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