2002_0415_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• Public collection has precedent in Minnesota and other parts of the United States, and operates to provide high quality service in a safe and effective manner. • Public collection can be designed to address public concerns about hauler choice, survival of independent haulers, competition, quality of service, cost, service reliability and environmental and health goals. • Independent haulers strongly support having the Resource Recovery Facility available as a place to deliver waste that is not owned by their competition, and having that facility available in the long-term would be a factor in their continued existence. The independent haulers, however, oppose public collection even if it means the Facility could close. The waste industry is vigorously opposed to public collection, and is willing spend significant funds and take strong steps to prevent it. The Counties have been successful in engaging the public on this issue. • The public is split on the issue of public collection: Those that support public collection do so mainly for one of various reasons: because it would address garbage truck traffic; it would be more efficient; because of experience elsewhere; because it could cost less or because it supports environmental, health and safety goals. Those that oppose public collection are quite vocal, and do so for several reasons: concern with increasing government involvement; desire to retain choice in selecting a garbage hauler; concern for small businesses; a perception that costs will increase; belief that there is no problem; not agreeing with the environmental goals. • The waste industry appears to be amenable to implementing a hauler- collected-service-charge along with contracts and regulatory changes directed toward generators to accomplish the goals, in lieu of public collection. Staff Recommendations The two options: "The proposal by the NSWMA" and "Discontinue Counties' Obligation to the Service Agreement and Processing in July 2007," do nothing more to move the Counties toward the Solid Waste Master Plan goals, and, therefore, should not be further considered. While the option to "Implement Public Collection" provides the best solution to meet the goals, it also causes major collection system changes and has much opposition. This will cause implementation problems. The option to "Change Financing and Regulation," while not addressing the goals as well as Public Collection, has fewer implementation problems and rates better overall, as noted in the evaluation criteria. Page 5 of 7