HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.8 1993 Garbage Rate Application Issues CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 14, 1992
SUBJECT: Consideration of Issues Impacting 1993 Garbage
Rate Application
(Prepared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City
Manager)
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Letter dated October 21, 1992 Re: Change in
Recycling Rate
2. Resolution Approving Amendment to Recycling
Agreement
3. Survey for Franchise Fees and Other
Surcharges
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving Amendment to Recycling
Agreement and provide Staff with direction on
1 issues outlined in the final section of the
report.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: See Report.
DESCRIPTION: The City participates as a member of the Joint
Refuse Rate Review Committee (JRRRC) . This Committee has representation
from the 13 jurisdictions in Alameda County which receive garbage services
from Oakland Scavenger Company. The JRRRC provides an opportunity for the
agencies to collectively review rate applications as well as other issues
impacting garbage rates. The purpose of this Staff report is to identify
significant policy related issues which will need to be addressed once the
rate review is finalized. At this time, Staff has preliminary information.
Input from the City Council will allow Staff to prepare proposed
resolutions and any potential agreements for consideration at the next
meeting.
1992 - FIRST YEAR OF JURISDICTIONAL BASED RATES
The last rate application considered by the City Council represented a
substantial change in methodology. For the first time, the Oakland
Scavenger Company (OSC) presented expense and revenue data on a
jurisdiction basis. In other words, figures for the City of Dublin were
separate from other cities. In some cases, these projections were based on
allocations. For example, overhead type costs at the Livermore/Dublin
division need to be spread to the two cities. The change to jurisdiction
based rates was favorable for the City of Dublin.
RECYCLING
Currently, the base level of garbage service provided to residential
customers includes a curbside recycling service. The provision of this
service is outside the franchised rate review process. This means that the
Company has assumed all risks associated with providing the service at a
profit. Assumption of the risk also relates directly to changes which may
occur in the price paid for the commodities collected.
Pursuant to the agreement for recycling, the Company is entitled annually
to adjust the portion of the base garbage fee associated with recycling.
The current basic monthly garbage rates are as follows: -
Total
Basic Collection Clean-ups Recycling Monthly
Super Recycler $5.05 .30 $1.30 $6. 65
(20 Gallon Can)
Standard. Service $6.30 .30 $1.30 $7.90
(32 Gallon Caa+,)
u
COPIES TO:
4 Dan Borges, LDD General Manager
D. David MacDonald, Oakland Scaven er
ITEM NO. o CITY CLERK
M-21^1 h
The Company is allowed to make changes to the Recycling Component based on
changes to the Consumer Price Index. In the twelve months ending September
30, 1992 the CPI increased by 2.9%. This equates to a 4 cent increase in
the recycling component of the basic residential garbage rate.
For rate setting purposes, Staff would recommend that the City Council
concur with the inclusion of $1.34 as the 1993 curbside recycling rate.
The current policy is to include the recycling fee on the first can of
service. Staff does not recommend any change to this process.
MEASURE D CREDIT FOR RECYCLING SERVICE
As directed by the City Council at the meeting on October 26, 1992, Staff
has prepared an agreement which will provide a one-time credit for
recycling (Exhibit 2) . The City is authorized to utilize Measure D funds
for this purpose. These funds were provided to the City at the conclusion
of the Superior Court action which declared Measure D invalid.
The basic proposal accommodated by this agreement would grant all customers
receiving curbside recycling services a one-time $8.04 credit on the
garbage bill covering the period of January 1993 - March 1993. The amount
of the credit is based upon the total cost of the recycling component for
the first six months of 1993 (i. e. . $1.34 x 6 months = $8. 04) . The
agreement also specifies that the Company would provide an insert
explaining the credit.
A minor change has been incorporated in the agreement compared to the
financial information previously presented to the City Council. The
previous calculation provided for a maximum total reimbursement of $42,800.
In order to accommodate any changes in the customer base, Staff has changed
the maximum amount to $43, 000. This will provide for reimbursement to
5,348 accounts. As of December 1, 1992 the Company had 5,321 active
accounts. The City will only reimburse for the actual number of accounts
receiving the credit on the January billing.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution which will
authorize the one-time credit.
COST OF SPECIAL CLEAN-UPS
During the 1992 rate review, Staff indicated that the Company would be
collecting additional data on the cost of the four special Saturday clean-
ups. Prior to 1992, the understanding was that 2 clean-ups were funded
through the rates and two were funded with special funds. The reporting
systems in place did not provide a good accounting of the actual cost of
this service. There also was not a clear linkage that the cost was
included in the residential rates as opposed to other service levels such
as commercial rates. Residences with individual back yard service are the
only customers who receive special clean-ups.
In 1992, the basic residential charges were designed to include a 30 cent
clean-up component on the first can of service (see chart under "Recycling"
above) . The intent was to attempt to recover the cost of the two clean-ups
which had previously been funded outside the rates. The Company has been
able to provide actual data for the 1992 clean-ups.
In 1992, the decision to include 4 clean-ups in the rates did not provide
for lengthy customer notice of the January clean-up. The tonnage collected
at the January clean-up was well below the average of the three remaining
clean-ups (-i.e. 187 tons collected Jan. vs. average of 338 tons at each of
the remaining) . Given this discrepancy, Staff has calculated the estimated
cost based upon the three clean-ups which were well utilized.
The following summarizes information on the clean-ups conducted in April,
July and October of 1992 :
-2-
1992 Clean-Up Data
(Excludes January Clean-Up)
April July October Total for 3
Wages $ 11 ,220 $ 11 ,169 $ 10,842 $ 33,231
Fuel/Maintenance 1 ,665 1 ,540 1 ,480 4,685
Disposal 5, 154 3,742 3,667 12,563
Total Cost $ 18,039 $ 16,451 $ 15,989 $ 50,479
# Tons Collected 416 302 296 1 , 104
Total Cost for 3 Clean-Ups $ 50,479
Average Cost Per Clean-Up $ 16,826
Annual Cost 4 Clean-Ups (4 x Average) $ 67,304
Estimated Per Customer # of Customers 5,300
Annual Cost/Customer $ 12.69
Monthly Cost Per Customer $ 1 .06
These costs were prepared to give a general indication of the cost of major
activities which are required to provide this service. The cost estimates
do not address all of the components to provide the service. For example,
vehicle depreciation, certain overhead and other costs have not been
calculated.
DIRECTION ON NUMBER OF CLEAN-UPS TO BE PROVIDED
One way of reducing the cost of residential garbage service is to reduce
the service level. The City currently provides four quarterly clean-ups,
which is a high level of service. The clean-up has certain restrictions,
which are summarized below:
■ Garbage must be in disposable containers and placed at the curb by
5:30 a.m.
e Branches must be tied and no longer than 5 feet in length.
■ Maximum collected per residence is 3 cubic yards (Approximately 24
trash bags. )
■ No single items over 75 pounds.
■ The following are not accepted: hazardous waste, concrete, dirt, and
appliances.
The clean-ups are well utilized and have become an expected service level
for most customers.
If the City elects to continue with four clean-ups in 1993, the Company has
proposed the following dates:
January 23
April 10
July 17
October 16
The Company has developed this schedule which is consistent with previous
years and does not conflict with their equipment and staffing needs for
clean-ups in other communities.
Typically, the Company has notified residents of the clean-up dates on the
bill. In addition, the City has used the Community Calendar as a reminder.
The Calendar will not be an option in 1993. Staff and the Company are also
concerned about the need to provide advance notice to the customer.
Typically, City Council action on the rate application occurs in early
January. This process does not provide adequate lead time for the first
i
-3-
clean-up. The Company has limited flexibility to shift the January clean-
up to early February, due to commitments in other communities.
Staff would propose that if four clean-ups are maintained, that the Company
be authorized to proceed with a separate postcard mailing. The mailing
would notify the customer of the clean-up dates for 1993. This could be
mailed no later than the first week of January. The cost of preparing and
mailing the notice would be recovered by the Company in their rates. After
the first quarter billing, the quarterly bills would also include a
reminder of the upcoming clean-up date. The City would also attempt to
supplement this effort with press releases.
Staff recommends that the City Council determine the number of clean-ups to
be provided. If a reduction in service levels is desired, the City Council
should identify the preferred clean-up dates. If the four clean-up dates
are maintained, Staff would recommend that the City Council authorize the
Company to proceed immediately with a separate postcard mailing containing
the 1993 dates.
PLACEMENT OF FULL COST OF CLEAN-UP COMPONENT ON FIRST CAN OF SERVICE
As indicated above, the estimated monthly cost of four clean-ups is
approximately $1. 06 per household per month. When the City Council
considered the 1992 adjustment, Staff noted that monitoring of future costs
would allow for an appropriate adjustment in the future.
Based upon past policy to collect for standard services on the first can
(i.e. recycling) , the City Council should provide Staff with direction as
to the treatment of clean-up costs. There are several reasons which
support a policy to include the cost of this service in the basic service
level. The following are some of the reasons to continue this policy:
1. All customers have an equal opportunity to take advantage of this
service.
2. It may be inappropriate to increase costs to multi-can customers,
since they may use the clean-ups to a lesser extent. This is due to
the fact that they have additional capacity available on a regular
basis.
3o It reinforces the concept that rate payers are contributing in
proportion to the services offered.
Staff would recommend that the City Council impose the full cost of clean-
ups on the first can. As discussed later in this report, a proposed
reduction in the disposal component will minimize the impact of this
change.
ADMINISTRATIVE COST RECOVERY
Staff has indicated to the City Council in the past a need to develop an
on-going revenue source to support the administration of waste management
programs. This includes rate review and oversight of the services
provided, as well as implementation and reporting required for AB 939. In
Fiscal Year 1992/93, a portion of Staff costs were offset with Measure D
fees. This totalled $25,497 and was associated only with salary and
benefit costs of portions of the Assistant City Manager and Management
Assistant positions. The use of these fees was restricted to time expended
on recycling or waste reduction activities.
An option evaluated by Staff would be to request that -the Company assess a
fee which would be returned to the City for use on Administration of all
Waste Management functions. The City currently collects a 4.8% Franchise
Fee which is based upon Gross Revenues billed by the Company. Staff
estimates that an additional 2% fee would generate approximately $42, 000
per year. In essence this additional administrative fee would function
similar to the franchise fee. The difference would be that the Waste
Management Administrative Fees would be accounted for as a special revenue
ratherr thaLn. a general fund revenue. The City would commit to utilize these
-4-
funds exclusively for waste management activities. The amount would be
adequate to also recover overhead costs.
If the City imposed its current franchise fee of 4.8% and a 2%
Administrative Fee, the total City Fees would be 6.8% of gross revenues.
As shown on Exhibit 3, even with this increase, the City of Dublin would
rank 12th lowest out of 13 Alameda County jurisdictions. The rate would be
less than half of the average levied by other jurisdictions.
Staff recommends this as a reasonable approach to providing long term
funding for these activities. As the City Council is aware, changes in
State Law have continued to expand the level of City administration
required over waste management activities. As noted in the following
section, the current surplus in Company revenue will minimize the impact of
this change at this time.
ABILITY TO REDUCE TOTAL REVENUE TO COMPANY
The preliminary findings of the JRRRC Report are that the City can reduce
total revenue to the Company in 1993. As with prior rate applications,
Staff would recommend caution in reducing rates too severely. The rate
applications are based upon projections and the actual numbers may vary.
Also, changes in the economy significantly affect the quantity of garbage
handled in a specific year. Based upon preliminary data, it is anticipated
that revenue can be reduced by 11. 6% in 1993 . The addition of an
Administrative Fee by the City will decrease the amount of an adjustment
which can be made.
It is important not _to equate changes in revenue with changes in rates.
The difference occurs due to the fact that revenue is collected at
different levels depending on the class of service. The following table
shows how the Company revenue is distributed in the City of Dublin by type
of service:
Residential Commercial Roll-Off
City of' Dublin 28.3% 54. 6% 17.1%
By comparison in the City of Livermore, the Company receives 45. 6% of
revenue from the residential category.
The following calculation shows the potential target revenue reduction for
1993, based upon preliminary data from the 1993 Rate Application:
a. Projected 1993 Revenue $2,357,000
b. Estimated Expenses including Profit $2,094, 000
C. Estimated Additional Cost of City
2% Administrative Fee 42, 000
d. Total Projected Expenses $2, 136, 000
Amount of Projected Surplus Revenue (a-d) _ $221,000
In order to address the projected surplus, Staff would recommend that the
City Council undertake rate adjustments in 1993 which will reduce Company
revenues by $200, 000 - $221, 000. The reason for the range is to allow
flexibility in the event that actual year end results vary.
CONCEPTUAL 1993 RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE
The Recycling and Clean-up components of the residential-rates have been
discussed above. The remaining component to be considered is the uniform
rate for disposal. As noted earlier, the current residential rate uses
$6.30 for the uniform can disposal cost (each 32 gallon container) .
Recycling and clean-up services are added to the first can.
The Super Recycler which consists of weekly collection of a 20 gallon can,
includes a $5.05 per month disposal component. When this rate was
established, the intent was to price the disposal cost at 20% less than a
standard. 32 gallon can.
-5-
Staff is recommending that the basic disposal component cost be reduced by
12.5% to $5.60. The Super Recycler Rate would decrease to $4.50 if a
similar 20% discount were maintained. The following chart summarizes the
total impact of residential rate adjustments discussed in this report.
OPTION FOR 1993 RESIDENTIAL RATES
Proposed Monthly Change
1992 Rate 1993 Rate In Cost
1 Can Customer
Uniform Disposal $6.30 $5.60
Clean-Up .30 1 .06
Recycling 1 .30 1 .34 + 10(r/mo
TOTAL BASIC SERVICE $7.90 $8.00
2 Can Customer
Basic Service $ 7.90 $ 8.00
1 add'1 Uniform Disposal 6.30 5.60
TOTAL $14.20 $13.60 -601t/mo
Super Recycler
20 Gallon Disposal $5.05 $4.50
Clean-Up .30 1 .06
Recycling 1 .30 1 .34
BASE COST OF SERVICE $6.65 $6.90 +254t/mo
This option attempts to recognize the array of services made available to
residential customers. The basic level of garbage service at $8.00 per
month provides a significant number of services. The basic services
include:
■ Backyard Collection on a weekly basis of one 32 Gallon Container.
■ Four Special Clean-Ups providing for removal of a total of 12 cubic
yards of debris per year.
■ Curbside collection of recyclables.
Even with the high level of services offered, the City of Dublin rates
remain extremely favorable when compared to surrounding communities.
Preliminary projections are that the proposed rate adjustment will reduce
total revenue to the Company be approximately $20,000.
COMMERCIAL/DROP BOX RATE ADJUSTMENTS
The commercial sector is more difficult to analyze and develop recommended
rate adjustments. Therefore, actual rate scenarios will be presented once
the final JRRRC Report is considered by the City Council. It should be
noted that these sectors represent over 70% of the revenue collected by the
Company. These types of services also tend to be the most volatile in
terms of attempting to project workload. The economy can significantly
alter the level of business in these areas. For example, the lack of
construction activity reduces drop box service. Although certain direct
expenses such as landfill and fuel are also reduced, .this results in a
smaller base to absorb overhead operating expenses.
The commercial service consists of two service types Commercial Bin Service
and Roll-Off Service. Commercial bins are typically found at stores and
multi-family residences. The service is relatively efficient since a
front-end loader truck services several accounts and then hauls the waste
directly to the dump. The Roll-Off Service consists of large debris boxes
and is less efficient. The truck must travel to and from the landfill
after servicing each account.
In general terms, Staff is anticipating a proposed reduction in rates for
Commercial Bin Service. The Company is providing assistance to avoid
making too large of a reduction which would then require an increase in
1994. Staff will also be obtaining comparative data from surrounding
communities. Preliminary recommendations for Roll-Off Service would be to
freeze the current rates. The current rates continue to be competitive
with surrounding communities and this type of service is costly to provide.
BALANCING ACCOUNT
Beginning with the 1992 Rate Application, the members of the JRRRC
developed a methodology to address the Balancing Account. At that time
there was a deficit balance which meant that the rate payers owed the
Company monies for operational costs in prior years. The JRRRC members
concurred with a formula to disperse the amount owed to the various
jurisdictions. The Company requested that agencies attempt to eliminate
their deficit in 3 years.
Preliminary projections estimate that the City of Dublin will have
eliminated its share of the balancing account by December 31 , 1992. In
fact, the initial estimates suggest that there may be a surplus of
approximately $217,000. Due to the following reasons, Staff is
recommending that the City Council defer action on any rate reduction to
address this surplus until 1994:
1 . The estimated surplus is based largely on projections and the actual
amount may vary.
2. The Company will be in a position by mid 1993 to provide actual data
on the amount of any surplus.
3. The Company will track the surplus funds plus interest earned for use
in addressing future rate adjustments.
4. Several outstanding issues remain undetermined, which can affect the
cost of service. .These include:
■ Final negotiation of how landfill closure and post closure costs
will be collected. Also, updated cost projections must be
considered.
■ Pending ruling on the appeal of Measure D.
■ Uncertainty of economic factors in 1993.
5. If the City lowers rates in order to fully eliminate the surplus in
one year, a significant rate increase may be required the following
year.
For these reasons, Staff is recommending that the City Council conceptually
concur with this approach. During the upcoming year, Staff will pursue
finalizing some of the outstanding issues and present a proposal with the
1994 Rate. Application.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL
In order to provide Staff with adequate direction to prepare necessary
resolutions and agreements, it is important to obtain City Council
direction on several items addressed in this Report. The following
summarizes the issues and actions required:
RECYCLING
1 . Direct Staff to incorporate the new monthly recycling rate of $1 .34 in
the 1993 Residential Garbage Rate Structure.
2. Adopt Resolution providing One-time Measure D Credit.
CLEAN-UPS
1 . Determine the number of special clean-ups to be included in .;the rates.
2. Determine whether the Company should do a special mailing on the
Clean-Up Schedule.
3. Determine whether the full cost of $1 .06 per month should be included
on the first can of service.
-7-
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
1. Provide direction on whether an Administrative Waste Management Fee
should be considered.
2. If this fee is pursued, direct Staff to prepare the necessary
amendments to the agreements with Oakland Scavenger Company.
RESIDENTIAL RATES
Provide direction as to whether Staff should develop rate resolutions which
provide for a 12.5% decrease in the basic disposal component.
SURPLUS BALANCING ACCOUNT
Direct Staff to report on the elimination of any surplus balancing account
beginning with the 1991 rate application.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
Provide Staff with input on additional concerns or issues which should be
addressed in the final report to the City Council on the 1993 Rate
Application.
PSR/lss a:1214Garb.agenda#10
a
—8—
OCT 2 21994
Livermore Dublin Disposal XYM n'''rf�
6175 South Front Road A Wast Manage n(�jany
Livermore, California 94550 11��
510/447-1300
October 21, 1992
Mr. . Paul S. Rankin
Assistant, City Manager
City of Dublin
loo Civic Center Plaza
Dublin, CA . 94568
Dear Paul:
The curbside recycling program for the City of Dublin has been in
operation for two years." We continue to have ' increases in the
amount of material collected from the previous year. We would
hope, with the continued effort of the citizens of the City of
Dublin, that the program will continue to be a success in the
future
In section VI of our agreement we may request a annual adjustment
to the fee charges based on the Consumer Price Index. Based on the
attached index the consumer pric
twelve months. This would equat e to index
a four cent increasehinithe
fee. With the City of Dublin's approval we would like to increase
the recycling fee to $1.34 on January 1, 1993.
Please review the table and' call me so we can set a date to discuss
this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan B ges
Division President
and General Manager
DB:tle
a division of Oakland Scavenger Company
RESOLUTION NO. - 92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
****************
APPROVING FIRST AMENDMENT TO RECYCLING AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has an existing agreement with
Oakland Scavenger Company (OSC) and Livermore Dublin Disposal (LDD) to
provide curbside recycling; and
WHEREAS, OSC bills the customers directly as part of the basic
residential garbage service; and
WHEREAS, the City has received special funds which can only be
used for recycling activities; and
WHEREAS, the City has elected to utilize a portion of the funds
for a one-time recycling credit; and
WHEREAS, the City, LDD and OSC have developed an agreement which
would provide for the one-time credit and is attached hereto as
Exhibit A and by reference made a part hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
approve the agreement contained .in Exhibit A and the Mayor is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Dublin.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of December, 1992.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PSR/lss a:resorecy.agenda#10
x
FIRST AMENDMENT TO RECYCLING AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF DUBLIN, OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY AND LIVERMORE-DUBLIN DISPOSAL
DATED APRIL 24, 1990
TO PROVIDE FOR A ONE-TIME ALLOCATION
OF MEASURE D FUNDS
RECITALS
A. The City Council has approved an agreement dated April 24, 1990,
which provides a comprehensive Curbside Recycling Program;
B. The agreement is between the City of Dublin (CITY) , Oakland
Scavenger Company (OSC) , and Livermore Dublin Disposal (LDD) ;
C. Section VI of the Agreement specifies that LDD is entitled to
collect a fee on a per unit basis and that said fee can be
increased by changes in the Consumer Price Index;
D. The City of Dublin has received certain Measure D: Alameda County
Recycling Initiative Funds as a result of a Stipulation in Superior
Court Case No. 61787 filed in Napa County;
E. The Stipulation requires that the City utilize the Measure D monies
" . . .only for waste reduction or recycling or for funding such
programs in conjunction with reduction in rates. . . ";
F. The CITY desires to offer subscribers who are eligible to receive
Curbside Recycling service as of January 1, 1993 , a one-time credit
equivalent to the cost of Recycling Services for a six month
period;
G. Beginning January 1, 1993 in accordance with the Recycling
Agreement, the monthly cost will be $1. 34 per household per month.
NOW, THEREFORE, CITY, OSC, AND LDD AGREE THAT THE AGREEMENT, DATED
4/24/90, IS AMENDED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:
1. In accordance with SECTION VI COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES, CITY shall
incorporate $1. 34 per month in the rate schedule effective January
1, 1993 to accommodate curbside recycling services.
2 . On the residential garbage service bill covering the period from
January 1993 through March 1993, OSC shall provide for a one-time
credit for each account whose rate includes the Recycle America
Curbside Recycling Program. (Accounts receiving single family
service)
3 . The amount of the credit for each account shall be equal to the
cost of recycling services for the six month period from January
1993 - ;June 1993 ($1. 34 x 6 months = $8. 04 per account) .
4 . Not later than February 15, 1993, OSC/LDD shall provide an invoice
to CITY in sufficient detail to show the total number of accounts
receiving the credit times the amount of the individual credit as
defined in Section 3 above. The purpose of this invoice is to
-1-
allow CITY, using Measure D monies, to reimburse OSC/LDD for the
total amount of credits granted to customers pursuant to this
amendment.
5. CITY agrees to reimburse OSC/LDD in the amount of the invoice
within 45 days of receipt of said invoice described in number 4
above, provided that in no event shall the amount of the credit
granted by LDD or the reimbursement made by the City exceed the sum
of $43 , 000 (forty-three thousand dollars) . - Said payment shall be
made with Measure D Funds in accordance with all legal
requirements.
6. OSC and LDD assume all costs associated with revisions to the
billing to provide the one-time credit. In addition, LDD agrees to
provide customers with a written explanation as shown in Exhibit A,
attached hereto.
In witness whereof, this Amendment is executed by the parties to the
Agreement dated April 24, 1990 on this 14th day of December 1992 .
Oakland Scavenger Company, Livermore Dublin Disposal,
a California Corporation a wholly owned subsidiary
of Oakland Scavenger Company
D. David MacDonald Dan Borges
Executive Vice President President/General Manager
ATTEST: City of Dublin,
a Municipal Corporation
Kay Keck, City Clerk Peter W. Snyder, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Elizabeth Silver, City Attorney
I
a:recyamen.psr#13
-2-
EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT
CITY GRANTS SPECIAL RECYCLING CREDIT
All current single family garbage customers in the City of Dublin will
notice a credit of $8. 04 on the January 1993 quarterly bill. This
represents the cost of curbside recycling charges for six months, which
are part of your current garbage rate.
In 1991 , a majority of voters in Alameda County adopted Measure D:
Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative. Among other
things, the measure placed a special surcharge on garbage disposed of in
the landfill. This cost would require increased garbage rates in order
to pay for the surcharge. A majority of Dublin voters (58%) voted
against the measure. In early 1992, the Dublin City Council initiated a
legal challenge to the measure in order to protect the interests of
Dublin ratepayers. The City had already initiated its curbside
recycling program prior to the election on Measure D.
The money available for the one-time credit is the result of a Superior
Court ruling which halted the collection of the Measure D surcharge.
Funds already collected were returned to the cities and in accordance
with legal documents must be used for Recycling or Source Reduction
Programs.
The Superior Court ruling has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. If
the Court of Appeal holds the surcharge is valid, future rate
adjustments will be required.
a:recycred.psr#13
EXHIBIT 3
1992 SURVEY OF
FRANCHISE FEES AND OTHER SURCHARGES
LEVIED BY AGENCIES SERVICED BY OAKLAND SCAVENGER COMPANY
Fremont 20.000%
Newark 20.000%
Union City 20.000%
Alameda 16.882% (+ $6/ton Recycling Fee)*
Hayward 14.00%
Oakland
Commercial 13 .34% (+ $6/ton Recycling Fee)**
Residential 8. 44% (+ $6/ton Recycling Fee)**
(Company collects street sweeping fees)
Emeryville 12 .6% (+ $1 , 000 per month) '
Oro Loma Sanitary District 11 .5326%
Castro Valley Sanitary 10.00%
District
City of Livermore 10.00%
Albany 7 .5%
Piedmont 5.5%
Dublin 4.8%
If use Oakland Residential Rate, Average for All 13 Agencies = '12 . 4042%
I
If you exclude Lowest (City of Dublin) Average for .12 remaining = 13 .04%
NOTES: * Based on preliminary estimates, the $6/ton fee equates to
approximately an additional 6% for City of Alameda.
** Based on preliminary estimates, the $6/ton fee equates to
approximately an additional 7% for City of Oakland.
PSR/lss a:127FrFee.doc.psr#13