|
Table 7
<br />I Pros and cons of exclusiuernon- exclusive hauler arrangements
<br />Pros
<br />Cons
<br />• Haulers/recyclers maintain all of their customer accounts.
<br />High cost to provide service, redundancy of routes, multiple trucks on
<br />m
<br />• No interference by the city/county in the marketplace.
<br />the same street.
<br />t
<br />• Less oversight or staffing by town.
<br />• Little control over trash /recycling services by community.
<br />w
<br />• More choices for hauler /recycler for generators.
<br />• Lower diversion, little incentive for diversion.
<br />n
<br />• Market forces may dictate most efficienUcheapest prices
<br />Inefficiencies in truck routing, collection schedules, GHG emissions,
<br />E
<br />for service (but not necessarily because of economies-
<br />road wear - and -tear, etc., higher social cost from multiple trucks.
<br />of- scale).
<br />• May discourage haulers/recyclers from offering additional services/
<br />May encourage value added service by haulers/recyclers.
<br />recycling options as haulers compete to provide cheapest service.
<br />• Competition among haulers/recyclers, opportunities for
<br />Service levels, costs and options inconsistent within service area and
<br />smaller haulers/recyclers.
<br />can lead to aesthetic issues.
<br />Z
<br />i • Tracking /tonnage reporting may be difficult.
<br />• Compliance, enforcement and participation tracking challenges.
<br />• Economies -of -scale could create cheaper rates for
<br />"Takes" business from existing haulers/recyclers, may reduce
<br />generators, higher revenues for haulers/recyclers.
<br />competition in the marketplace.
<br />`w
<br />• Efficiencies in routing /lower number of trucks.
<br />• Politics— haulers, recyclers and customers may not support the choice
<br />m
<br />• More control over trashlrecycling service by jurisdictions.
<br />and may fight the program.
<br />t
<br />a+
<br />• Reduced wear - and -tear on streets, reduce GHG gas
<br />• Increased work and staffing for community.
<br />m
<br />emissions, trucks on streets, etc.
<br />• Decreased choices of service providers for generators.
<br />• Enforcement and compliance tracking easier.
<br />• May not encourage value added service by hauler /perform to the
<br />• Tonnage reporting less complicated.
<br />contract.
<br />• All customers receive consistent service options and
<br />• May be harder for smaller haulers to compete and win bids in large
<br />W
<br />materials, etc.
<br />service areas.
<br />• Opportunities for smaller haulers can be preserved by
<br />establishing multiple franchised service areas.
<br />Source: SERA, 2013
<br />if they meet conditions).
<br />Cons: Limited ability to reduce trucks
<br />on street (limiting the potential for effi-
<br />ciency increases); enforcement of breaches
<br />can be difficult to enforce and often requires
<br />involvement of the district attorney or oth-
<br />ers; no significant revenue stream (except to
<br />cover direct costs).
<br />One or more contracts, districts or
<br />franchise arrangements: Communities
<br />(or improvement districts) can contract for
<br />service with one or more haulers and assert
<br />more authority/control (detailed services,
<br />directing materials to sites, rates, damages,
<br />etc.). Variations of this option include:
<br />franchises, districting, and contracting,
<br />each of which involves a form of competi-
<br />tion /qualification and contracting, and the
<br />granting of a "right" (exclusive or not) to
<br />provide service in a designated area. Each
<br />option operates similarly to a contract,
<br />with a "contract-like" document behind
<br />the franchising /districting or contracting
<br />arrangement. Contract -like documents pro-
<br />16 RR i lacunry X013
<br />vide infraction enforcement benefits such
<br />as a contract breach, associated established
<br />penalties, liquidated damages, etc.
<br />In each of these options (and com-
<br />monly in the case of franchising, which isn't
<br />allowed in some states), the community may
<br />assess a fee, which sometimes goes quite
<br />beyond the direct costs of oversight (e.g.,
<br />environmental fees, vehicle impact fees, etc.)
<br />This may be collected from the hauler, often
<br />charged as a percent of gross revenues, truck
<br />fee or other method. Some cities charge
<br />directly for service and levy fees above the
<br />contract cost to recover costs for a variety
<br />of solid waste and environmental programs,
<br />including household hazardous waste, etc.
<br />Pros: Strong control and flexibility to
<br />determine desired services and operations,
<br />likely fewer trucks on street, increased ef-
<br />ficiencies, revenue source, winning haulers
<br />often like this option, strong enforcement
<br />capabilities.
<br />Corer: Special legal advance notice
<br />required; broad advertisement of the request
<br />for proposal or bid (RFP /RFB), political
<br />fallout from hauler, and potentially citizen
<br />complaints ( "taking" of business from some
<br />or all current haulers); staff time in RFP/
<br />RFB bidding and evaluation, and in con-
<br />tract process /enforcement/monitoring.
<br />Municipalization: The community
<br />may set itself up to provide residential haul-
<br />ing service, charge rates for its service and
<br />compel residents to pay. The City provides
<br />notice, a process and acquires staff and capi-
<br />tal equipment to provide service. Although
<br />it usually cannot prohibit other haulers from
<br />providing service or requesting payment for
<br />those services, most residents do not elect to
<br />pay twice for service, so the communities'
<br />services are used.
<br />Pror. Strong control, fewer trucks on
<br />street /efficiencies, steady revenue source.
<br />Coro: Special legal advance notice
<br />required, significant city capital cost /head-
<br />count /staff time; hauler complaints ( "tak-
<br />ing" of business), concern about efficiencies
<br />relative to haulers, "political will" required
<br />for governmental intervention in market.
<br />
|