2013-02-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Table 2 1 Goals and resulting hauler arrangement recommendations' Goal °— Arrangement Explanation If the goal is recycling Greater control Jurisdiction has control over program design and rates, and can plan the program for participation, access, or diversion, select 4 (contract, district); maximum diversion or set rates to create incentives to increase diversion. Performance Fewer actors incentives can be easily built into the arrangement. If the goal is lowest rates, Exclusive (contract, select 4 district) Haulers can realize economies of scale, routing efficiencies, truck savings, etc. If the goal is environmental Exclusive (contract, Reduces the number of trucks on the streets, wear - and -tear, GHG emissions caused by effects, select 4 district) trucks, etc, through route design, service areas, and reduced redundancy. Maintains a "cleaner" look on the street with uniform containers, days of collection, etc. If the oal is program g g Contract or franchise, one or multiple Rates can be designed to cover more than just the costs of collection and can funding, selecc t collectors potentially help fund diversion and environmental programs. If the primary Non - exclusive, lower Haulers will be less resistant to this approach. There is minimal interference in the consideration is minimizing control (ordinance, free market and all haulers are on a level playing field. Exclusive arrangements tend to political difficulty, select Ht license) or multiple involve a "taking" of customer accounts from some haulers and often lead to political franchises backlash. If the primary Non - exclusive, lower consideration is least staff/ control (ordinance, Achieve some control /authority, and staffing and oversight may be lower with non- oversight, select 4 license) franchise/ exclusive agreements (unless there are auxiliary regulations to oversee). district Source: SERA, 2013 Influencing or selecting the number of contracted service providers Step 2 is deciding whether the town or mu- nicipality wants to try to reduce the haulers operating. Generally, fewer actors providing service leads to: Pros: Greater economies of scale, increased efficiencies, lower rates (assuming I ere is not a monopoly and a competitive process was used to select service providers), fewer trucks on the street (and lower poflu- tion), greater control, easier education. Difficulties: Less competitive environ- ment, fewer options to provide service if selected provider doesn't perform, potential "taking" of business from some operating haulers, reactions from residents that want to choose their service provider. Fewer haulers – if desired – can be achieved (directly or indirectly) under licensing, ordinance, contracting or mu- nicipalization. The action is direct under contracting - related options and municipal- ization; similar outcomes may be achieved if licensing or ordinance requirements raise the bar for service provision or market entry to a degree that some actors can't comply. Alternatively, the licensing or ordinance options can be simple and involve little interference in the private market competi- tion setting. The main choice is exclusive (one hauler winner) versus non - exclusive (two or more service providers). The choice is partly dependent on the size of the com- munity; it may be impractical for more than one hauler in small communities. However, beyond this consideration, there are many choices and nuances to designing the best system, but a number of the key pros and cons of exclusive and non - exclusive hauler arrangements are shown in Table 1. Selecting the best - suited strategy — considering key community goals Choosing a hauler arrangement is often a political decision. Knowing the jurisdiction's goals ahead of time will help it decide which arrangement makes the most sense. Some potential goals and the best arrangemems to achieve the goals are displayed in Table 2. In work with communities, we have developed useful flow charts that help councils come to options that best suit their goals. Required steps The steps required to consider and implement these options depend on the local political process. Choices must be made about the conditions or service options to be incor- porated into each option. First and second readings and public hearings for ordinances may be required; evaluations and council approvals, negotiation and other steps are needed for contracts. Implementation steps must be clarified. Enforcement and track- ing should be key elements of each option in order to assure a level playing field that will lead to compliance and equity – for haulers and citizens. Conclusion Change is never easy. However, as this ar- ticle demonstrates, communities may be able to achieve some authority without a great deal of market intervention – and a whole lot of control if they select more aggressive options. The options are few, straightfor- ward and fairly easy to understand, as are the tradeoffs. However, most communities find that, if they want to achieve greater diversion, some intervention in the market is needed. Check the pulse of the local council – they may be willing to move from a no- action stance if they understand the power of the most basic of options, or move °upward" in intervention levels in order to achieve desired goals. '72 More detailed versions of this work (includ- ing options for commercial control) are avail- able from the authors. In addition, we have assembled recommended ordinance language, and sample RFPs and contracts, etc. SERA provides research and consulting services to communities, counties and states across the US. The authors are available at (303) 494- 1178 or skumatz @serainc.com. RR I January2013 17