Add one more item to the list of expenses that may be expected to strain future municipal budgets: garbage collection.

Fifteen municipalities in the South Hills have five-year refuse removal agreements set to expire Dec. 31. Officials in these communities are concerned that the cost of collection and disposal of solid waste may rise significantly under terms of new agreements.

The South Hills Area Council of Governments, SHACOG, which addresses concerns shared by its member communities, coordinated the joint bidding that led to current waste-collection contracts for those municipalities.

The council is doing so again for those communities and for Peters, which joined the bidding this year for new five-year pacts. SHACOG officials plan to publicly open bids at 11 a.m. tomorrow at the Dormont municipal building.

Other municipalities participating in the joint process include Baldwin Borough, Baldwin Township, Bethel Park, Brentwood, Castle Shannon, Dormont, Heidelberg, Jefferson Hills, Mt. Oliver, Mt. Lebanon, Pleasant Hills, Scott, South Park, Upper St. Clair and Whitehall. All but Peters are SHACOG members.

While the council solicits and receives bids for garbage collection, it does not enter into contracts with collection companies. Instead, each municipality will sign its own contract with a collection firm after reviewing figures received through the bidding process.

SHACOG performs a similar role in arranging joint bidding for other products, such as rock salt and police cars.

Municipalities choose collectors after comparing bid figures against the needs and wishes of residents and calculating the cost of options. For example, refuse collection can be provided either on a "per ton" or "per unit" basis.

One municipality's leaders may choose to one collector and pay "per unit," or by the household. Another may opt to pay less to a different refuse collector and pay a fee for each ton of garbage collected there.

Municipalities also vary on the type and amount of recycling options offered to residents. Those options, too, will be considered during analysis of bids.

Paying for refuse collection is handled differently in various municipalities. Some include the expense in annual municipal budgets, while others assess residents a set fee on a quarterly basis. Other municipalities arranged for their collectors to bill residents directly each quarter.

The process of arranging to collect refuse from 89,000 households is "major, both in its size and duration," said SHACOG Executive Director Louis Gorski.

"I've been told this is the largest competitive bid for garbage collection in Western Pennsylvania, or maybe in the state,'' he said.

The document seeking bid proposals was about 120 pages long, he said. Municipal officials estimate they'll need weeks to analyze the bids and complete their calculations.

The cost of garbage collection service covered by the current agreements is around $38 million, Mr. Gorski said, and costs could easily increase by $10 million in new agreements.

"The realm of $50 million is not beyond question," he said.

Struggling with the rising cost of refuse removal is a "constant theme" for communities around the country, said Chaz Miller of the National Solid Wastes Management Association, a trade association representing for-profit companies that provide waste collection.

Labor represents the greatest expense. But costs of insurance, capital equipment, diesel fuel and complying with environmental regulations have been on the rise, Mr. Miller said.

In the last few years, some communities have seen garbage collection costs rise 35 to 40 percent, said Upper St. Clair Assistant Manager Mark Mansfield. Residents of communities who participated in the last SHACOG bids, however, were shielded from increases while paying lower rates negotiated five years ago.

"We're likely to see an increase," Mr. Mansfield said, although Upper St. Clair's proposed budget for 2009 takes this into account.

But officials in other communities are nervous that already strained budgets will take "a big hit" if collection costs increase, Mr. Gorski said.

"It's coming in as a budget buster," said Bethel Park Manager William Spagnol of the expected increases. "Curb pickup turns out to be a costly endeavor."

"Everybody should be concerned," said Tom Hartswick, Castle Shannon's manager. "Even a 10 to 20 percent increase is big."

In Brentwood, Peters and other communities where residents pay quarterly fees for refuse removal, future increases likely will be passed on to them rather than paid out of annual budgets, municipal managers said.

Still, officials said they are confident their communities will get a competitive price by jointly bidding for collection service through SHACOG rather than soliciting bids separately. They believe refuse collectors will offer their most competitive proposals in hopes of working in so many communities for the next five years.

"There's no question that volume tends to produce a discount," Mr. Gorski said.

Mt. Lebanon Public Works Director Tom Kelley said a collection company also can spread its costs over a five-year contract, creating opportunities for its customers to save money.

"It's definitely a benefit for units of government to get together and competitively seek services," Mr. Kelley said.

This round of bid proposals includes two noteworthy changes.

A fuel adjustment clause will allow the refuse collector to adjust fees over the term of the contract as fuel prices fluctuate. This clause protects companies and customers because it does not force speculation on fuel costs at the end of the contract. Mr. Gorski said.

Also new is the inclusion of Peters, which is considering joining the council. The township's current refuse removal agreement expires in June.

Two national companies, Allied Waste Industries Inc. and Waste Management Inc., are expected to submit bids. Both companies provide services in South Hills communities. Mr. Gorski said that it was unlikely, but possible, that a third company would bid.

And what if proposed price tags are just too high to swallow?

Municipal officials will have to reassess residents' needs, Mr. Gorski said. Most communities now provide service in which virtually all waste is removed, and their leaders may be hesitant to cut back, he said.

But large items such as washing machines could be excluded from lists of items that are removed free, and municipalities could contract separately with scrap dealers to remove them. Recycled items also could be picked up less frequently.

Another option would be for the council to re-bid the work with scaled-back specifications. Mr. Gorski said he expects municipal officials will address the bids soon, in order to have new collection agreements in place by the end of the year.