The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.3 WasteMgtAlaCntyAttach4-7 j., . ';-l, ': ,-. - -- CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 13, 1995 SUBJECT Public Hearing: Approval of Agreement For Integrated Solid Waste Management Services With Waste Management Alameda County and ~doption of A Rate Schedule Effective January 1, 1996 t)9' v- repared by: Paul S. Rankin, Assistant City Manager) EXHJBITS ATTACHED (1) /Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Summary (2) / Detailed Program Description (3) / Proposed Agreement (4) /' Historical Summary of City of Dublin Garbage Rates (5) / Charts Comparing Rates Between Bay Area Jurisdictions (6) / Resolution Authorizing Approval of the Agreement (7) / Resolution Adopting A Rate Schedule For Garbage and .. Recycling Services Effective January 1, 1996 RECOMMENDATION ~ 1) Open the public hearing. 2) Receive the Staff Report and any information from Waste Management Alameda County representatives. 3) Receive testimony from the public. 4) Close the Public Hearing. 5) Deliberate and adopt the Resolutions and direct Staff to proceed with the implementation of the new agreement. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The City will be providing a rate decrease to all customer classes effective January 1, 1996. Additional services in the area of recycling and green waste recycling will be offered. Future rate adjustments will be linked to increases in the Consumer Price Index to a maximum of 5 percent. The City will receive financial relief from Closure Post Closure liabilities to a maximum of $175,000. See Report for further details. DESCRIPTION At the City Council meeting of January 23, 1995 the City Council directed Staff to solicit a proposal and negotiate a new solid waste collection and disposa~ agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County(WMAC). Based upon the direction provided by the City Council, the Company responded with a proposal dated March 1, 1995. Subsequent to the submittal of the proposal Staff and the City Consultant (Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson ~ HF &H) analyzed the response from the Company and entered into direct negotiations over all terms and conditions of the new proposal. In addition the City Council appointed a subcommittee consisting of Councilmember Barnes and Councilmember Moffatt. The subcommittee reviewed Staff direction in preparing a final scope of services and met with Company representatives regarding the structure of the agreement. Staff worked with WMAC to develop a comprehensive agreement which would provide enhancements to the current services in the following ways: . Improvement in the programs offered to meet the City obligation to divert waste under AB 939. . Greater rate stability in calculating the change in rates. . Simplification of the rate setting process. --------.....-----------------....-..---------.....----------...---......................----...............------------............-...--......--------------......---...-----------------..----------......----...-....... lTEMNO.D. '7 Copies To: Kevin Walbridge, President WMAC Dan Borges, LOD General Mgr Scott Hobson, HF&H fooo-30 -, . . - e . ~ t. . Use of technological advancements which result in a cost saving in the provision of services. . Assurances related to liabilities incurred to date for Closure Post Closure costs associated with waste already placed at Altamont Landfill. . A competitive rate structure for both residential and commercial accounts. Exhibit 1 provides a brief summary of the key elements included in the Proposed Agreement. Programs and Sen'ices The agreement which is proposed meets all of the criteria mentioned above and will provide a high level of services to the community. Exhibit 2 provides a detailed written description of the various service changes which are anticipated as part of the Proposed Agreement. The greatest amount of change will be experienced by residential customers. The recommended range of services includes the collection of additional recyclable materials including green waste. In addition the collection will be made by automated trucks from special wheeled containers provided by the Company. This will eliminate the current "backyard service". Section 4.1.2 of the Proposed agreement makes allowances for sen'ices to senior citizens and the disabled. With the change in capacity provided to customers the Proposed Agreement was also structured to eliminate one special clean up. Expanded recycling programs are also provided to multifamily residences and the commercial sector. All of these items are addressed in detail in Exhibit 2. Advance Start~up of Programs and Services The current agreements governing the Collection and Disposal of Solid Waste, as well as Recycling Sen'ices have a common expiration date of March 31, 1996. The Company proposal provides for an early implementation date of key services as well as the overall agreement. The effective date of the new agreement will be January 1, 1996. In order to offer additional benefits to the community the Company has proposed to begin the expanded recycling program in September and the distribution of carts beginning December 26, 1995. Both of these programs will also require the Company to proceed with the development of educational information and presentations prior to the first pick~up. Included as part of the Company proposal will be the preparation of public information materials which will be used to assist with the transition. This includes direct mail information as well as a video component to be shown on CTV and used in public presentations. The Company has recently implemented automated service in nearby cities using similar materials and the change was implemented with very few problems. The Company will effectively begin some of this work upon approval of the agreement. The January 1, 1996 effective date, also allows the City ratepayers to benefit from the new rate setting methodology earlier than previously anticipated under the current agreement. Closure Post Closure Liabilities Since 1992, the Company and the cities participating in the Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee have been discussing the extent of liabilities for landfill Closure and Post Closure (CPC) costs. These liabilities are specifically related to the historical tonnage in place prior to 1992 at the Altamont Landfill. Part of the rate adjustments since 1992 were to cover the CPC costs associated with waste now being placed in the landfill. However, the contribution for costs associated with historical tonnage was amortized over several years, which extended beyond the date of our current agreement. Based upon current estimates and allocations the Company estimated that as of December 31, 1995 the City would have a CPC liability of approximately $125,000. To a large extent CPC liabilities are typically based upon long range projections, since it may be many years before the landfill closes and the final capacity is not exactly known. In addition the Post Closure activities take place over a period of 30 years after the landfill is closed. Given the potential for changes in these projections Staff discussed with the Company opportunities for the City to have a reasonable assurance of the CPC obligation. . . . e e . ... As provided in Section 9.4 of the Proposed Agreement the Company has offered the City a credit of up to $175,000 towards the City of Dublin share of the historical CPC obligation. The City would be obligated to negotiate with the Company in the event that the obligation exceeds this amount. Based upon the information currently available the amount was established at a rate which is reasonably expected to fully relieve the City ratepayers of this liability. This element of the Company proposal was a key component of the overall package as presented in the Proposed Agreement. Rate Setting Methodology An integral part of the costs negotiated with the Company was the inclusion of a rate setting methodology, which should provide greater stability for the ratepayers. It also reflects a simplified process which is anticipated to result in the ability for our agency to terminate participation in the Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee, once all matters relative to 1995 operations are complete. The following discussion describes the major components of this process. Initial Rates The Company has committed to its initial cost proposal for the first 18 months of the agreement. The initial rates are reasonably expected to generate adequate revenues to meet the required Company Compensation. Article 6 of the agreement does include provisions for "Extraordinary Adjustments", in the event unforeseen changes occur. However, barring that situation, this would result in no rate increase}or Dublin ratepayers until July 1, 1997. If this occurs Dublin Ratepayers would not experience any rate increases for the period from February 1995 through June 1997 (approximately 28 months). Annual Adjustments Beginning July 1, 1997 The future adjustments will be based upon two areas of costs experienced by the Company; Disposal Costs, and All other Costs. The Disposal Cost is initially established at a rate of $17.00 per ton plus regulatory fees and taxes. This brings the current total landfill cost to $28.24 per ton. In the event that additional regulatory fees or taxes are added the Company is entitled to recover these costs. The City would need to adjust rates in a manner which would allow the Company to recover the increased landfill fees. This includes the ability to request an adjustment due to a regulatory change in fees, during the initial 18 months. Beginning July 1, 1997 the $17.00 per ton Base Rate is to be adjusted by 100% of the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (CPl). The remainder of the Company costs are only allowed to escalate at a fraction of the annual change in the CPl. The remaining operating costs are allowed to be escalated by 80% of the annual change in the CPl. The total annual increase in the Company Compensation (excluding landfill taxes and regulatory charges) would not be allowed to exceed 5%. The proposed rate setting methodology should improve on rate stability. In addition the rate adjustment will occur in July, which will match better with the City collection of Residential Garbage Assessments as part of the property tax bill. The current rate adjustment date occurs midway through the City Fiscal Year and results in the need to project future increases based upon limited data. Proposed Rates The area typically of most interest is the rates to he charged for the services. The City of Dublin has a history of establishing competitive rates for services provided to the public. For the commercial sectors this can provide a competitive advantage in reducing the cost of operations. The following are key advantages to the ratepayers under the proposed agreement, provided that extraordinary events do not occur: . A rate decrease effective January 1, 1996. . A rate freeze through July 1, 1997. . Annual rate adjustments beginning July 1, 1997 will be tied to changes in the CPI and capped at 5%. These conditions are anticipated to continue to maintain a City Garbage and Recycling Rate structure which is competitive with jurisdictions in this region. .' i e . Staff has prepared a Rate Resolution which will become effective January 1, 1996 and is attached as Exhibit 7. All of the standard service rates for regular services are reduced from the rates adopted by the City Council on February 13, 1995. The following identifies the proposed rates compared to current rates for selected services: SAMPLE RATE REDUCTIONS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1996 RA TE CATEGORY Residential ~ 1 Can Residential ~ 2 Can Handy Hauler Commercial 1 yd~lIwk Commercial 4 yd-lIwk 30 Yard Drop Box Multi Family Recycling Current Rate $ 10.27 $ 17.95 $ 52.50 $ 29.45 $ 119.80 $ 296.70 $ 1.31 Proposed Rate $ 9.50 $ 17.00 $ 50.00 $ 29.15 $ 116.60 $ 293.75 $ 0.50 As previously noted, in addition to the rate reduction the agreement is structured to impose a rate freeze through July 1, 1997. The new agreement should provide a distinct advantage for Dublin ratepayers compared to the rate increases experienced in the past 5 years. Minor rate increases were made in the Miscellaneous charges for Drop Box Services. In accordance with the current agreement these fees are waived for those subscribers who utilize the services on a regular basis. The charges have not been adjusted in the past several years and the amount of the change was modest. The following displays the miscellaneous charges which have increased: MISCELLANEOUS ITEM Flasher Light Charge Container Rental After 1 Week Daily Container Rental Stand~ By Time Relocation Fee Cancel Automatic Collection Without 24 hour Notice Current Rate Proposed Rate $ 10.55 $ 11.90 per week $ 1. 70/day $ 77.00/hour $ 31.50 per request $ 41.90 $ 12.00 $ 12.00 per week $ 2.00/day $ 80.00/hour $ 35.00 per request $ 45.00 Waste Management officials indicate that these miscellaneous fees are a minor part of the total operation. Historical Dublin Rates Exhibit 4 is a chart which provides a historical comparison of rates for services over the past several years, including the January 1996 rates which are under consideration by the City Council as part of this public hearing. This information has been updated from the chart presented at the time of the last rate adjustment. Rate Comparisons Exhibit 5 contains charts comparing Residential, Commercial, and Drop Box Rates for various agencies in Alameda County as well as the City of San Ramon. There are some differences in the manner in which agencies have priced solid waste services, which may result in distortions in a direct comparison. For example, some agencies charge a uniform can rate which may include recycling costs received by all customers. In this scenario, even though the customer with two cans is not receiving twice the recycling service, they are contributing greater revenues towards the recycling program costs. There may also be differences due to the composition of the City. For example, comparing Piedmont with almost no commercial base to Emeryville with a large commercial base creates distortions. The rate data included in Exhibit 5 presents the closest comparison possible, without providing a separate footnote to each deviation. The following Table summarizes the average rates for each category in Exhibit 5 to the Proposed January 1, 1996 Rate for the City of DubUn: e . Rate CateeOI)' 1 Can Residential 2 Can Residential Commercial ~lydll~week Commercial ~ 4ydll ~week Drop Box 20 yard Drop Box 30 yard compacted Proposed 1/1/96 Dublin Rate S 9.50 S 17.00 $ 29.15 S 116~60 S 195.80 $ 588.00 Survey Average S 13.26 $ 23.76 $ 61.11 $ 209.85 $ 270.39 $ 731.55 010 Dublin Rate Is Lower Than A vg < 39.6>010 < 39.8>0/0 <109.6>% < 80.0>% <30.1>% < 24.4>0/0 As shown the City rates remain very competitive compared to other agencies. In the Drop Box service category there appear to be five agencies with rates lower than those proposed for the City of Dublin. One of the key factors in the costs associated with this service is the proximity to the landfill. Fremont, Newark., and Union City and Livermore have rates in this category which are less than the proposed City of Dublin rate. All of these agencies are located closer to the landfill utilized, which can impact the cost of service. Even accounting for these fluctuations the City of Dublin Drop Box rates remain well below the survey average. The establishment of rates are required to occur at a public hearing. Therefore, it would be appropriate to receive any public input on the proposed rates. In the event that the City Council adopts the Agreement it would also be appropriate_ to adopt the Resolution establishing rates. Financing I City Grants The Proposed Agreement and initial rates are structured to utilize City Grants to offset a portion of the service costs. In order to avoid rate fluctuations in future years of the agreement, the City Staff has evaluated the cost of capital items which could be offset with City grants. - The source of these grants would be Measure D Recycling Funds and funds received from the Company under the current agreement as surplus Balancing Account monies. Although the rate calculations and the Company costs assume the receipt of these grants there will need to be a separate agreement which will be brought to the City Council at a future meeting. The appropriation of these funds will also be included in the Preliminary 1995/96 Fiscal Year Budget. In past years the City Council has indicated an interest in reserving the Balancing Account Funds to offset any CPC liability. Since the Proposed Agreement addresses this liability it is proposed that these funds become available to offset capital costs. The contribution of City Grants are focused in the following areas: Measure D Operating Subsidy Towards Recycling Programs ($75,000Iyr -$37,500 Fiscal Yr 95/96) Measure D Contribution To Offset Green Waste Containers ($195,000 one time expense) Balancing Account Subsidy To Offset Cost ofCo..collection Vehicle ($291,000 one time expense) Support To Underwrite Capital Costs of Commercial Recycling Carts($35,000 one time expense) As previously noted these items will be included as part of the proposed 1995/96 Budget and will be subject to a subsequent agreement with the Company in accordance with Section 6.11 of the Proposed Agreement. RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of Staff that the City Council conduct a public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Approving the Agreement For Integrated Solid Waste Services with Waste Management of Alameda County and the Resolution Establishing Solid Waste Seniee Rates Effective January 1, 1996. The Resolution approving the Final Agreement states that tile document must be substantially in the form presented. There are not currently any known areas which will require changes. However, the latitude to make minor changes to clarify the language and/or intent of the agreement will avoid the need to prepare a formal amendment for consideration by the City Council. The Consultant will be in attendance at the meeting as well as representatives of the Company. In addition, Councilmembers Barnes and Moffatt will be available to comment on any input from the City Council Subcommittee. ,.:'..:~:~:2~:~?;t~. :. e . CITY OF DUBLIN Solid Waste Franchise Agree~ent Summary June 13, 1995 Prepared by: Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson . -=..~ HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON D< HJ:(SIT .1.. CITY OF DUBLIN SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT Topic Agreement · Effective Date January 1, 1996 . Base Agreement Term Seven and One~Half Years . Term Extensions Three UwMonth Extensions at City's Option · Franchise Scope Exclusive . Collection Services . Curbside, Fully~Automated Collection of Refuse, Green Waste · Expanded Residential Recycling · Commercial Recycling . Title to Solid Waste Company, with City Maintaining Flow Control · Reporting · Monthly · Quarterly · Annually . Rate Adjustments . Collection Costs Indexed at 80% of CPI . Disposal Cost Indexed at 100% of CPI . Annual Cost Increase Capped at 5% · Collection Profit Based on 91.5% Operating Ratio Applied to Allowed Expenses . Historical Landfill Closure! Post..closure $175,000 Credit from Company · Balancing Account None June 13, 1995 Page 1 CITY OF DUBLIN SOLID WASTE FRANCHISING. Topic Current Agr~ell1enl New Agreement Residential Collection · Curbside, automated Clean-Ups Residential Recycling Setvices Commercial Recycling Services Green Waste Collection Rate Setting Process Closure/Post-Closure Liability . Backyard, manual · 4 per Year . Aluminium, glass, PET, HDPE, newspaper · None · None · Annual detailed review and adjustment with balancing account · Undetermined liability between $100,000 and $150,000 · 3 pet Year · Current program plus mixed paper, narrow neck plastics, aseptic containers · Mixed office paper, cardboard, newspaper, scrap metal, glass, PET, narrow neck plastics, green waste, lumber · Automated collection of ttee trimmings, grass cuttings, dead lea-;res, branches · No adjustment fol' 18 months, annual adjustment of 80% CPI capped ilt 5% p'er yea.: · $175,000 credit from Company June 13, 1995 Page 2 e e DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS INCLUDED IN PROPOSED CITY OF DUBLIN AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY (EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1996) RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Garbage Collection (:proposed Agreement Section 4.1.2) Currently the City has what i~ referred to as "Back ~ Yard Service". This method of collection is more expensive than other alternatives due to: increased labor requirements, typically increased on the job injuries and decreased productivity (i.e. the number of households serviced per route). The customer must also provide their own garbage container. The Company did present cost information on continuing with the current service level of providing manual backyard service. The overall cost was approximately $ 281,000 per year more than the system recommended in the Proposed Agreement. The recommended agreement was able to include certain efficiencies with the co-collection of garbage and green waste as will be discussed later in this report. The City Council subcommittee concurred that the cost saving and service benefits of movement to an automated collection system, outweighed any perceived detriments. In the system included with the recommended agreement the Company will be providing the customer with a wheeled cart for garbage disposal. These carts are manufactured to counterbalance themselves, which avoids them being easily tipped or blown over. Also the containers are a square shape which reduces they likelihood that they will roll down a street if they are knocked over. Section 4.1.2 of the Proposed Agreement includes a requirement for the Company to make special arrangements for Senior Citizens, handicapped, or temporarily incapacitated residential customers who may have a difficulty placing the container at the curb. The use of containers provided by the Company will standardize the capacity of garbage collection and disposal service selected by the customer. The standard can size to be provided to all residences as part of the Basic Residential Service is 35 gallons. (The current standard size is stated as 32 gallon.) If EXHIBIT 2 e e customers need more capacity they will have the option of selecting from a : 64 gallon container, or a 96 gallon container. The initial distribution of containers will be based upon the customers current use. For example, all two can customers will be delivered a 64 gallon garbage container and three can customers will receive a 96 gallon container. The customer will have the ability to contact the Company and make a change in the level of service they desire. Recycling Services (proposed Agreement Section 4.2.2) The Company has proposed to continue using the bins which are currently in place. This eliminates the need for an additional cost. In the Proposed Agreement the City has negotiated to increase the commodities which are part of the curbside recycling program. The following presents the items which will be included: CURRENT PROGRAM Glass Containers & Jars (This includes containers other than those with a redemption value.) Tin Cans (i.e. soup cans, vegetable cans, etc.) PROPOSED ADDITIONS HDPE Plastic Bottles (This is the type used for 1 gallon milk jugs) Aseptic Containers (These refers to the packaging used for juice boxes and other products.) Aluminum (Including beverage containers as well Mixed Paper (This includes all types of paper as clean aluminum foil) including junk mail, magazines, glossy inserts, etc) PET Plastic (This contains a # 1 on the bottom and is typically used for liter sized beverage bottles, however, other food items(i.e. some mayonnaise, salad dressings, etc. use this packaging) All Narrow Neck Plastic Containers (This includes many types of plastic bottles regardless of the number stamped on the bottom. The "narrow neck" differentiates it from something like a margarine tub which cannot be recycled.) Newspaper (Glossy inserts are supposed to be Cardboard (This includes corrugated boxes as well removed) as cereal boxes and similar containers.) As indicated residential customers will have greater opportunities to reduce the amount placed in the garbage can by taking advantage of the increased number of items which can be placed curbside for recycling. The added plastic items will go in the container marked for PET Plastic, Tin, and Aluminum. The additional paper and cardboard can be bagged or bundled with the newspaper on the side. Residential Green Waste Collection (proposed Agreement Section 4.3) A new program which is called for in the adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) is the separate collection and disposal of green waste. This term includes tree trimmings, grass cuttings, dead plant, leaves, branches, and dead trees (not more than 6 inches in diameter) and similar materials generated at the premises. The Green Waste is collected separately and delivered to a facility other than e e the landfill, which qualifies for diversion credits as established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The program will be offered to all residential customers as part of the Basic Sen'ice. Each customer will be provided with a separate 64 gallon Green Waste container. (This is in addition to the garbage container selected.) The Company will provide for weekly collection on the same day as garbage service is provided. The Company proposal is somewhat unique in that the Automated Collection Vehicle proposed will be capable of picking up both Residential Garbage and Green Waste with the same truck. The Cavity of the truck body is divided into two chambers and the garbage is placed and compacted in one half with the green waste in the other. This reduces the total number of vehicles required to provide the comprehensive waste management services. This innovation is an improvement over what the City Staff had originally anticipated as being a requirement for three vehicles on a weekly basis. The Company will provide a separate Christmas Tree collection program as part of the Green Waste services. Section 4.3.2 of the Proposed Agreement requires the Company to also cooperate in scheduling of the Company services with any non~profit groups conducting a Christmas Tree Collection. Special Cleanups (proposed Agreement Section 4.1.6) The City Council has received input from customers regarding the popularity of the special clean~ups, which are currently conducted four times per year. Typically customers use this as an opportunity to dispose of large accumulations of garden trimmings, boxes, and other items which are difficult to dispose of in the weekly collection. The City Council Subcommittee believed that under the new agreement residents are being provided with additional capacity to dispose of things which may currently be saved for a special cleanup. The Proposed Recycling program will accept large boxes and cardboard and the new Proposed Green Waste program allows for separate disposal on a weekly basis of yard debris. Given the fact that additional capacity will be available, the Proposed Agreement reduces the number of cleanups to 3 (three) per year. It is anticipated that the January cleanup would be eliminated as this is often affected by weather. If the City Council desired to add an additional clean~up the approximate per unit cost would be an additional $0.45 per month per household. Bag-It-Program The Company currently allows customers to purchase pre~paid bags which will be collected alongside a standard can. The current price provides 5 bags for $11.25 and customers use them for occasional excess garbage. Given that the Company will be changing to an automated system this program will be discontinued. e e COMMERCIAL I MULTIFAMILY I DEBRIS BOX SERVICES Garbage CollectionlDisposal (proposed Agreement Section 4.1.3) The garbage collection and disposal services offered to the commercial sector will remain largely unchanged. The City will continue to require all collection and disposal to be handled by the franchised hauler except those areas excluded by law andlor as identified in section 2.7 of the Proposed Agreement. Multifamily Recycling( Proposed Agreement Section 4.2.3) The Multifamily Recycling program will be expanded to collect the additional commodities identified in the single family recycling section. To the extent that residents of multifamily units participate in the program, there may be an opportunity for the complex operators to adjust the frequency or size of their regular garbage service. Commercial Recycling (proposed Agreement Section 4.2.4) The current agreement does not address the provision of Commercial Recycling services. The City ordinance allows authorized firms to collect only source separated recyclables. Haulers other than the franchised firm are precluded from the collection of mixed recyclables and lor waste which is sorted at another location. The Proposed Agreement requires the Company to offer Commercial Recycling sen'ices to all businesses. The progr-am would offer collection of items similar to the residential programs, however, the selected commodities may be more focused depending on the type of business. In most cases the larger volume commercial locations have easy access to recycling services. For example, many stores have cardboard bailers and due to their volume they are able to easily contract with a recycling vendor. It is aDticipated that the primary benefit from the services included as part of this agreement will be the improved access for smaller businesses, who may not have a large enough volume to attract other recycling vendors. A secondary benefit will be gained from the commitment by the Company to continue offering the service regardless of the resale market. Without this contractual obligation the Company could withdraw the service if the resale commodity dropped significantly in value. This does occur in the private recycling sector. Due to the fluctuation in commodity prices the rates for this program will not be set by the City Council. Commercial non-residential customers will have the option of contracting with any firm, provided that their activities conform with the City ordinances. Since the Company will be competing with firms which will not have regulated rates it would be very restrictive to mandate rate controls on this service. The other difficulty is that the provision of this service fluctuates widely with the revenue markets for the commodities. However, the City will have the opportunity to impact certain service rates for the program in the event that the City elects to subsidize part of the services with Measure D or other funds. This subsidy program would be subject to a separate agreement and is anticipated to be presented as part of the 1995/96 City Budget. CITY OF DUBLIN e e HISTORICAL GARBAGE RATES Prepared June 1995 RESIDENTIAL (Monthly Rates) 1 Can % 2 Can % Customer Change Customer Change July 1990 (Curbside Recycling Initiated) $7.15 $11.10 January 1991 $8.55 19.6% $14.75 32.9% January 1992 $7.90 <7.60/0> $14.20 <3.70/0> January 1993(1) $8.00(4) 1.3% $13.60 <4.20/0> January 1994(2) $8.63(4) 7.9% $14.58 7.2% January 1995(3) $10.27(4) 19.0% $17.95 23.1% Proposed January 1996(5) $9.50(4) <7.50/0> $17.00 <5.30/0> Residential Notes: (1) The cost to the customer was actually reduced by a City subsidy. The City provided residential customers with a one-time $8.04 credit of Measure D Funds to off-set the cost of the Curbside Recycling Program in the fIrst half of 1993. (2) The cost paid by the customer was impacted by the City subsidizing the Curbside Recycling Program Cost beginning July 1, 1994. Measure D Funds were used to pay $0.52 of the rate from July - December. (3) Beginning January 1, 1995 - June 30, 1995, the adopted City Budget allows for the Curbside Recycling Program cost to be subsidized at the rate of$0.55 per month. . (4) Effective July 1, 1993, the City established a program requiring mandatory residential garbage service, with the fees collected as part of the Property Tax Bill. Since these fees are collected on a fIscal year basis, the amount paid by a customer will not equal exactly 12 times the monthly rate. The fees collected on the Property Tax Bills are established to cover delinquencies and collection costs. Any excess monies are utilized to off-set program costs in the following year. Typically, the Council will consider the Fiscal Year Fee in June or July to allow it to be added to the County Tax Roll. (5) The proposed rates reflect services provided under the new franchise. Green waste collection is included in this rate as well as automated coJlection with Company provided collection containers. MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES Proposed 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 $37.90 $27.70 $24.1 0 $25.40 $29.45 $29.15 $75.85 $60.95 $54.25 $57.15 $66.15 $65.50 $67.55 $55.40 $48.20 $50.80 $59.90 $58.30 $121.25 $116.35 $102.45 $107.95 $125.05 $123.80 $95.15 $83.10 $72.30 $76.20 $88.35 $87.45 $175.75 $171.75 $150.65 $158.75 $183.95 $182.10 $125.20 $110.80 $96.40 $101.60 $119.80 $116.60 $232.65 $227.15 $198.85 $209.55 $242.85 $240.40 1 Yard-l/wk 1 Yard-2/wk 2 Yards-l/wk 2 Yards-2/wk 3 Yards-l/wk 3 Yards-2/wk 4 Yards-l/wk 4 Yards-2/wk MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING RATES Monthly Rate Per Unit (1) N/A N/A $1.26 $1.28 $1.31 $0.50 DROP BOX RATES (2) 30 Yard $186.00 $197.55 $198.05 $241.50 $296.70 $293.75 (1) The City subsidized a portion of the Multi-Family Recycling Rate beginning in 1994. The amount of the Measure D subsidy resulted in a charge to customers of $0.76 per unit per month in 1994 and 1995. (2) Drop Box excludes Bin Rental and placement charges. C V HID-r-T g.~battV.ISlgarb_doc c.... ^ o.J,... ~ . e CHARTS COMPARING GARBAGE RATES FOR SELECTED BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS RESIDENTIAL . 1 Can Service . 2 Can Service COMMERCIAL . 1 yd - 1 per week service . 4 yd - 1 per week service DROP BOX . 20 yard Bin Not Compacted . 30 Yard Bin Compacted EXHIBIT 5 e e VI o is VI 01 o o ~ o o o ~ 01 o o VI N o o o VI N 01 b o V'> W o b o VI W ~ o o Emeryville DUBLIN PROPOSED Livermore Newark VI N 0 b co Pleasanton (") 0 :!: San Ramon "C > ;;tl en 0 Z Hayward VI 0 N (") w "T1 :T i.> III Ol :;0 ::l. m Q en "U 6 :u VI (1l III Alameda N m lI) <0 -...j a: (1l i:.n Z (1l -...j -I ~ ~ :; ~ r :u Castro Valley ~ V'> C> III ~ It > lI) N :;0 0 OJ ~ > ~ C> Union City V'> m N co ~ 0 N -I m en Oro Lorna (II N W m 0 Oakland VI ~ N w Albany V'> N co ~ Fremont V'> N .I>- ~ V'> Piedmont w < . ~.....'~. . ", '. w .,' :! ";~I\i/\ l,i^~.-:" ;",1'"','- t..",,:,'t"\~.~ :t>. w 0 . N (") (") III III ::;I ::;I DUBLIN PROPOSED Livermore Fremont - V'> o o o VI 01 o o o ~ o o o o - ~ 01 o o o V'> N o o o o VI N 01 o o o ~ W o o o o Emeryville ~ -...j Ol i:x> 0 (") Union City 0 :!: ~ 22 ~ en Newark 01 0 ~ Z .... 0 .... "T1 ~ en Hayward m co r N m (") i:.n 0 (") 0 -I 3 m 3 V'> C (1l "U Oro Lorna .... 0 III CD n ~. <0 ./>. (1l i:x> 0 :u CD s: III :!: CD V'> m (") Castro Valley ~ :;0 :T III .... n ::l. :..... :; 01 r VI G') Alameda N > ./>. CD :;0 i:x> OJ 0 > e> VI m Pleasanton N ~ Ol .' Ol i>,) .?>- m en (II Oakland N Ol ,,0', '.~;,'/' ;"" ~. ~"<!.'.\ -/;7\,.::._'.':'. . 0 ~ -...j VI Piedmont N -...j 01 io 01 VI Albany N CD ./>. i:.n CD San Ramon o . ~~ c- c- o 0 ~ ~ '" '" ., , ,0 'i-" :\.~ . V'> N -...j 01 o o e e ~ V'> VI VI ~ VI V'> N .I>- Ol CO '0 .N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 8 0 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 10 VI DUBLIN PROPOSED ~ U'I o. co co 0 ~ 0 -...j t Fremont ~ 0"" <0 -...j m -...j Union City VI ~ i:.n 0 Newark VI 01 .I>- 10. .I>- :.. Ol Livermore VI 01 (") .I>- Ol 0 N ~ .I>- "C V'> > Hayward U'I ::0 -...j en O'~-' ,.....,. <0 m 0 V'> 0 z rd V'> 0 Emeryville !'" ~ "T1 0 Ol en b m 0 r (") m :T n III Castro Valley -I ;::l. "U m 0 III C a <0 "0 (1l V'> C N OJ W V'> ;;tl 0 Oro Loma :--' ~ 0 x :u " 0 w iJ III :.. to It 0 0 lI) V'> X Pleasanton co G) 0 ..... -...j > to :::0 0 OJ V'> > Albany co C> 0 m N Co ~ 0 -I V'> m Oakland co en 0 .. co VI ~ W ~ 01 San Ramon !O .0 ..... " -...j -...j m V'> 0 .l>- V'> 0 Piedmont p ..... 'N 0 0 0 VI 8 ~ VI Alameda ..... -...j <0 0 0 N 0 0 . (.> N 0 0 ~ ~ (") i3. 0 3 "0 [ll It c.. e e RESOLUTION NO. -95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY FOR INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES WHEREAS, solid waste collection and disposal services are currently provided to the City of Dublin under a franchise agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the term of the current agreement expires March 31, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City has also contracted with Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC) to provide residential recycling services pursuant to two separate agreements; and WHEREAS, the recycling agreements also provide for an expiration date of March 31,1996; and WHEREAS, it is desirous to have a single agreement covering all solid waste services in a comprehensive manner; and WHEREAS, State Law and the adopted City of Dublin Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) require that the City take proactive steps to reduce and control the volume of waste placed in the landfill; and WHEREAS, Waste Management of Alameda County has prepared a proposal to provide a comprehensive program in a cost effective manner; and WHEREAS, the City has negotiated with Waste Management of Alameda County pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 40059; and WHEREAS, the culmination of the negotiations is a Final Agreement identifying the terms and conditions for a new exclusive franchise agreement which will be effective January 1, 1996. E~ HI~IT ~ e e NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve and adopt the Agreement between City of Dublin and Waste Management of Alameda County for Integrated Solid Waste Management Services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Dublin, substantially in the form attached hereto and as presented to the City Council on June 13, 1995. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Staff is hereby directed and authorized to carry out all administrative tasks resulting from the new agreement, including but not limited to, notifying the Alameda County Joint Refuse Rate Review Committee of the termination of membership for purposes of addressing any issues arising from WMAC operations subsequent to December 31, 1995. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk K2Icc-mrgs/6-J 3-95/resowmac.doc It RESOLUTION NO. - 95 e A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF SERVICE RATES FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND ESTABLISHING MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has considered and adopted on June 13, 1995, a new Franchise Agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the effective date of the new Franchise Agreement shall be January I, 1996; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the new Franchise Agreement will allow the City to reduce basic service rates from the rate schedule now in effect; and WHEREAS, the City Ccuncil has conducted a public hearing on June 13, 1995, to obtain public input prior to the adoption of this resolution; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the rate setting methodology in the new Franchise Agreement, except for any extraordinary condition, it is expected that the rates to be adopted, will not be adjusted until July I, 1997. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE City Council does hereby adopt the Rate schedule attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A" and by reference made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT upon the effective date, this resolution shall supersede all previous resolutions adopting rates for solid waste services. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of June, 1995. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g:\ag<nda"esos\ca'essch.doc Ex HI (SI. T -=r DRAFT 6/1195 PROPOSED EXHIBIT A CITY OF DUBLIN RATES FOR GARBAGE COLLECTION & DISPOSAL SERVICES CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBLIN AND WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY e e I. EFFECTIVE DATE The 'rates shown for the collection of refuse within the City of Dublin are effective as stated within each section of this Exhibit. All rates shall be effective January I, 1996. II. RESIDENTIAL SERVICE A. Minimum Residential Collection Cost Minimum residential service shall apply separately to each unit within a duplex or other attached housing, which receives individual garbage collection services. The rates shown below shall apply to the initial 35 gallons of garbage capacity, including once per week collection and disposal. Additional services described in Section II (B) are also provided as part of the minimum service. 35 gallon Company provided automated container Monthly Cost $ 9.50 B. Additional Services Provided to Residential Customers 1) Annual Clean-ups (Agreement Section 4.1.6) The above rates shall include three (3) annual residential cleanups. Dates of said clean-ups shall be at the discretion of the City upon reasonable notice to the Company. The rules regulating the special clean-up shall be approved by the Contractor and the City Manager or his/her designee. The provision of these services shall comply with Section 4.1.6 of the Agreement between Company and City. 2) Residential Recycling (Agreement Section 4.2.2) The residential Basic Services shall include weekly curbside recycling in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of the agreement between Company and City. Full implementation of recycling materials collection shall be on or before September 11, 1995, unless otherwise agreed by City. 3) Green Waste (Agreement Section 4.3.1) In accordance with Section 4.3.1 of the Agreement between Company and City, weekly curbside collection of green waste is included as a Basic Service. Collection shall include a company provided 64 gallon container. Full implementation of this service shall occur on or before January 8, 1996, unless otherwise agreed by City. C. Pavment and Rillin~ for Minimum Residential Service City shall make arrangements to collect assessments on the property tax bill for all services identifIed in Section A above. Further, payment for said services shall be made to Company by City pursuant to agreements and ordinances regulating solid waste collection. City may subsidize the cost of services with funds other than those collected on the property tax. D. Additional Garbaie CollectionlDisposal Capacity Residents may obtain additional garbage collection/disposal capacity beyond those provided in Section A above. Company shall be responsible for billing and collection of fees for the additional capacity. The following represents the incremental charge for additional capacity: Total Can Size Additional Capacity (Additional + Basic) Gallons (Section D + A) 29 64 gallon 61 96 gallon 96 (1)35 gal + (1) 96 gal 125 (1) 96 gal + (1) 64 gal 157 (2) 96 gal Each additional increment shall be $7.50 per month. Additional Monthly Charge billed by Company $7.50 $15.00 $22.50 $30.00 $37.50 DRAFT 6/1/95 E. Special se~ Large accumu atIons: Special Pick-ups: $9.80 per cubic yard $12.00 minimum per pick-up e III. DESIGNA TION OF POINT OF COLLECTION For Single Family Residential Service, the above rates shall be for curbside semi-automated garbage and Green Waste collection. The Curbside Residential Recycling Program requires that containers be placed in a location which can be easily seen and readily accessible, within five feet from the curb. Company shall ' provide containers for garbage, green waste and recycling services in accordance with Agreement between CitY and Company. IV. COMMERCIAl, AND MUL TIF AMIL Y BIN SERVICE A. The following rates include collection, disposal, and bin rental at commercial establishments and multifamily projects serviced by centralized bins. The rates shown are for a monthly period. All charges are based upon bins being filled no higher than water level. The Total Rates shall be effective for all billings issued as of January 1, 1996. Excess rate for waste which exceeds water level: $9.80 per yard. COMMERCIAL RATE /CUBIC YD $29.15 PROPOSED Frequency Factor $7.20 1996 Rate Size/#Y ARDS # Times/Wk Total Per Month 1 1 $29.15 1 2 $65.50 1 3 $101.85 1 4 $138.20 1 5 $174.55 2 1 $58.30 2 2 $123.80 2 3 $189.30 2 4 $254.80 2 5 $320.30 3 1 $87.45 3 2 $182.10 3 3 $276.75 3 4 $371.40 3 5 $466.05 4 1 $116.60 4 2 $240.40 4 3 $364.20 4 4 $488.00 4 5 $611.80 6 1 $174.90 6 2 $357.00 6 3 $539.10 6 4 $721.20 6 5 $903.30 7 1 $204.05 7 2 $415.30 7 3 $626.55 7 4 $837.80 7 5 $1,049.05 DRAFT 611/95 B. g~::~~~::: .o~~ceunable to accommodate a commercia~n or with volumes deemed . insufficient to utilize a commercial bin may subscribe to service on a per container basis shall be charged the following monthly rates according to the size of the container serviced. The following rates are effective January 1, 1996: 35 Gallon container (Standard Container) 64 Gallon container (Oversized Container) 96 Gallon container (Oversized Container) Monthly Cost $ 8.00 $14.60 $21.95 C. Multi-Family Recycling Service Multi-Family Rates for Recycling are charged by the Company on the number of units located in the complex. Monthly Cost $0.50 per unit v. HANDY HAULER The following rates apply to the collection of a 4 cubic yard Handy Hauler Collection Bin, and are effective January 1,1996. Total Cost for Placement, One Week Bin Rental & Disposal of Container fIlled no higher than water level $50.00 Rental Cost beyond fIrst week $10.00 per week Cost for Additional Dump $39.00 Excess Charge for Bin Filled higher than water level $9.80 per yard VI. DROP BOX The following rates shall be charged for drop box services rendered. The cost shall be on a per pick-up basis and costs are based upon the load not exceeding the water level. Certain miscellaneous charges as noted in subsection (H) may also apply. A. 6 Cubic Yard Container (Dirt!Rock/Debris) The pick-up cost of this container shall be the same as the 14 yard container due to the weight accommodated. $137.10 Proposed B. ]4 Cubic Yard Container Base = $9.80/cubic yard $137.10 C. 20 Cubic Yard Container Base = $9.80/cubic yard $195.80 D. 30 Cuhic Yard Container Base = $9.80/cubic yard $293.75 E. 40 Cubic Yard Container Base = $9.80/cubic yard $391.65 F. Excess Rate Per Cuhic Yard If container loaded above water level. $9.80 G. Compacted Rate Per Cuhic Yard For service and collection of compacted materials, the total rate shall include cubic yard rate. $19.60 DRAFT 6/1/95 H. ~- The followin ges are in addition to the container charges de.d above. 1. 2. 3. Flasher Charge Initial Placement Charge Weekly Container Rental Fee Beyond 1st Week Daily Container Rental Fee Afier First Week Stand-by Time Relocation Fee Cancellation of Automatic Collection without 24 hours notice $12.00 PER PLACEMENT $23.00 $14.00. 4. 5. 6. 7. $2.00/day. $80.00 per hour $35.00 per request $45.00 .Note: Container rental charges are waived if the following service frequency is maintained: Service Level 6 yard/14 yard/20 yard 30 yard 40 yard FreQuem;y 4 pulls/month 3 pulls/month 2 pulls/month g;finance\psr\exbtaga3.doc DRAfT 6/1/95