MEETING Tuesday January 2, 1996' 5:00 P.M. Municipal Center Building (Lunchroom) L ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD IIL JOINT MEETING WITH SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION/REFUSE/RECYCLING COLLECTION SYSTEM IV. TENTATIVE CALENDARS FOR JANUARY/FEBRUARY V. OTHER BUSINESS VL ADJOURNMENT _ city of eagan TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM. CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: DECEMBER 28, 1995 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGITUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 1996 MEMO A Special City Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 2, 1996 at 5:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is to meet with the Solid Waste Abatement Commission and hear their report and findings on the City's residential hauling system and further to review the meeting calendar for January/February. REFUSE/RECYCLING COLLECTION SYSTEM Enclosed is a memorandum from the Solid Waste Abatement Commission outlining the recommendation for changes to the City's solid waste collection system and outlining their analysis of the alternatives which were studied in this regard. The Commission, Chair and staff will provide a brief presentation on the study process and recommendation. The majority of the time will be available for the Council to discuss the recommendation with the Commission. The Council will recall that a moratorium on new residential hauling licenses was enacted and extended to permit the completion of this process. The moratorium will expire on February 1. If the Council wishes to adopt changes to the existing solid waste ordinances, they will be prepared and placed on the Council agenda of January 16 to be enforced at the time the moratorium expires. OTHER BUSINESS If time permits, the City Administrator and Director of Community Development will provide a brief update on pending development projects. / Thomas L. Hed es City Administrator f MEMO TO: ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES FROM: CHAIR DAVIS AND MEMBERS OF THE EAGAN SOLID WASTE ABATEMENT COMMISSION DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1995 SUBJECT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING EAGAN'S SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM In November of 1994 the Eagan City Council gave the Solid Waste Abatement Commission the charge to "research systemic ways to reduce the number of garbage and recycling trucks in neighborhoods while maintaining a competitive market." On its face this seems like a relatively straight forward charge, however there are a great number of factors that impact this subject. Some of the options which reduce the number of trucks, effectively eliminate a competitive market, while some that preserve competition and meet all current City, County and State requirements, command a greater number of vehicles to provide the current level of service. There are also several State Statutes that address the process which can and must be followed in implementing some system changes. Resident choice, and level of service issues, business interests and impacts must also be considered. The commission has done its best to balance these factors in providing its recommendation. The Commission felt it would be helpful for you and the City Council members to understand the steps which have been taken in arriving at a recommendation. Pages to r ` attached, outline the process we have applied. Pages / to are a series of matrices which define the current Eagan solid waste collection system, as well as the advantages and disadvantages, relative to the current system, of each other system type that could be implemented within Eagan. A definition of each system type is included at the top of each matrix. Based upon this work, the Commission members used a "paired comparison' exercise to narrow our collective focus so that a recommendation could be made. Since the Commission is made up of residents, business representatives and members of the hauling community, we share a wide range of viewpoints on this subject. The paired comparisons helped the group to come to a majority consensus regarding which system changes to recommend. The group ranked each of the studied system types in the following order, from most to least recommended (based upon the council directive) for implementation: Current System with added requirements Items to be immediately enacted --placing a cap on the number of licenses issued (not to exceed current 9, or fall below 5). --voluntary organization of neighborhoods with increased educational emphasis. --encourage/educate residents to manage yard waste through self -hauling or backyard composting. Items which may be recommended pending further study --one or two day zones for City. --bi-weekly garbage and/or recycling service. --monthly recycling service. --single vendor for recycling. --require residents to self -haul yardwaste. --mandate two truck versus three truck system for haulers. Consortium Contract with several haulers Contract with single hauler Municipal system The Commission looks forward to working with you and the City Council at the workshop, and in the future, to answer questions and to assist in implementing changes to the solid waste collection system. We would also like to acknowledge two residents that each attended a meeting to share their views, and extend our thanks to several representatives of the hauling community who are not members of the Commission, but have assisted in our research throughout the process, especially Ron Moening of BFI, Bob Elliott of Quality Waste Control and Mike Berkopec of Waste Management. We also extend our appreciation to the City staff, Joanna Foote, Jane Hovind, Jon Hohenstein and others who have spent many extra hours to assist the Commission in this process. We hope that this recommendation is satisfactory and look forward to working with you further. Summary August 1994 S.W.A.C. discussion findings a . . STM-M Commission determined it would discuss organized collection options as one of its six 1994 goals, discussion to begin in September, 1994. City Council asked the Commission to consider and study ways in which to reduce the number of refuse trucks in neighborhoods. September 1994 Solid Waste Abatement Commission began discussion of various organized collection systems. Staff provide the following reports and documents for review and discussion: 1989 Pope/Ried Organized Collection Report to the City of Eagan regarding its findings and recommendations for Eagan, (Eagan implemented its current Monday. Wednesday, Friday hauling district system based upon this report). Point/Counter Point from the Resource_ Maaazine "Organized collection is efficient and cost effective" vs. "Open hauling supports competition, serves consumer better" City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study (1993) Mn. State Statute 115A.15 from 1993 Waste Management Act Mn. State Statute 115A.94 (revised 1994) Article from Sept. 1994 Environmental Dispatch. Carver County "Organized Collection Should be A Seriously Considered --"Our View Point" •••• �. _ i• • •U00097 Me -R -TRA W1• I . - 11.x.• - • - -�• • •j ITI •_ • • L_ - ' • ' - • - • - • Staff member Foote provided a map of the city outlining current districts and approximate neighborhoods where documented resident inquiries about the system, had been received from. Approximately 10 inquiries had been documented in the six months staff had been compiling them. Members noted that two of the inquiries included the speed of trucks as an issue in neighborhoods, and determined that this was a separate issue to be dealt with between the Police Department, City Staff and the waste haulers, independent from an organized collection discussion. Eagan Superintendent of streets, Arnie Erhart was in attendance and spoke to the Commission regarding problems created for City staff within the current hauling system including garbage/recycling debris that blows off of trucks and other litter. Commission also requested information regarding road wear statistics for a future meeting. October 1994 Arnie Erhart, Superintendent of Streets provided information and statistics from MNDOT regarding :, roadway engineering and design standards regarding axle weights and their impact on roadways. Commission members determined that there is no quantifiable data specifically regarding garbage trucks and the amount of road wear caused, to make any firm conclusions in regard to this issue. Therefore, the Commission determined it would not base a decision on any issues related to road wear. Members at this point also noted that if truck traffic and the number of haulers is a concern, the commission would like to discuss the feasibility and possibilities of licensing construction/demolition debris haulers. The Commission recommended a moratorium be placed on the issuance of licenses to any new residential refuse haulers until the Organized collection discussion is complete. r 1994 City Council adopted a moratorium on issuance of any new residential refuse licenses until this study is complete, as recommended by the commission. Commission and Council approved the addition of "mixed paper" to targeted recyclables to be picked up in Eagan. Council discussed the status of the organized collection study with the commission members present. Commission composed a clarifying statement of what the direct charge from the City Council is in regard to organized collection. The following statement was agreed to by both groups to be an accurate summary of the charge: To research systemic ways to reduce the number of garbage and recycling trucks in neighborhoods while maintaining a competitive market. At the commission's request, staff compiled a chart for Y Commission review, detailing information obtained from current residential refuse haulers. Information included their estimated number of costumers, the total number of trucks used, type of truck system (i.e. separate recycling truck, refuse truck and yard waste truck or combination of truck types), whether they offer a group rate or neighborhood program rate and other comments haulers wished to add. Eagan Sun Current ran article regarding S.W.A.C. discussion of organized collection and the moratorium on new residential hauler licenses. December 1994 Staff provided a matrix adapted from the 1989 Eagan Organized Collection study, compiled by Pope/Riad & associates, outlining types of collection systems that might be implemented and the pros and cons within (i.e. low, medium or high municipal involvement, infrastructure costs, customer service impacts, etc.) Staff included four new letters received from residents regarding garbage/recycling. One specifically thanked the city for considering organized collection and indicated that they had voluntarily organized their own neighborhood, but the maintenance of that organized process was difficult to sustain. This individual stated that he would like the system to be organized community- wide. A second letter supported contracting with a single hauler for citywide refuse collection and indicated that this "will result in the lowest cost per resident as well as greatly reduced truck traffic with its associated road wear..." A third letter addressed the proliferation of trash in the community and suggested a citywide awareness and clean-up campaign. The fourth letter expressed concerns about garbage being dropped by leaking garbage truck or trucks in a specific neighborhood. 6, Commission members determined that they need to fully understand our current system before it can make an appropriate recommendation. The Commission and staff compiled a summary of "How the Eagan Solid Waste Collection System Works" January 1995 Commission members determined that they ought to analyzing each of the possible system types to determine which if any would be most feasible for Eagan and to determine the benefits and drawbacks of each. The Commission can then begin eliminating system types from discussion to narrow the options. February 1995 Elected new Commission Chair The Commission outlined its 1995 Goals and determined that framing a recommendation regarding organized collection would be its primary goal for 1995 and all other goals would be set aside until a recommendation is framed. A commission retreat with a facilitator was held April 1995 A joint Council/commission retreat was held. The City Council asked for an update on the Commission's organized collection discussion. The members present provided an update and noted that some commission members felt it important to change the City ordinance and begin licensing construction/demolition "roll -off' haulers. Council members stated that they would like to have a recommendation regarding organized collection before the Commission presented this type of recommendation for the licensing of construction/demolition haulers. 6 The Commission determined that it would like to move ahead with recommending an ordinance change regarding the licensing of construction/demolition debris haulers. Staff outlined options that could be discussed as recommendations to change the current hauling system including: 1) Make no changes to current system 2) Frame a resolution of intent to proceed with the 180 -day process as outlined in State Statute 115A.94 (This process would be required for all options under item 2) 2a) Organize a consortium involving all current haulers. 2b) Solicit bids and contract with a specific number of haulers --1 through several (this is only an option if 2a is pursued and a system cannot be agreed upon by City and all current haulers) possible configurations: --citywide --within districts --with regulated competition 2c) Implement Municipal Collection System ( this also is only an option if 2a is pursued and a system cannot be agreed upon by City and all current haulers) 3) Outline a community education program encouraging neighborhoods to explore options to organize themselves 4) Restrict recycling to bi-weekly YC 5) Require haulers to implement a 2 -truck system 6) Other recommendations as determined by the Commission The Commission determined that it would begin eliminating system types that did not seem appropriate for Eagan within the context of the charge issued by the City Council so that it might narrow the field for discussion to focus on those system options that meet the Council/Commission stated objectives. The Commission voted to eliminate a Municipally run collection system based on the following factors: --This system would require a large capital outlay to purchase trucks and other refuse equipment. --Staff increase required to operate system. -- This system provides for no competition or resident choice. --City would be responsible for recovery of "bad debt" --The City should not get into the garbage business when so many others in the private sector are providing this service. --Increased legal liability and insurance costs Members voted, based upon previous work and discussion, to eliminate all options under item 2) (above) that would require the framing of a resolution of intent to proceed with organized collection, based on the following factors previously discussed -- All of the options under item 2) increase City costs and reduce or eliminate citizen/consumer choice. --Alternatives exist which may meet the City's charge without significantly changing the competitive market --The State mandated organization process is weighted toward formation of a consortium which precludes further competition which therefore conflicts with the Commission's charge. -- Other forms of organization reduce the number of haulers able to meet the City's service demands May 1995 Commission reviewed and approved memo to be presented to Council regarding the proposed ordinance change to license construction/demolition haulers and to recommend that several system options be eliminated from further Organized collection systems discussions. City Council reviewed recommended ordinance change and the Commission's decision to eliminate several system options from discussion, and sent both items back for further study and review by the Commission. June 1995 The Commission reviewed a letter from a resident who questioned the number of garbage trucks in her neighborhood. Commission reviewed the tape of the Council meeting and its direction to send items back for review, clarification and further study. The Commission concluded that the Council wants to see more documentation as to how the recommendations are being arrived at. Members therefore decided to go through and define the current system, and also each other system type that could be implemented, and list the advantages and disadvantages of each, within a matrix format. The Commission determined that it should also provide a summary of its actions and discussion regarding organized collection systems, to clarify the reasons for the recommendations to date. Both of these items are anticipated for presentation at a future joint Council Commission workshop. The Commission selected a 3 -member task force to reframe a recommendation and ordinance change regarding the licensing of construction/demolition haulers. It was decided that this group should work on its own, away from regular meetings so the discussion did not take time away from the overall collection system discussions. July 1995 The Commission worked to compile and edit the "Summary of S.W.A.C. discussion and findings regarding organized Collection Systems" Commission members also reviewed the current City Ordinances that pertain to the solid waste system. The group also updated the "How Eagan's Collection System Works" a document prepared by the group in December of 1994. August 1995 A new Alternate Commission member Rick Patraw, was appointed to S.W.A.C. Commission members continued to work on the summary of findings. September 1995 Members reviewed a MnDot video regarding road wear and road strength. I Members reviewed findings of a staff report and survey about Organized Collection, prepared by the recycling staff at the City of Bloomington. Commission members continue to work on the matrices to define the advantages and disadvantages of each collection system type. The task force on the Licensing of Roll -off haulers, presented its report to the Commission. Members determined that this report would be presented to the City Council at a later date, after the overall system recommendation is made. October 1995 At an extended regular meeting, staff briefed the Commission members on new State Legislation that requires Public Facilities to ensure that the waste they generate is being processed. Staff noted that this might affect the current bid for service at the Municipal Center and other Public facilities, but that it would also be a factor in many of the system types being studied by the Commission. Members reviewed findings of a staff report about Organized Collection, prepared by the recycling staff at the City of Burnsville. Commission members continue to work on the matrices to define the advantages and disadvantages of each collection system type. November 1995 Commission members at an extended regular meeting, continue to work on the matrices to define the advantages and disadvantages of each collection system type. Members reviewed sections of a survey about Organized Collection, prepared by the City of Lakeville. i December 1995 By using a "paired comparison" exercise, the Commission was able to determine, which system types achieved the highest level of support by the group. The Commission members outlined the memo and attachments to be presented to the City Council at the January 2, joint Council/Commission workshop. Chair Davis and staff met to outline and prepare information for the joint workshop. Commission members and staff held a special meeting to review the information packet for the special workshop. Hoer the Eagan Solid Waste Collection System Works --Waste is picked up on specific days within defined areas of the City, Monday, Wednesday, Friday. System includes single and multi -family housing. --There has been no restriction on the number of haulers licensed each year. --Recycling and compost are picked up on the same day as refuse, by refuse hauler. --City ordinance provides time restrictions A) regarding when haulers can be in neighborhoods B) regarding when residents can set out materials --Garbage must be in a container with a secure lid --Recycling has no such secure lid requirement --yard waste is separate collection item from garbage & recyclables --Haulers are required, by ordinance to pick up garbage, recyclables and yardwaste --residents are required by ordinance to have garbage service (enforced on a complaint only basis) --The city of Eagan is not directly involved in the collection of refuse, recycling or yardwaste. The city collects no administrative fees. (with t[ exception of policy and educational funds administered by the county.) --The current system allows for a competitive and free market --Fees in the current collection system are required to be volume based --Residents are able, but are not required, to form organizations within i neighborhoods for unified garbage/recycling pickup by a single hauler. Y 12-28-95 EXISTING SYSTEM INCLUDING VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION Existing hauling system remains, but the City supports Volunteer Neighborhood Organization (method or extent of City involvement to be determined/addressed at a later date). Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES Fewer haulers per neighborhood: Fewer haulers per neighborhood: Growth potential -potentially reduced traffic -potentially reduced traffic -lower street wear/maintenance -lower street wear/maintenance cost cost Minimal staff time Potential cost savings Allowed to compete Minimal City Council time Self -empowerment Potential ability to contract with neighborhood groups No legal challenges Good service since hauler wants to Increased efficiency for hauler look good to other neighborhood groups 12-28-95 EXISTING SYSTEM INCLUDING VOLUNTARY NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION(Cont'd) Existing hauling system remains, but the City supports Volunteer Neighborhood Organization (method or extent of City involvement to be determined/addressed at a later date). Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Does not achieve advantages if no Need and maintain recognized Loss of business if not the selected one organizes neighborhoods leadership hauler Increased administration costs: A few individuals have to do all Increases competition if neighbor- -additional education costs work to estimate & maintain hood groups form agreement Some neighborhoods may expect Neighbors don't always agree Increased administration costs: city to arbitrate disputes with -additional education costs hauler Haulers may want contracts Volatility created by system No rewards for great service 3 12-28-95 y 12-28-95 CONSORTIUM INVOLVING ALL CURRENT HAULERS Under contract the Ci and haulers divide Eagan into zones each existing Hauler collects waste and rec clables , City g g Y in a zone comparable in number to their current customer base. A formula is adopted to account for new residences to be distributed fairly. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES One vendor per zone: One vendor per zone: Assured business -reduced traffic -reduced traffic -public safety increased -public safety increased -lower street wear/maintenance -lower street wear/maintenance cost cost Simplified citizen complaint Simplified citizen complaint All are guaranteed market system system: share/participation -one party (the City) responsible for investigating complaints City could negotiate price/potential Potential cost savings Increased efficiency revinue source for non solid waste activities Environmental issues: Environmental issues: Competition if hauling district -air emissions -air emissions costs are periodically re -bid -less noise -less noise 15 12-28-95 CONSORTIUM INVOLVING ALL CURRENT HAULERS (Cont'd) Under contract, the City and haulers divide Eagan into zones, each existing Hauler collects waste and recyclables in a zone comparable in number to their current customer base. A formula is adopted to account for new residences to be distributed fairly.. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES DI SADVANTAG ES Liable for landfill disposal fees Reduced competition: Little growth potential -loss of options -type of service & pricing Associated legal costs & challenges' Reduced customer service No incentive for better customer from the hauling community for incentives depending on contract service going to organized hauling Increased admin costs: Undesirable zone assignments Undesirable zone assignments -additional oversight & monitoring -contract negotiations -investigation of complaints -assignment of new developments -assume bad debt expense, depending on contract Increased Superfund liability, Paying even if service is not used increased legal liability exposure & costs due to: hauler selection & contractual relationship -vicarious liability Actual costs may not be Actual costs may not be reflected/price/potential city reflected/price/potential city revenue source for non solid waste revenue source for non solid waste activities activities Increased opportunity for citizen dissatisfaction with city services Increased City Council time AL 12-28-95 CONTRACT WITH SEVERAL HAULERS City contracts for the collection of waste and recyclables, within zones of the City, to a limited number of haulers. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES Fewer haulers per zone: Fewer haulers per zone: Potential for larger share of market -reduced traffic -reduced traffic for the successful bidder -public safety increased -public safety increased -lower street wear/maintenance -lower street wear/maintenance cost cost Simplified citizen complaint Simplified citizen complaint Guaranteed level of increased resolution resolution: business during life of contract, -good service if complaints affect depending on contract wording who can bid -one party (the City) responsible for investigating complaints Environmental issues: Environmental issues: -air emissions -air emissions -less noise -less noise Increased opportunity for citizen Potential cost savings/actual costs satisfaction with city services not reflected City could negotiate price/service Potential revenue source for non solid waste activities. 12-28-95 CONTRACT WITH SEVERAL HAULERS (Cont'd) City contracts for the collection of waste and recyclables, within zones of the City, to a limited number of haulers. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) DISADVANTAGES D15ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Involvement in waste service: Reduced competition: Loss of business if unsuccessful on -additional administration / labor -loss of options: bid -assume bad debt expense -type of service & pricing depending on contract Associated legal costs & challenges Reduced customer service Limited growth potential from the hauling community for incentives depending on contract going to organized hauling Increased administration costs: Paying even if service is not used No rewards for great service - additional oversight & monitoring - contract negotiations - investigation of complaints Increased City Council time Increased taxes for administration/ More bid competition labor Increased Superf ind liability, Actual costs may not be Volatility created by bid system increased legal liability exposure & reflected/potential city revenue costs due to: hauler selection & source for non solid waste activities contractual relationship -vicarious liability Increased opportunity for citizen Potential for loss of revenue due to dissatisfaction with city services price adjustment Loss of' license fees City must handle bidding Actual costs may not be reflected/potential revenue source for non solid waste activities 2 12-28-95 CONTRACT WITH SINGLE HAULER City contracts for the collection of waste and recycling of the whole City with just one hauler. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES One hauler: One hauler: Guaranteed business for the -reduced traffic -reduced traffic successful bidder -public safety increased -public safety increased -lower street wear/maintenance -lower street wear/maintenance cost cost City could negotiate price Potential savings/actual costs not Increased efficiency for the hauler reflected (depending on contract) receiving contract Environmental issues: Environmental issues: -air emissions -air emissions -less noise -less noise Simplified citizen complaint Simplified citizen complaint resolution resolution: -good service if complaints affect who can bid -one party (the City) responsible for investigating complaints City controls pricing/potential Lower cost if bid/actual cost may revenue source for non solid waste not be reflected activities Good service if maintaining contract depends on good service 0 12-28-95 CONTRACT WITH SINGLE HAULER (Cont'd) City contracts for the collection of waste and recycling of the whole City with just one hauler. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) to City DisADVANTAGEs Involvement in waste service: -additional administration/labor -assume bad debt expense Nenending on contract) Increased opportunity for citizen dissatisfaction with city services Loss of license fees Legal associated costs & challenges from the hauling community for going to organized hauling Increased administration costs: - additional oversight & monitoring P contract negotiations - investigation of complaints Increased Superfund liability, increased legal liability exposure & costs due to: hauler selection & contractual relationship - vicarious liability Increased Citv Council time Need to re -bid Impact to Residents DisADVANTAGEs Reduced competition: -loss of options: -type of service & pricing Reduced customer service incentives, depending on contract Bad debt covered by all Paying with taxes even if service is not used 10 Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) DISADVANTAGES Loss of business if unsuccessful on bid Potential for decreased profitability even for successful bidder No incentive to collect bad debt More bid competition Bankruptcies 12-28-95 MUNICIPALLY RUN COLLECTION SYSTEM City owns and operates trucks and employs additional staff to operate collection system. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES Environmental issues: Environmental issues: -air emissions -air emissions -less noise -less noise Easier regulatory & contractual Costs can be lower/actual costs not enforcement reflected City controls pricing/potential One party (the City) responsible for revenue source investigating complaints One hauler per zone: One hauler per zone: -reduced traffic -reduced traffic -public safety increased -consistent service -lower street wear/maintenance cost 12-28-95 MUNICIPALLY RUN COLLECTION SYSTEM (Cont'd) City owns and operates trucks and employs additional staff to operate collection system. (Note: If City manages system, County processing requirements must be met, therefore probably increasing costs.) Impact to City Impact to Residents Impact to Solid Waste/Recycling Businesses (Current Haulers) DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES Capital outlay: Garbage trucks, Reduced competition: Unable to participate ecycling trucks, Containers -loss of options: -type of service & pricing Involvement in waste service: Reduced customer service Loss of revenue -liable for disposal fees incentives -additional administration / labor / maintenance -assume bad debt expense -investigation of complaints Labor issues: Potential loss of service due to Layoffs -strikes threats and/or labor disputes strike threats and/or labor disputes City blamed for price increases/ potential revenue source for non solid waste activities Landfill Increased opportunity for citizen dissatisfaction with city services Legal associated costs & challenges from the hauling community for going to organized hauling Increased Superfund liability, increased legal liability exposure & costs due to: -ownership of trucks & containers -increased pollution liability -- possibly as a potentially responsible Party (PRP) Assume responsibility for bad debt actual costs not reflected/potential Bankruptcies city revenue source for non solid waste activities 50