¹ú²úÂ鶹

Municipalities that commit to transparency, from the way they write their contracts to how they report performance, do not just reduce risk. They elevate trust, increase  compliance, and create systems that are more resilient to political, legal, and environmental pressures.
By Morgan McCarthy, JD

Transparent contracting in solid waste management is not just a legal formality, it is also a powerful tool for building accountability, earning public trust, and delivering services that stand the test of time. As municipalities confront rising landfill costs, tightening regulations, and growing demand for environmental responsibility, the contracts they sign must do more than outline responsibilities, they must tell a clear, defensible story of how public dollars are spent and what outcomes are expected.

Transparency is what transforms that story into a shared vision. It bridges the gap between ratepayers, service providers, and public officials, fostering mutual understanding and protecting against costly missteps. This article explores how municipalities can make transparency the foundation of their solid waste contracts—from early planning and procurement to performance tracking and community reporting—and showcases real-world examples where this approach is driving better, more equitable results.

Rebuilding Public Trust Through Transparency
Solid waste management is one of the most consistent and visible services municipalities provide. When done well, it quietly supports public health and environmental protection. But when it fails, or even appears to fail, it becomes a flashpoint for public frustration.

In today’s climate of inflation, labor shortages, and stricter environmental mandates, residents are increasingly asking questions: Why are rates increasing? Who was awarded the contract? What mechanisms are in place to ensure high-quality service? If those answers are not readily available, or worse, are not built into the fabric of the contract itself, municipalities risk more than customer complaints. They risk legal exposure, political tension, and a breakdown in public trust.

Transparent contracting offers an alternative. It shifts waste services from a passive utility to a shared civic responsibility, one where community members understand how decisions are made, what standards are enforced, and how public money is being spent.

Strengthening Contracts with Legal Clarity and Enforceable Standards
A transparent contract is not just good policy, it is also a legal and financial safeguard. In states like California, where Proposition 218 requires that fees be proportional to the cost of service, municipalities must demonstrate exactly how rates are calculated and justified. But even in jurisdictions without such formal requirements, clear contractual language remains essential.

The most effective solid waste contracts remove ambiguity and articulate precisely what services are being provided, how often, and at what cost. They clearly define responsibilities, establish consistent reporting protocols, and codify expectations for both performance and communication. For example, including detailed service frequencies by material stream or laying out customer education requirements helps prevent disputes and ensure continuity during leadership or provider transitions.

Performance-based provisions are especially important. Modern contracts often include key performance indicators (KPIs), such as the percentage of collections completed on schedule, contamination rates in material streams, and average response times to customer service requests, all backed by enforceable consequences. Financial penalties for missed pickups or excessive contamination, alongside incentive structures for exceeding diversion goals, reinforce a culture of accountability. These provisions are not just internal benchmarks, they are also public assurances that service standards matter.

Transparency Begins Long Before the RFP
Embedding transparency starts well before a contract is drafted or an RFP is released. It begins with listening. Pre-procurement engagement ensures that the scope of work reflects the real-world needs and priorities of the community. In many cases, this means conducting surveys, hosting listening sessions, and consulting with residents, businesses, and advocacy groups to understand what matters most. Is affordability a higher priority than expanded organics collection? Do multifamily households have equal access to recycling services? What trade-offs are people willing to accept?

In Fort Collins, CO, the municipality launched a comprehensive engagement process prior to reissuing its hauling contracts. Public input shaped the design of service tiers, sustainability targets, and educational goals, ensuring that the final agreement reflected not only best practices, but also community values. When the contract was awarded, it was far easier to justify changes to service levels and rates because the public had already helped define them.

Communicating With the Public, Not Just the Legal Team
Once the contract is in place, the next challenge is communication, and here, transparency is often tested. Legal documents do not need to be opaque to be enforceable. Municipalities can, and should, make contract terms digestible to the public without sacrificing precision.

Tools like executive summaries, service comparison charts, and visual guides can help residents understand what is changing, why it is necessary, and how they will be affected. These resources are particularly powerful when offered in multiple languages and made accessible through various platforms, from city websites to utility bill inserts.
Municipalities like Austin, TX, have shown how this can be done effectively. Their use of plain language materials and infographic-style content has helped demystify contamination rules and service changes. The clarity of their communications has not only improved program compliance but it also strengthened public support.

Rate adjustments offer one of the clearest tests of transparency. When rates change without explanation, municipalities often face a wave of resistance. But when rate increases are framed within a narrative of rising costs, environmental mandates, or expanded services, and when the financial impacts are clearly presented, residents are more likely to accept them. Transparency, in this case, does not just protect against complaints, it also creates a shared understanding of value.

As mandates tighten and budgets shrink, the question is not whether transparency matters. The question is whether your contract reflects it. because in this industry transparency is not just good governance, it is also a public service standard.

Oversight: Making Accountability Public
Transparency must extend beyond the contract award. For trust to last, oversight needs to be visible, ongoing, and inclusive. Some municipalities establish resident-led advisory committees to serve as a liaison between the public and the service provider. These bodies can review performance reports, provide feedback on outreach efforts, and evaluate new technologies or pilot programs. In other communities, neighborhood associations or nonprofit coalitions are engaged to ensure equitable oversight and representation from marginalized communities.

Tacoma, WA, offers a compelling example of transparency in action. The municipality’s residential waste contracts include monthly reporting on service performance, with data on missed pickups, contamination, and customer complaints made publicly available. A comprehensive dashboard allows residents to monitor progress over time, compare metrics by zone, and understand how contractor performance affects the broader system. These measures are not just window dressing—they are also embedded into the contract as enforceable requirements with real financial consequences.

Equally important is establishing a strong feedback loop. Municipalities that routinely gather input from residents—whether about service satisfaction, participation challenges, or confusion around recycling guidelines—are better positioned to fine-tune their programs in real time. When that community feedback informs contractor performance evaluations or is used to shape future procurement documents, transparency becomes more than a moment in the process; it becomes a sustained commitment to accountability and continuous improvement.

From Examples to Action: Lessons from the Field
Fort Collins, CO, provides a blueprint for how community engagement can shape contract design and public trust. Its open, iterative process led to franchise agreements that not only included robust performance requirements, but also reflected the community’s goals around sustainability, equity, and service quality. The municipality also developed a public dashboard to monitor compliance, ensuring that transparency did not end with contract signing.

Tacoma, WA, on the other hand, illustrates what strong enforcement and public accountability can look like in real time. Its detailed performance reporting and public-facing dashboards turn KPIs from internal tools into shared metrics that the entire community can track. The result is a system where transparency reinforces compliance—and vice versa.

These examples show that transparency is not one-size-fits-all, but the principles are universal: clear goals, inclusive processes, and public accountability.

Embedding Transparency in Your Next Contract
To institutionalize transparency, municipalities should begin by designing open procurement processes that allow for public input and scrutiny. From there, contracts should articulate clear roles and responsibilities, tie compensation to measurable outcomes, and establish enforceable reporting requirements.

Communication strategies should be embedded into the contract, not treated as afterthoughts, with commitments to public education, multilingual outreach, and rate transparency written into scope requirements. Finally, oversight must be treated as a living component of the contract. Advisory committees, dashboards, and regular surveys are all tools to make sure the public stays connected to the services they fund and rely on.

Transparency as a Standard, not a Strategy
In solid waste management, transparency is no longer optional. It is not a bonus feature or a communications tactic. It is the foundation upon which effective, defensible, and equitable service delivery rests.

Municipalities that commit to transparency, from the way they write their contracts to how they report performance, do not just reduce risk. They elevate trust, increase compliance, and create systems that are more resilient to political, legal, and environmental pressures. | WA

Morgan McCarthy, JD, is a seasoned solid waste and sustainability professional with more than 18 years of experience driving complex, high-impact projects across the public and private sectors. With a background in law and a deep understanding of environmental systems, Morgan brings a unique blend of regulatory insight and operational strategy. She specializes in solid waste master planning, regulatory compliance, contract negotiation, and the development of RFPs and franchise agreements. Morgan has successfully guided dozens of municipalities through transformative initiatives that enhance service delivery, reduce environmental impact, and stand up to legal and financial scrutiny. Her portfolio includes drafting and negotiating multimillion-dollar agreements, leading regional waste audits, and spearheading Zero Waste planning efforts. Morgan can be reached at [email protected]. | WA

References
Austin Resource Recovery. (n.d.). Programs and services. City of Austin. https://www.austintexas.gov/department/austin-resource-recovery
California Constitution. (1996). Proposition 218 – Right to Vote on Taxes Act, Article XIII D. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/1996/prop218_11_1996.html
City of Fort Collins. (2025, May 30). Contracted Residential Trash Collection. https://www.fcgov.com/recycling/contract-for-trash
City of Fort Collins. (2025). Community Dashboard: Waste Diversion and Environmental Health. https://fortcollins.clearpointstrategy.com/
City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. (n.d.). Garbage and recycling information for residents. https://www.portland.gov/bps/clean-rivers-garbage-recycling
City of Seattle Public Utilities. (n.d.). Solid Waste Services and Rates. https://www.seattle.gov/utilities/services/where-does-it-go/garbage
City of Tacoma Public Works. (n.d.). Solid Waste Utility Overview and Public Reporting. https://www.cityoftacoma.org/government/public_works/solid_waste
Tacoma Public Utilities. (2025). Rates and Budget Process (2025–26). https://www.mytpu.org/payment-billing/rate-information/
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). (n.d.). Best practices in budgeting, transparency, and utility rate setting. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). (n.d.). Solid waste service delivery: Trends and case studies. https://icma.org
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA). (n.d.). Best practices for performance-based contracts in waste services. https://swana.org
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (n.d.). Paying for sustainable waste management: Performancebased contracting. https://www.epa.gov/smm/pay-sustainable-waste-management