A new tender for the public hygiene service will be launched a tender for the public hygiene service. In Giovinazzo it is talked about very little or perhaps not at all. Alternative Spring he gives his reading of the facts in a note that we publish in full:
«Of all the taxes, TARI is certainly the most hateful one!
It is also because when faced with sacrifices to separate waste one is never rewarded; indeed, rates systematically increase!
Well, in ARO BA2 which also includes our city, a new tender will be launched very shortly, as the terms of the old contract have now expired.
Given the importance of the matter (especially for our pockets!), this should be the central topic of public and political discussion; and yet no one talks about it!
Yet, in the general silence, something is moving, even if, in our humble opinion, in a disorderly and dangerous way.
In fact, from the documents we learn that the Mayors of ARO BA2 (and, therefore, also that of Giovinazzo), rather recklessly, are oriented towards taking the path of “Project Financing” for the new tender for the Urban Hygiene service 2025/34.
A truly unconvincing choice!
In fact, Project Financing requires the service manager to draw up the industrial plan, free of charge; in return he is given a right of pre-emption on the future tender (art. 193 of Legislative Decree 36/2023).
This is the reason why this instrument is mostly used to build new plants: the private individual undertakes to build the plant, receiving the transfer fee in exchange.
Another thing, however, is the Project Financing for the management of the public hygiene and waste collection service.
In fact, who guarantees that the proponent, who will most likely also be the collection manager, does not create a plan that responds exclusively to his own needs and interests (obviously profit-related) and not to those of each individual municipality?
And that’s not enough!
The Mayors of ARO Ba2 seem inclined to adopt the so-called “concession model”, i.e. entrusting the winner of the public hygiene service tender also with the collection of TARI bills.
This means that the citizen will be forced to interface directly with the dealer for any dispute; and most likely with a telephone call center rather than offices and employees answering questions.
And again!
Municipalities currently provide for the presence of a third party (Director of Contract Execution, DEC) who monitors compliance with the specifications and who, in the event of non-compliance, applies sanctions on the monthly fee paid to the manager.
With the “dealer model” who will control the manager?
Will the “controlled” also become “controller” of himself?
For all these reasons we are unfavorable to the choice of Project Financing and the “concession system”; even more so if this choice is made “under cover of darkness” and outside of any public debate.
In our opinion, we should instead proceed with the development of an industrial plan, valorising the peculiarities of each municipality, known only to its own offices, and with the subsequent tender.
And it should be done soon too, to prevent technical extensions to the current contract from becoming the rule!
Alternative Spring
