University City Considers Its Trash Options
There is a detailed story in this week’s West End Word about University City considering privatizing its trash services. As a University City resident (and a proud one) who works at a free-market think tank covering privatization issues, I am in a unique position to comment here. University City already funds its trash services by user fees instead of taxes, so that should minimize any changes that the residents see with privatization. That has not prevented some residents from vocally voicing their opposition. From the story:
“I am totally not in favor of privatizing if that is an option,” [Marva] Miller said. “We will not be able to ask the private company for help, they will only be obligated to do what is written in the contract. The constituents, especially the elderly, will be underserved. We need to be a revenue-generating city. We have a few assets and we need to maximize what we have and not outsource these people who have worked so hard.”
Where to begin? Of course we would be able to ask for help (whatever that means) from the private company, which would be no more or less obligated to “help” than are the current government employees. (Important note: I think the trash service employees in U. City have always been terrific.) Why the elderly would be “underserved” by a private company is beyond me. They will get their trash picked up, same as always. U. City does not need to be a “revenue generating” city. It needs either to perform or see to the provision of agreed-upon public services as efficiently as possible. That is all.
University City has dealt with its budget issues during the past few years by making tough decisions. City officials have enacted budget cuts and laid off employees, while some other suburbs in the mid–St. Louis County area have focused more on tax increases. University City’s leadership over the past couple of years deserves a great deal of credit for this. I hope the privatization idea gets the serious consideration it deserves.
Odd (and sad) that “privatization” has become a scary term with assorted false-stereotypes surrounding it. Where did Ms. Miller pick up these ideas, I wonder.
Comment by David Shane — October 28, 2010 @ 3:17 p.m.
The fear that I see Ms. Miller expressing is that if things do not go as planned, for whatever reason, the private vendor can hold you up and extract exorbitant rates for the additional services provided. An employer/employee relationship is more easily negotiated than a vendor/purchaser one. It really just points up the need for a well-written contract with defined penalties/responsibilities etc. Covering every contingency can be difficult, too.
When reading this, I thought of the Metrolink debacle, where the work went outside of the original scope of the engagement and there was a court case to decide who was responsible for the extra work.
I advocate a walk before you run, date before you marry arrangement, where the private vendor gets a piece of the work for, say, two years, and both sides develop a level of trust. Also, a ‘problem’ may arise and both sides can see how the other handles it, and both can decide if they want to be in business together. Then a longer term contract covering more services can be written, or not.
Comment by Papillon — November 1, 2010 @ 9:17 a.m.
Papillon,
These concerns are very real issues for larger privatization proposals. There are not many companies that can just come in and run a water treatment and supply operation, for example. The extra time and care to make sure every “i” is dotted is important, and a “walk before you run” approach can be beneficial.
For trash delivery, though, if the chosen company does a poor job for University City, there are plenty of other companies that can take over the operations. I would give a conservative estimate that we have at least a dozen major trash haulers operating in St. Louis County. Any (and all) of them could provide the competitive pressure to make sure the contract winner performs the task well, or replace the chosen company if they do not perform satisfactorily.
As you state, a well-written contract with definied responsibilities and penalties is always important. But the concerns over privatization in an area such as trash collection are lessened by the number of options University City would have to choose from.
Comment by David Stokes — November 1, 2010 @ 4:11 p.m.