Getting From Here.
j IA tE .
.
.
.
To There.’
3
. - .
I

-------
w
PROJECT OFFICERS
NEIETC - Kirk Laflin
NEIWPCC - Susan Sullivan
EPA Region I - Charles Conway
This report was developed by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission (NEIWPCC) and Environmental Training Center (NEIETC) through a
grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 104(B)(3)
of the Federal Clean Water Act (CP 991558).

-------
CETTING FROM HERE To THERE
Selecting the Best Wastewater Management Option for Your Community
E ach day in the United States, billions of gallons of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater flow
through sewers to more than 16,000 publicly-owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs). Since 1970,
over $500 billion of public funds have been invested in providing safe and reliable wastewater services to 70 per-
cent of the nation’s population and more than 99 percent of the urban population.
Owning and operating a wastewater treatment and collection system is a daunting responsibility that requires
long-term financial commitment and planning.With cutbacks in federal and state support, communities are
faced with the increasing financial burden of operating and maintaining these facilities. Nationally, water and
wastewater projects represent one of the largest local expenditures—over $43.5 billion annually.
In light of local budget constraints, aging equipment and infrastructure, increased regulato-
ry demands, and the perception that municipal services are too expensive and inefficient,
many municipalities realize that they have to find a better way to operate and maintain
their POTWs. While communities have a number of wastewater services options that they
can explore, the enormity of the undertaking can be overwhelming.
This document has been prepared to help your community evaluate its wastewater ser-
vices options.These options range from self improvement to contract operation/lease
arrangements to the outright sale of community POTW assets.The choice is yours!
COMMUNITY COMMITMENT
-- -Ultimately, the wastewater services
solution that you choose should
be one that best suits the unique
set of conditions in your commu-
nity. The process you use to arrive
at that solution requires that you
take stock of where you are now
and then identify the issues you
need to consider in order to get to
where you need to be—finding the
most efficient way for your com-
munity to receive the full range of
wastewater utility services.
As you explore and deliberate
your wastewater services options,
be sure that your community, as
a whole, is aware of the issues
associated with this decision.
Keep in mind that your commu-
nity is responsible for upgrading
and protecting the wastewater
infrastructure and, most irnpor-
tan dy, for meeting environmen-
tal requirements and protecting
the public health and welfare.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) takes an officially
neutral position as to whether
your community’s POTW is pub-
licly or privately owned or operat-
ed. However, EPA and the state
environmental agencies have
responsibility for maintaining the
long-term viability of the waste-
water infrastructure and for ensur-
ing that POTWs are operated to
meet environmental and public
health regulations.
Wastewater collection and treat-
ment systems are subject to a
complex array of state and federal
regulations, including permit
requirements, sludge regulations,
industrial pretreatment require-
ments, SARA Title I II readiness
and reporting requirements,
Clean Air Act permit restrictions,
and public health and safety reg-
ulations.
Although many of the factors
that affect privatization are local
in nature, there are certain feder-
al requirements that have an
impact on those decisions. These
include IRS regulations, EPA con-
struction grant regulations,
NPDES permit requirements, and
Executive Order 12803, which
come into play when choosing
the type of privatization.
Some of these federal regulations
restrict certain privatization activ-
ities (e.g., tax law restricts the use
of tax-exempt debt for privately-
owned facilities). Others require
that local governments seek
approval for changes to owner-
ship/operation of their POTW.
EPA requirements apply only if
the local government received
federal wastewater construction
grants. For example, sale of a
facility that received construction
grants through the Clean Water
Act requires that the local gov-
ernment apply for a deviation
from the EPA grant regulations
and EPA review and approval
under Executive Order 12803.
EPA and many of the state envi-
ronmental agencies must also be
involved in the privatization
process when there is any form of
encumbrance placed on the title
of a federally/state-funded POTW.
Needless to say, both EPA and
your state environmental agency
should be involved early on so
that the process doesn’t get
bogged down. To find out more
about federal or state require-
ments, contact EPA-New England
or your state environmental
agency.
I
4

-------
\ / ®
Whichever wastewater ser-
vices option you choose
and how that choice will be tai-
lored to meet the needs of your
community dependson the kind
of information you bring to the
table. For starters, in order to
make an informed decision about
where you are going with your
wastewater services, it’s important
to know where you are now. This
involves undertaking a candid
and thorough self-appraisal qf the
current status of your POTW
operation and projected future
needs and costs.
To do this type of self-appraisal,
your community can self-evaluate
or hire a knowledgeable consult-
ing firm. The appraisal should
consist of a detailed evaluation of
existing management, operation,
maintenance, regulatory compli-
ance, and financial considera-
tions for the POTW operation. In
performing this self-appraisal
your community or your consul-
tant may begin to identify ways
to enhance operating efficiencies,
reduce costs, and improve ser-
vices.
THE SELF-APPRAISAL
The self-appraisal is essentially a
comprehensive diagnostic evalua-
tion of the overall performance of
a POTW. It encompasses facility
capability, staff and management
qualifications, permit compli-
ance, safety compliance, an ener-
gy audit, and limitations in the
areas of design capacity, opera-
tion and maintenance of equip-
ment, and finance. As noted
above, this can be done in-house
or with the assistance of a quali-
fied consultant who has no vest-
ed interest in the outcome of the
study.
Two basic questions shodld drive
your self-appraisal:
> What am I doing?
> How well am I doing it?
To begin to answer these ques-
tions, the wastewater utility must
be viewed much like a business—
a closed utility, if you will—that
can be evaluated in a totally
aggregated, performance-based
sense. (While this approach
seems perfectly logical, historical
accounting practices in many
communities tend to lump waste-
water services under one large
municipal umbrella.) At the end
of the evaluation, the full range
of wastewater services should be
quantified and the total costs of
operation, maintenance, and cap-
ital replacement provided in
detail. When you have compiled
this information, you will have
answered the first question:
“What am I doing?”
cUD 1 © UD 7
T he benefits of
POTWs go
far beyond the
treatment of
wastewater. The
water quality
improvements
made possible by
these facilities
have made it
possible for communities to restore rivers, lakes, and beaches to
swimmable, fishable quality and to convert adjacent lands into pro-
ductive assets such as riverwaiks, urban recreational facilities,
wildlife preserves, and education centers.
Wastewater utilities also provide many other types of services to the
community at large. These include:
Protecting against sewer backups, fires, and explosions;
Implementing the community’s industrial pretreatment program,
which includes providing industrial customers with technical
assistance on wastewater treatment and waste minimization;
Conducting ambient water quality, groundwater, and air moni-
toring;
Preparing disaster and emergency preparedness and response
plans;
Entering into cooperative agreements with other community
services;
Conducting public education and outreach programs;
Consulting with state and federal regulatory agencies on policy
and rule-making issues; and
Opening or expanding tourism opportunities by improving
local water quality.
I

-------
Once you have quantified your ser-
vices and costs, you will be ready to
answer the next question—”How
am I doing?” To answer this, you
need to be able to compare, or
“benchmark,” your operation with
other top-performing, similar sized
operations. To do this, use the
information derived from your self-
appraisal, and develop benchmarks
for each component of your opera-
tion. The results should provide
you with a quantifiable sense of
where improvements should be tar-
geted.
Once you have performed your
POTW self-appraisal you will be in
a good position to “plug” this
information into your decision-
making process. If, ultimately, your
municipality opts to contract out
for services, this appraisal will also
provide the information you need
to specify to potential contractors
what services will be required.
WHAT ARE YOUR
OPTuoNsl
Y our community has several
broad options for providing
the most efficient full range of
wastewater utility services. They
include:
No CHANGE
The municipality is happy with
the way its POTW is managed,
operated, and maintained. The
cost for operation is competitive
with other communities, and the
condition of the facility is excel-
lent. Inasmuch as many POTWs
continually strive for excellence,
many communities recognize
that if the operation and manage-
ment system isn’t broken, their
best option is to continue to sup-
port it.
UNDERTAKE A PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
If through your I OTW self-
appraisal you have compiled
detailed information on existing
management, operation, mainte-
nance, and finances and, through
this process, have identified steps
that can be taken to enhance
operating efficiencies, reduce
costs, and improve services, you
and your public employees have
the option of moving forward to
develop a performance improve-
ment workplan. Such a plan
should provide details on measur-
able and specific steps and proce-
dures for carrying out the com-
rnunity’s wastewater services.
Under this scenario, a municipali-
ty may choose to contract out all
or some of its wastewater service
tasks, or hire a qualified consult-
ing firm to help implement the
recommendations.
Cost-reducing measures can
include:
Expanding instrumentation
and automation capabilities;
Instituting energy saving mea-
sures;
Optimizing process control;
Contracting out appropriate
functions;
Setting up cooperative purchas-
ing agreements for materials
such as chemicals;
Reclaiming byproducts for sale;
Selling services;
Cross-training staff to perform
multiple functions;
Downsizing through attrition
and human resource reform;
Reforming cumbersome pro-
curement restrictions;
Conducting predictive,
planned maintenance; and
‘ Reducing parts and supplies
inventories.
Your performance improvement
program should prescribe a
course of action that is both spe-
cific and flexible. It should he
flexible in the sense that your
prescribed course of action is sub-
ject to routine reevaluation and
adjustment.
PRIVATIZE POTW OPERATION
AND MANAGEMENT
Many communities have grown
increasingly interested in explor-
ing the potential to improve effi-
ciencies and reduce the costs of
operating wastewater treatment
plants through contracts with the
private sector. This option has
been used by communities across
the country since the late 1970s
with varying degrees of success.
Currently, over 1,000 POTWs are
operated under contract by pro-
fessional operating firms. In New
England, about 70 of the 550
POTWs are currently operated by
private firms. Privatizing the
operation and management of a
POTW can take many forms.
These arrangements, however,
can generally be classified as
either contract operations or
lease/concession agreements.
Outright sales of POTWs are rare.
These classifications are briefly
described as follows:
• Contract Operation
A private firm assumes respon-
sibility for operating, maintain-
ing, and managing the waste-
water system. Typical contract
operation terms are for 3 to 5
years with simple termination
clauses. Recent tax law changes
L.k

-------
now allow for service agree-
ments that span up to 20 years,
depending on terms of the con-
tract. Contract operation does
not involve any encumbrance
of the title to the POTW, capi-
tal investment in the POTW by
the private firm, or transfer of
funds from the private firm to
the public entity. To date, con-
tract operations have been the
predominant form of privatiza-
tion in New England.
Lease/Concession
In this type of arrangement, a
private company may provide
capital investment in the
POTW and/or transfer private
funds to the community in
addition to assuming responsi-
bility for operating, maintain-
ing, and managing the waste-
water system. This transfer of
funds is usually in the form of
a jump sum or periodic lease
concession fee.
A lease/concession agreement
that involves an upfront or
periodic payment to the munic-
ipality requires EPA review and
approval under Executive Order
12803. EPA must also approve
the “construction grant condi-
tion.” Such an arrangement
may require that the municipal-
ity or private entity reimburse
the state and federal govern-
ments for any grant payments
that have not been depreciated.
Lease/concession agreements
can vary widely, running the
gamut from mid-range 10- to
20-year contracts that require
upfront concession fees to
long-term contracts to finance,
build, and operate a POTW
through concession agreements
that can span 20 years or more.
Several municipalities in New
England are currently evaluat-
ing lease/concession options.
(Two quite different lease/con-
cession agreements are
described in “A Tale Of Two
Leases” on pages 4 and 5.) If
your community is considering
entering into a lease/conces-
sion arrangement, you should
contact EPA-New England as
soon as possible.
Outright Sale
An outright sale or divestiture
of POTW assets involves the
transfer of the title for a POTW
to a private entity for a specific
transfer price. This type of
arrangement requires a “con-
struction grant condition” and
EPA review and approval under
Executive Order 12803. So far,
there has been only one out-
right sale of a wastewater facili-
ty in the United States. No
such sales are currently on the
horizon in New England.
Municipalities that choose this
option will face a relatively
unique scenario that involves a
host of legal and permit issues.
For this reason, it will not be
addressed further in this paper.
A TALE OF
I n 1997, two New England communities—Cranston, Rhode Island and
Danbury, Connecticut—entered into long-term lease arrangements with
private contractors for the operation and maintenance of their wastewater
infrastructures.These are the first two long-term lease arrangements in New
England. Both facilities are similar with regard to population served and waste
stream treated.
Cranston leased the operation and maintenance of its entire wastewater
treatment, collection, and pumping system to Triton Ocean State, L.L.C. for
a 25-year period.Triton Ocean State is a subsidiary of Poseidon Resource
Corporation and was created specifically for the Cranston project.The
facility and its 21 pump stations had already been operated by the
Professional Services Group (PSG) on a standard contract operations
basis since 1989. In the early I 980s, the wastewater treatment plant was
upgraded to a 23 mgd capacity and is currently processing about 12 mgd.
Under the present lease arrangement, PSG is a subcontractor, responsible
for overseeing the 300-mile collection system, all repairs and replacements
of the wastewater infrastructure, and managing the pretreatment program.
Metcalf & Eddy, another subcontractor, is responsible for designing and
building JO capital improvement projects that will cost about $24 million.
Triton Ocean State will assume the cost of all capital improvements over
the 25-year period.
The City of Cranston received a $47.6 million concession fee from Triton
Ocean State, which it will pay back with interest.The city will use this
money in the following ways:
• $26 million to retire general obligation debt on the wastewater treat-
ment system;
• $8.6 million to repay money owed by the city’s sewer enterprise fund
to the general fund;
• $7 million to pay off accumulated deficits in the general fund; and
• $6 million to establish a surplus in the general fund.

-------
To find Out more about the
outright sale of POTWs, con-
tact EPA-New England.
PROS AND CONS OF
PRIVATIZATION
Municipalities typically cite a
combination of reasons vhv they
choose to privatize their waste-
water services. These reasons
include:
Access to more sophisticated
technologies and capabilities.
Less costly operation and
maintenance.
Flexible financing, including
the use of private capital.
l)elegation of responsibility
and risk.
Guaranteed cost of operations.
On the other hand, skeptics of
privatization have raised several
potential concerns regarding pri-
vate contracting. For example:
What if, in their drive to maxi-
mize profits, private firms cut
preventative and corrective main-
tenance to the point where the
long-run viability of the infra-
structure and equipment is com-
promised? Are communities
aware that they will assume
direct and indirect financial costs
associated with pursuing privati-
> zation agreements? These costs
can include:
Request for Proposals/Requests
for Qualifications (RFP/RFQ)
preparation, proposal review,
and contract negotiation (in
some recent agreements the
costs associated with these
activities were over $500,000);
Transferring or retraining pub-
lic P01W workers;
Overseeing and monitoring
the private contract, including
revkws of contractor perfor-
mance and compliance to
terms of the contract; and
Profits, dividends, and taxes
built into the private contrac-
tor’s cost.
Another issue that could create
problems for municipalities is a
privatization arrangement that
seems very attractive at the outset
but ultimately trades off short-
term gains for long-term costs.
Please Note: Swiic state’ c.’ilvimii—
iiic’iitcil (i’ ’c’iici(’S require a [ otmal
rel’ie%%’ and approval of a private
o/k’ratio!I proposal. Be sure to check
Wit/i i’ulIr state a ’ilci’.
Over the past 20 years, munici-
palities in New England have had
mixed success with private opera-
tion of their POTWs. In some
cases, service contracts have
resulted in improved performance
and/or cost savings. In other
cases, cost savings have not mate-
rialized as expected and opera-
tions have not improved.
Two LEASES .
The city will pay Triton Ocean State an annual fee that will total over
$400 million by the end of the contract period.The city retains owner-
ship of the wastewater system, collects all wastewater user fees, and
enforces the pretreatment program. It is also required to pay for repairs
and replacements that must be undertaken because of uncontrollable
circumstances, changes in laws, and post-contract improvements request-
ed by the city.
Danbury leased its wastewater treatment system to U.S. Filter Operating
Services (USFOS) for a 20-year contract period.This lease works very
much like a standard contract operation arrangement in which the city
pays the contractor an annual maintenance fee that includes solids han-
dling, staffing, and base electric costs up to $400,000.The maintenance
fee will total over $85 million over the life of the contract, based on an
estimated annual three percent Consumer Price Index increase. USFOS
is responsible for operating and maintaining the treatment plant, force
mains, and pump stations. Danbury upgraded its IS mgd facility, force
mains, and pump stations in the early I 990s for $76 million, and the sys-
tem is currently in excellent condition.
Danbury received a $10 million concession fee from
USFOS, which it will pay back with interest. Of this
amount, $8.2 million will be used to cover the
landfill and $1 .8 million to cover additional
costs and stabilize the user charge.The city
retains ownership of the wastewater system,
collects all wastewater user fees, and is respon-
sible for any additional costs (e.g., associated
with increased flows or electrical costs that
exceed $400,000), capital improvements
that exceed $3,000/item, and lab-
oratory analyses that exceed
$5,000/year.The city is fully
responsible for maintaining the
I 50-mile collection system.
j
0

-------
Developing A
Win/Win
Privatization
Program
I f your decision-making path
leads your community to
choose a contract operation or a
lease/concession arrangement,
the successful outcome of this
decision will depend on how you
define your goals for privatization,
how you solicit, select, and nego-
tiate your contract, and how you
later monitor and enforce the
C( )flt ract.
SETTING GOALS
By clearly defining your goals,
your community can make spe-
cific determinations as to who
can bid on its wastewater services
contract and what type of con-
tract operation and/or lease
arrangement best suits its needs.
If, for example, your community
wishes to receive a large upfront
concession fee or capital invest-
ment, you may wish to eliminate
existing public employees and all
hut a handful of large companies
from bidding on the contract. If,
on the other hand, your commu-
nity is more concerned about
which potential bidder can pro-
vide the best services for the least
amount of money, then you
might open up the bidding
process to a “managed competi-
tion” scenario, in which your
municipal employees bid against
the private sector to determine
who can do the job most cost-
effectively.
MANAGING THE PROCUREMENT
PROCESS
Most municipalities choose their
private contractors through the
use of a RFPIRFQ. The RFP/RFQ is
the basis for a successful contract
operation arrangement and is key
to obtaining the desired “win-
win” situation. The more detailed
the RFP/RFQJ the less the possibil-
ity for any misunderstanding in
the future. Taking the time to
spell out your goals and expecta-
tions in the RFP/RFQ will attract
the appropriate contractors and
will provide the details they
require to make legitimate bids.
From the contractor’s viewpoint,
a detailed RFP/RFQ allows all
prospective bidders to address the
exact services desired by the
municipality.
To craft a well-written RFP/RFQ
you will need a significant
amount of input from your cur-
rent POTW staff, and you may
well need the assis-
tance of an expert in
the POTW privatiza-
tion procurement
process. The more time
and effort you spend
developing an effective
RFP/RFQ, the fewer
headaches you will
encounter down the
privatization road.
CONDUCTING A TRANSPARENT
CONTRACTOR EVALUATION AND
SELECTION PROCESS
The contractor selection process
should stand the test of public
scrutiny. Both the public and the
prospective provider should be
confident that the selection
process is fair and equitable. Here
are some tips that can help your
community ensure a fair selection
process:
Select By Committee
Entering into a private con-
tract is a significant undertak-
ing for a municipality. Just as
it will take more than one per-
son to develop the RFP/RFQ a
committee of officials, profes-
sionals, and citizens should be
organized to review the pro-
posals. This approach allows
for different viewpoints and
helps to build trust within the
community.
Focus on Quality, Not
Just Cost
Although cost is a critical fac-
tor in the privatization deci-
sion, the selection committee
should take into account the
past performance of the
prospective bidders, their
attention to details, and com-
mitment to community goals.
The qualifications of a
prospective bidder’s staff are
also critical.
Seek Input From Current
Staff
The current POTW staff have
invaluable experience that can
he tapped during the review
process.
Hold All Bidders to Same
Level of Accountability
If the municipality decides to
allow managed competition,
hold the municipal bidders to
the same accountability as the
private bidders.
Open Books to All
Requests for Existing
Operating Data
All bidders should receive the
same information on the
POTW (e.g., physical condi-
tion, compliance perfor-
mance). Ample opportunity
should be provided to all qua!-
ified potential bidders to
inspect the POTW.
Maintain an Objective
Evaluation Process
The selection criteria should
have been defined in the
RFPIRFQ and the selection
committee should follow these
guidelines in the selection
process.

-------
DEVELOPING A WIN-WIN
CONTRACT
Once your RFPIRFQ has been
developed and distributed, the
bids submitted, and a contractor
selected, the final step in the pro-
curement process is drawing up
the contract between the munici-
pality and the contractor. A con-
tract that doesn’t have two win-
ners is doomed to failure.
In the case of a contract for the
operation and maintenance of a
POTW, both parties would like to
have a document that not only
ensures compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations,
but also protects and improves, as
necessary, the wastewater infra-
structure. The contractor needs
assurance that its costs are covered
and that it will be able to make a
fair profit on the undertaking. The
municipality, as part of its goal-
setting and RFP/RFQ process,
needs a contract that defines the
level of service it expects from the
private provider, both financially
and in terms of performance.
Given the potential for contract
misinterpretations, it is extremely
important that the community
have the proper resources to
negotiate a contract that protects
its interests. Points of potential
misinterpretation can include:
Capital Cost Vs. Operation
And Maintenance
Who is responsible for what
cost? Too often, this question
has been the source of many
arguments after the contract
has been signed. Who pays for
what should be answered and
clearly understood by both the
contractor and the municipali-
ty prior to signing the con-
tract.
While each contract is differ-
ent, the municipality is typi-
cally responsible for capital
costs, while the contractor is
responsible for operation and
maintenance costs. If a munic-
ipality agrees to retain respon-
sibility for capital improve-
ments, projections on what
such improvements will cost
during the term of the con-
tract should be taken into
account in the contract. If one
of the goals of the communi-
ty’s privatization project is to
have a consistent annual bud-
get, then money should be set
aside on an annual basis for
capital improvement. Note
that most contracts have
clauses stating that if a munic-
ipality does not provide for
necessary capital improve-
ments, the contractor is no
longer liable for compliance
violations.
Assignment Of Risk
Contracts must clearly identify
all risks involved in construc-
tion, operation, financing, reg-
ulation, personal injury, etc.,
and must clearly assign
responsibility for these risks.
For example, most municipal!-
ties presuppose that the con-
tractor assumes full responsi-
bility and liability for environ-
mental compliance. However,
most contracts limit the con-
tractor’s liability in certain cir-
cumstances, such as:
• When influent exceeds
POTW design parameters;
• The municipality does not
fund needed capital
improvements;
• There are changes in state or
federal regulations;
• ‘rhere are delays in trans-
portation of supplies, mate-
rials, and equipment; and
• There are “force majeure
risks,” such as fire, explo-
sion, flood, or similar occur-
rence.
Throughout New England,
compliance at privately-oper-
ated facilities is about the
same as at POTWs. However,
large (over 10 mgd) POTWs
that have been operated by
private contractors for over 5
years tend to have more
NPDES violations.
Concession Fees
Recently, the driving force
behind several long-term
POTW privatization leases has
been a requirement for
upfront concession fees that
are used by municipalities for
such purposes as short-term
cash infusion to general funds,
financing of POTW debt, or
needed capital improvements.
When a community requires
these concession fees, it neces-
sarily preempts its existing
public employees and all but a
handful of contractors from
bidding on the contract. A
legitimate concern surround-
ing upfront concession fees is
that some municipal officials
may use these fees for short-
term gain at the expense of
the long-term viability of the
community wastewater infra-
structure.
In some instances, these con-
cession fees are being diverted
from the sewer fund and are
being used to pay off other
municipal debt. These “conces-
sion fees with interest” are
then amortized over the life of
the lease as part of the user
charge (even though the funds
are not used for sewer purpos-
es). Municipalities should
ensure that payback costs of
concession fees are fully
explicit (and not hidden) in
contract bids.
Given the potential for discrepan-
cies in contract interpretation,
municipalities must take care in
order to successfully negotiate a
win-win contract.
7

-------
PRIvA’rIzA’rIoN
ACREEP1ENTS
S igning a contract or lease may
be the end of one process, but
it is just the beginning of anoth-
er, very important development.
Like any type of relationship,
communication is crucial to the
success of the professional associ-
ation that is established between
the community and the private
contractor. ‘This partnership will
be effective only if everyone
involved accepts their responsi-
bilities, which should have been
clearly spelled out in the con-
tract. Primary contact persons for
both the municipality and the
contractor are key to successful
contract communication. Besides
providing a consistent dialogue
path, these individuals will have
the necessary information to pro-
mote support for the POTW
activities in both the community
and the private company.
Extensive monitoring, record-
keeping, reporting, and perfor-
mance evaluation are critical to a
successful privatization outcome.
Although the contract will usual-
ly specify the level of mainte-
nance and upkeep required of the
contractor, the municipality must
implement an effective strategy
for ensuring that these require-
ments are met. The lack of appro-
priate monitoring and enforce-
ment of the agreement could lead
to the deterioration of the infra-
structure and. the compromise of
environmental cornpl lance over
the long term. If your municipali-
ty cannot afford to maintain
skilled in-house staff to monitor
the contract, you may want to
look into training and sharing
monitoring personnel with other
communities engaged in con-
tract/lease operations, or retain a
third-party private firm to per-
form this task.
Short...
.r community has several
broad options for securing
the most efficient full range of
wastewater utility services. Under
the right conditions, public, pri-
vate, or public-private options
can deliver the desired results. No
matter which option your munic-
ipality chooses, responsibility for
the operation, maintenance, and
compliance of the wastewater
facility rests squarely with the
community. The diligence with
which your community plans for
and executes its wastewater ser-
vices decision will determine how
performance of either private or
public sector services plays out.
As you leave the starting gate in
getting from where you are now
to where you want to be, keep a
few key steps in mind:
Do your homework. Find out
what you need to know before
you leave the starting gate.
what you’ve got, so you’ll
know what you need.
If you decide to privatize:
• Contact your state environ-
mental agency and EPA to
check on pertinent rules and
regulations;
• Contact other similar sized
communities to check on
their experiences with the
privatization process and to
find out how things are
going now;
• Enter the process with a
Win/Win attitude;
• Spend the time and effort
needed to prepare an
RFP/RFQ that ensures the
best proposals and an effi-
cient bidding process;
• Check the references of your
bidders; and
• Negotiate the contract care-
fully. Make sure all involved
know what it says and what
it means.
Be sure your community
undertakes a performance
evaluation of its POTW. Know

-------
POTW Contractor Operators in New En Iand
(As of March 1998)
CONNECTICUT
Bridgeport (E&W) - PSG
Danbury - USFOS
Killingly - AOS
Naugatuck -
N ugatuck T. C.
New 1-laven - OMI
Nepndon - PSG
North I javen - USFOS
Not wa1k-Ma1colm-
?Pirnie
PAchfield - OMI
(Seymour - PSG
West Haven - PSG
Machias - JMC Inc.
Mapleton - Gil St. Pierre
Pittsfield - Acheron
Rockland - Earthtech
Unity JMCInc.
Vassalboro - JMC Inc.
Warren - W&C
Whitneyville - JMC Inc.
RHODE ISLAND
C anston - PSG
SmitJ fieJtV PSG- -
Warren - W&C
Westerly - lOS
VERMONT
Bi idgéwatér - D&H
Je fersonv lle - PES
Lyndonville - Eárthtech
Plttsford - SOS
St. Johnsbury - Earthtech
Wallingford - Westside
Waterbury - PSG
Wiiliamstown - SOS
Putney - SOS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Bethlehem - Welch
W&WW Services
Canaan - Water System
Oper. of NH
Qaremont - D&H
Doter -OMI
Lisbon - Welch W&WW
Services
Little ton - W&C \ r
Newfiéld - PES MASSACHUSETTS
Newingtoii - Earthtech \ Brockton - PSG
Rollinsford’- RES / Chatham - Eartlhtech
Somersworth - OMI Cohasset - PSG
Wakefield - W&C ) Concord - W&
Wolfeboro - W&C ng - ERESC
Fall -
Gardner - Earthtech
W&C Gloucester - PSG
Hull - PSG
Leominster - USFOS
Lynn - USFOS
New Bedford - PSG
Orleans - WW
Inc. Operations
Rocidand - PSG
Southbrldge - PSG
Sunderland - Warren
Bros.
MAINE
Anson-Madison -
Baileyville - W-P
Belfast - JMC Inc.
Biddeford - OMI
Blue Hill - J. Fancy Inc.
Canton - W&C
East Machias - JMC
Eilsworth - W&C
Lisbon - Earthtech
Loring - W&C
Lubec - JMC Inc.
Sturbridge - USFOS
Taunton - PSG
Westboro - USFOS
Yarmouth - AOS
CONTRACT
OPERATION FIRMS
A heron, ME
A ua-Source Opera1t n
Services (AOS), RI 1
‘ rthtech, MA
Dufresne & Henry
(D&H),VT
J CTii ,. ME
j. Pancy Inc.
ERESCO, MA
Naugatu k T. C., CT
Malcolnifjrnie, Y
Operatkrnal
Management Int’l
(OMI), CO
Piscataqi a
Eni’ithnmental --—-- ----
Ser vice PES), NH
Profe sional Service
Group (PSG), MA
SOS - Simon Operations
Serivices, VT
Gil St Pierre, ME
U.S. Filter Operating
Services (USFOS), MA
Warren Bros., MA
Water S tern Operator
‘-pf $H
Wel J i Water
Wastewater rvices,
NH
Westside, VT
Wright-Pierce Opera
(W-P), ME
Woodward & Curran
Inc. (W&C), ME
Federal Contacts
Haig Farmer
USEPA - Headquarters
Washington, DC
(202) 260- 7279
Maine Department of
Environmental Protection
Augusta, ME
(207) 287-7659
Mas a hiise ts Department of
Environmental Protection
Milibury, MA
(508) 756-7281
Charles Conway
USEPA - New England
New Hampshite partment of
Environmentàj Services
Concord, NH
(603) 271-3503
Rhode Isla Department of
Environmental Management
Providence, RI
) (401) 222-6820 x7247
Vermont artment of
K EnvirØiimental Conservation
“— Waterbury, VT
(80Z 241-3746
1
Boston, MA
(617) 565-3517
_Cp!llI cticut l epartment of
En ronme - tal rotectio
Hartford, CT
— Interstate Contacts
New England Interstate
Environmental Training Center
(NEIETC)
South Portland, ME
(207) 767-2539
Eng d Interstate Water
Poll ntrol Commission
)
Wilmington, MA
(978) 658-0500

-------