CCP 09-14-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Solid Waste Management Committee, August 17, 1987 . City, but the actual rates would be established by the haulers. An example of this type of pricing might be: Amount Picked up Weekly Fee as Percenta~e of Haulers Base Rate 30 gallon - 1 can 60% 60 gallons - 2 cans 100% 90 gallons - 3 cans 155% 120 gallons - 4 cans 210% 150 gallons - 5 cans 260% Under this type of system, the haulers' base rates would continue to be established by them, leaving them free to compete, based on pricing as they see fit. However, a financial incentive would be provided to end users to limit their waste stream, via recycling or some other means. Also, since the intervals between various volume levels would be established by the city, no hauler would obtain a pricing advantage over another related to the amount of refuse handled. In other words, citizens would not be able to change haulers in order to have more refuse removed at lower cost. The intervals between the volume levels should be priced progressively, so that incremental additional volumes become increasingly expensive. Other methods of instituting volume-based fees also exist, including . setting limits based upon numbers of cans or bags; or having the drivers document the exact amount of refuse removed on a household-by-household basis, and charging accordingly. The haulers expressed disinterested in establishing and enforcing a volume-based rate plan, citing problems with book-keeping, customer relations and fraud. Understandably, the haulers aren't interested in lowering productivity by having their drivers record the quantities of .refuse picked up at each stop. They also would prefer to avoid having to engage in disputes with their customers concerning volume picked up. For example, given a two-can limit, a customer who only places one can out for a few weeks tends to believe he/she has accrued a "credit", and can place 3 or 4 cans out for a week or two. Other possibilities are left to the reader's imagination, but are numerous. As to fraud - perhaps the word is too strong - instances of neighbors banding together to equalize per-household volume, thus subverting the intent of a volume pricing system, are not unheard of. Nor is the illegal dumping of excess refuse at a low-volume or unoccupied household unknown. Although the institution of volume-based pricing remains a goal of the committee, no mechanism to do so was established. Further thought must be given to the problems associated with the various means of handling volume-based pricing, and this will be done in future meetings. Garden Refuse . The haulers said lawn and garden refuse makes up about 10% of the waste stream, and they suggested one way of eliminating this rather substantial fraction would be to pick it up separately. The haulers believe that due to the higher tipping fees they pay now at Newport, the cost of handling -3-