Table of Contents

1. Trends
2. Cost Savings Potential
3. Best Practices/Case Studies
4. How-To Tips
5. Contact Information
6. Research/Articles
7. Legislation
8. Links

1. Trends


In recent years, dramatic increases in capital and operational costs have made solid waste facilities an ideal candidate for privatization. Even though the rate of privatization has slowed, the percentage of facilities owned by the public sector declined from 64 percent in 1998 to 63 percent in 2000. (The 1 percent increase represents approximately 64 facilities). During the past year, private sector presence increased in 22 states.

Despite the fact that the public sector owns a majority of landfills, the private sector continues to own a majority (61 percent) of disposal facilities and continues to manage a majority (60 percent) of waste disposal at landfills. The average size of private disposal sites is also larger than public sector counterparts. As stated in the Directory of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, “the private sector, with its superior access to capital and its freedom from geographic boundaries, is better able to build larger landfills and to locate them more strategically where costs are lower.”


Flow Control and Megafills in the U.S.

Local governments continue to struggle with flow control in their attempts to restrict the interstate trash trade. The courts have continued to strike down these attempts time and time again.

Subtitle D regulations of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act caused the costs of disposal to skyrocket, forcing the closure of thousands of small, environmentally unfit sites and the construction of new facilities. The most cost-effective solution became regional facilities, or “megafills.” A megafill differs from other landfills only in its size. Its capacity far exceeds that of other landfills, using economies of scale in construction and service delivery. Megafills are constructed with the most advanced technology and can cost more than $500,000 per acre but remain the lowest unit-cost solution to solid waste disposal.

The move to megafills has increased the appeal of privatization. Private companies seeking to reduce costs over time through improved efficiency are naturally drawn to the concept of megafills, and they can raise the capital for them more easily than can local governments, without using tax dollars.


Solid Waste Privatization in Canada

Recent government surveys show that more local governments in Canada are contracting more solid waste services to the private sector. Nationally in 1998, the latest year for which information is available, 59 percent of waste management expenditures were paid to contractors—up from 54 percent in 1996.

Collection and transportation services continue to be the largest avenue for privatization of solid waste services in Canada. Sixty-nine percent of collection was privatized in 1998 (a rate larger than in the U.S.), up from 61 percent in 1996 and 55 percent in 1994. More disposal facilities i.e., landfills and incinerators, have also been privatized in recent years-up from 41 percent in 1994 to 48 percent in 1998.


Water and Wastewater Privatization Survey Shows Continued Growth

The municipal market for water and wastewater privatization continues to grow, although at a slower pace than in previous years. That is one of several key findings in the fifth annual survey of the United States water and wastewater outsourcing industry, conducted by the newsletter Public Works Financing/PWF International.

According to the survey, the 17 largest firms competing to sell utility operations, maintenance, design-build, and asset management services in the U.S. reported government operation and maintenance (O&M) increased 14 percent in calendar year 2000 to $917 million. In 1999, government O&M revenues increased 22 percent. The firms said they operated 2,273 publicly owned facilities in 2000 with an aggregate design flow of more than 6.9 billion gallons per day.


Figure 1. Water Industry Government Operation and Maintenance Revenue Growth, 1996-2000

figure1
Source: Public Works Financing, March 2001.

In addition, revenues from government design-build (as part of design-build-operate) contracts were up 22 percent to $217 million. The rate of growth in 1999 was 95 percent above 1998 revenues.

Market share for private contract operations of municipal utility systems remains at less than 5 percent of the $35 billion spent by government on water and wastewater. PWF Editor/Publisher Bill Reinhardt doesn’t expect the municipal market share to shrink noticeably until more large cities contract operations of water and wastewater services.

Other market trends noted in the PWF survey:

An electronic version of PWF's March outsourcing report may be purchased by contacting PWFinance@aol.com.


Moody's Predicts More Water Privatization

Municipalities that have outsourced the management and operation of their water utilities to private companies will be increasingly likely over the next few years to take the next step and privatize their systems, according to Moody's Investors Services' June report, "Consolidation Will Pressure Ratings of the Water Utilities."

Over the last few years, several cities and towns, including Atlanta, GA; Buffalo, NY; and Gary, IN; have hired private water companies to take over most aspects of their local water systems, except ownership of the assets themselves. Moody's predicts this trend will likely escalate into actual asset sales.

According to the Moody report, "public policymakers will turn to the private sector for financial, technical, and operating assistance when the municipal water system receives reliable and reasonably priced services. Furthermore, with supportive state regulation, the investor-owned water company is more inclined to acquire the public system."

While the U.S. water industry remains fragmented today, it is likely to consolidate over the next decade, the rating agency said. Municipalities, challenged by rising operating expenses and escalating infrastructure needs, are increasingly unable to handle their water system needs on their own. This could lead to more privatization as companies seek improved economies of scale.

Standard and Poor analysts also predicted in a 1999 teleconference that privatization of municipal water utilities will start taking more varied forms. Some localities may begin modestly by contracting for billing services, while others may take a more comprehensive approach.

According to the June 27, 2000 Bond Buyer, "Pushing the trend is a 1997 Internal Revenue Service rule that allows private companies to operate and manage localities' water systems for up to 20 years without making taxable the bonds sold to finance the assets."

Return to Top


2. Cost Savings Potential


Cost savings from outsourcing wastewater treatment services typically ranges from 8 to 30 percent.

A 1985 study comparing in-house and contractor-built and -operated water treatment facilities found that contractor costs averaged 20 to 50 percent less than in-house costs due to shorter construction lags and lower construction costs.

Table 1. Selected Wastewater Privatization Savings
Project Savings
West Haven, Connecticut $700,000 annually
Houston, Texas $12.7 million over five years
Indianapolis $13 million over 5 years
Ormond Beach, Florida (wastewater and water) $6 million over 5 years
Puerto Rico $1 million annually

Return to Top


3. Best Practices/Case Studies


Case Study 1: Auburn, AL — Build, Own, Operate


After 1984 the city of Auburn faced the urgent need for capital improvement of a new wastewater treatment system. Trying and failing to secure federal grant funding for construction, in 1985 the city of Auburn competitively bid a contract to build and own two new treatment facilities serving 34,000 people, and to operate them for 25 years.

The contract was won by a subsidiary of Metcalf & Eddy. The city provided $26 million of the construction costs with tax-exempt bonds, and Metcalf & Eddy provided $10 million in equity funds. The use of equity funds helped keep rates lower than they would have been under alternative financing proposals. Rates did rise to cover the costs of the expansion, but rates had been rising steeply in Auburn, and were predicted to triple if the city performed the capacity expansion itself.

The city retained annual review of rates, and the contract spelled out the terms under which increases in cost could be reflected in rates. The city also has the right to repurchase the plants at current market value at any time. In 1992, Auburn reviewed the option to repurchase the plants and decided against it.




Case Study 2: Houston, TX — Public-Private Competition


The 80-million-gallon-per-day Southeast Water Purification Plant near Houston serves 700,000 people in 13 cities, utility districts or water authorities, each with various percentages of production capacity ownership. The City of Houston is the plant’s managing partner and owns 23 percent. In early 1996, the city offered a five-year operations and maintenance contract for the plant in a "managed competition." The qualified bidders hailed from as far away as France and England, but also included competitors from the United States, along with a "company" owned by Houston area ratepayers.

Officials had conservatively expected around 10 percent savings from using a competitive contracting process, and were delighted that the winning bid came in with savings of 43 percent from current costs. The 13 cities that own the plant will save $12.7 million over the five years of the contract. For example, ratepayers in the city of Pasadena, which has an 18.75 percent ownership in the plant, will save $476,250 in each of the next five fiscal years. Smaller towns like South Houston and Webster will save close to $100,000 per year over the same period.

The winning bidder was JMM-OSI, owned by L’Yonnaise des Eaux, also of France. The JMM bid was $16.3 million. Houston’s own bid ranked fourth. For Houston, this was the first time the public sector had competed with private operators for the privilege of providing services in a sealed-bid process.




Case Study 3: Franklin, OH - Asset Sale


In July 1995, Franklin, Ohio, sold its wastewater plant to Wheelabrator EOS for $6.8 million. Assisted by Barakat and Chamberlain, Franklin made use of Executive Order 12803, which reduces previous requirements for repaying federal grants in the event of privatization. The 23 percent lower sewer rates made possible by private ownership have helped lead to an industrial boom in Franklin, with 16 plant expansions or relocations to the area, necessitating an expansion in its water supply.




Case Study 4: Indianapolis, IN — Contract Management and Operation


In November 1993, the Indianapolis Advanced Wastewater Treatment facilities became the largest privately managed municipal wastewater operation in the United States. The White River Environmental Partnership (WREP) won the bid by offering savings that topped $65 million over five years.

Today, WREP is well ahead of schedule in achieving these savings. The contractor has achieved these savings by centralizing planning, computerizing maintenance, consolidating inventory and improving response time to vendors—which resulted in additional cost discounts for prompt payments.

Careful use of electricity helped cut the annual utility bill by $1 million, while ending unnecessary buildup of inventories saved millions more dollars. Renegotiating the labor contract converted half the automatic cost-of-living increase into performance incentives for individuals and teams. And WREP trimmed planned capital expenditures, saving the city an additional $1.8 million.

Although 200 city workers made the transition to private ownership, 126 city workers did not. The city moved half of these workers into vacant city positions and WREP paid for the training and placement for the rest. In the end, jobs were found for all former plant employees.


Table 2. Indianapolis Wastewater Privatization,
2-Year Results
Accidents Down 80%
Lost Workdays Down 91%
Employee Greivances From 38 to 0
Employee Wages/Benefits Up 4.1%
Workers Compensation Claim Rates Down 8%
Effluent Violations Down 60%

Employee morale has been high, due in part to tuition reimbursement programs and better on-site safety training, which reduced employee accidents by 70 percent. WREP also has succeeded in increasing minority and women business participation, substantially exceeding the city’s 25 percent goal by the end of 1995.

Water quality has improved. Within its first year of operation, WREP exceeded its discharge permit limitations only once, substantially less than the 14 times in the city’s last two years of operation. Additionally, overflows were reduced by 50 percent and workplace accidents cut by 70 percent.



Return to Top


4. How-to-Tips


When defining the terms of the privatization, governments should follow these guidelines:

Return to Top


5. Contact Information


Practitioners
Charles Bardonner
Public Works Department
Environmental Resources Management
City-County Building
City of Indianapolis
200 E. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 327-2236


Pete Devoski
Public Works and Engineering
City of Houston
1801 Main Street, 13th Floor
Houston, TX 77251-1562
(713) 754-0807

Experts
George Raftelis
President
Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group
6100 Fairview Tower, Suite 615
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 556-1936


Adrian T. Moore
Reason Public Policy Institute
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-4395


Leslie Sherman
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson, & Bridges, LLP
Two Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 392-6320

Return to Top


6. Research/Articles



Return to Top


7. Legislation



Return to Top


8. Links



Return to Top