Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. DeLaforest expressed his preference for competitive family-owned <br /> businesses. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted his experience in coordinating transportation for the <br /> School District and the changes in vendors, with those new vendors utilizing <br /> existing employees from other vendors due to their familiarity with routes. <br /> Member Vanderwall suggested that this may prove true in this instance as well. <br /> Mr. Stoltman disagreed with Member Vanderwall's comments; to which Member <br /> Vanderwall responded that they could agree to disagree; however, in a contracted <br /> environment, he remained convinced that there would choices for those existing <br /> haulers and their employees; with Chair DeBenedet recognizing that fewer <br /> employees may be needed due to increased efficiencies. <br /> Member Gjerdingen had several questions for Mr. Stoltman and Mr. DeLaforest, <br /> including: service rate differentials depending on location and services provided, <br /> but equitable when averaged out and the rationale for those differences; tax issues <br /> and hauling to different facilities or prices based on a wider geography, within a <br /> single company and customer bases, and differences among jurisdictions; <br /> advantages for local haulers and impacts of hauling to out-of-state landfills while <br /> retaining the concept that it remained a local business; and how costs for hauling <br /> to landfills was factored into cost and how much route efficiency was taken into <br /> consideration. <br /> Mr. Stoltman responded that tax structures varied with communities and counties; <br /> impacts if the Newport facility was full and the need to find another destination, <br /> especially with soon-to-be implemented MPCA methods for processing <br /> guaranteeing that different facilities would reach capacity; typical changes in rates <br /> and process every two (2) years with some pre-determined, but always variable; <br /> and integrated costs for a national company having its own facility and able to <br /> handle more tonnage at a firm rate compared to a smaller, local hauler having to <br /> depend on other facilities. Mr. Stoltman further responded that if a vendor <br /> employed local residents, the money was not going out-of-state and should still e <br /> considered local. Mr. Stoltman, in responding to costs factored in rates advised <br /> that a customer received an introductory rate, lower to entice business similar to a <br /> loss leader product at a retail store; and once labor, truck operating costs, <br /> insurance, and other costs were backed out, there wasn't a lot of price leeway, <br /> with many instances where a hauler was breaking even, but lower costs required <br /> to prove their service to customers above another vendor. <br /> Mr. Stoltman used the City of Wayzata as an example of difficult and time- <br /> consuming routes, and pricing accordingly, with additional labor involved in <br /> doubling back on routes to address dead ends and cul-de-sacs in that area, as <br /> opposed to a simple street grid that made it easier to function. Mr. Stoltman <br /> Page 14 of 17 <br />