Marty Tufte sat on one side of the conference table in his green Waste Management hat; Andrew Schweihs sat on the other side wearing his own Star City baseball-style cap.

Monday, September 25, 2000

Marty Tufte sat on one side of the conference table in his green Waste Management hat; Andrew Schweihs sat on the other side wearing his own Star City baseball-style cap. At the other end of the table from the two competing garbage haulers sat Austin City Engineer Jon Erichson and the members of the City Council’s public works committee.

They were there because Schweihs isn’t happy with the city’s requirement that all waste go through its transfer station. That’s because the transfer station is managed by his competitor, Waste Management.

"Every month I write a check to the competition," he said. "They know my volume and can figure out, to a certain extent, my business structure. I also believe I might be able to negotiate a lower price at other disposal sites, like the Steele County landfill."

The city sets the rates for the transfer station, however, not Waste Management. In total, the city receives between $60,000 and $65,000 per year of revenue from the leased transfer station, although the city is, in turn, responsible for upkeep of the station.

The reason the city requires in its license agreement that haulers use its transfer station is twofold, Erichson explained. They need to make sure the transfer station remains a viable operation, in order to keep it open so residents also can have a place to take their garbage when they clean out a garage or get flooded. Also, the money that the city gets from leasing the transfer station goes to fund the fall leaf collection program, so taxpayer dollars don’t.

Last Thursday wasn’t the first time a smaller hauler has questioned the fairness of Waste Management being in charge of the transfer station. In early 1999, Ed Stewart of Stewart Sanitation asked the same question. He eventually got permission to haul up to 75 tons per month out of Mower County.

When Schweihs questioned why Stewart was allowed to bypass the transfer station, Erichson explained that 75 tons per month was a very small amount.

"Your volume, on the other hand, is starting to get up there," Erichson told the Star City Sanitation owner.

Tufte pointed out that running the transfer station gives Waste Management no advantage, because they already know when they lose a customer the only other real option is Star City, and he can calculate their business from that end. His concern, should the city allow Star City to bypass the transfer station, was that the company would lose what "little profit" it gains from the transfer station.

Erichson’s argument was similar, albeit from the city’s point of view.

"I’m concerned that our revenue stream stays where it’s at so we can continue to support the programs it pays for," Erichson said. "If Waste Management wasn’t providing good service or our rates weren’t competitive, it would be another story, but I don’t believe that’s true."

When Schweihs said that it wasn’t his responsibility to make sure Waste Management makes a profit or that the city’s programs are fully funded, committee member Jeanne Poppe turned that argument around on the Star City owner-operator.

"Yes, but it is our responsibility to make sure we do everything to ensure that we make the best choice for the community," she said.

Poppe’s motion that the public works committee recommend denial of Schweihs’ request passed unanimously, along with her motion that the request be forwarded to the council’s ordinance committee so they could review the city ordinance on the transfer station.

After the meeting, Schweihs was disappointed.

"I think they need to ask themselves what is in the best interest of the citizens of Austin," he said. "Is $500 a month if I bypass the transfer station more important than having competition in town?"