The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 MeasDInflationFactorCITY CLERK FILE # 810-60 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 2, 1999 SUBJECT: Measure D Inflation Factor Increase Report Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Management Assistant ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: Letter from Oro Loma Sanitary District Oro Loma Sanitary District Resolution No. 3054 Provide direction to staff on how to proceed in responding to a proposed Measure D cost of living adjustmere. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: If the Alameda County Board of Supervisors ultimately approves the Measure D increase, it is anticipated that an additional $7,000 in revenues would need to be generated by Dublin ratepayers. BACKGROUND: Measure D originated in 1990 as a $6.00 per ton surcharge levied by the County on all' solid waste landfilled in unincorporated Alameda County. The purpose of Measure D is to provide economic assistance to achieve certain recycling goals. By law, 50% of Measure D tonnage revenue is allocated to qualifying municipalities based on population. In Fiscal Year 1998/1999, $111,400 was dispersed to the City of Dublin. Currently, Measure D money is used to subsidize the City's commercial and residential recycling programs. DESCRIPTION: Measure D states that the Board of Supervisors may vote to adjust the surcharge in direct accordance with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). On July 8, 1999,'the Alameda County Recycling Board voted to request an annual Measure D cost of living adjustment (COLA) from the Board of Supervisors. The increase will be based on the annual CPI change for the San Francisco Bay Area. To date, Measure D has never had a CPI adjustment. Earlier this year, Recycling Board members considered recommending a retroactive CPI increase which could have been aS much as 24%. However, the Board decided not to pursue such a large increase. The Recycling Board wants to implement the COLA increase because source reduction and diversion programs are reducing tonnages at the landfill, resulting in declining revenues for recycling programs. H/cc-forms/agdastmt.doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. To implement this COLA increase, the Board voted that the new Recycling Plan, which is currently b~ing--~ drafted, should include a provision requiring an automatic, yearly request of the Board of Supervisors for a CPI adjustment. This provision would be included as part of the Measure D funding sources section of the new Recycling Plan. On October 25, 1999 the draft for the Recycling Plan will be reviewed by a Recycling Board Committee, and is scheduled to come before the entire Recycling Board on November 18, 1999. At the November 18th Recycling Board meeting there will be a Public Hearing on the new Recycling Plan. Depending on the comments the Board receives, they may adopt the Recycling Plan or send it back to staff to make revisions. Once the Recycling Board approves the Plan, it will be sent to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority (ACWMA). The ACWMA will then have the oppommity to comment on the new Recycling Plan and either approve it or recommend that changes be made. If the COLA provision is approved as part of the Recycling Plan, Alameda County Waste Management Authority staff would be responsible for drafting a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting the increase. This letter would most likely be sent in February 2000, after the CPI numbers. are released. The Board of Supervisors would then be responsible for holding public hearings and ultimately voting on whether to adopt the recommended increase. If the Board of Supervisors approves the increase, then the changes would take effect on July 1, 2000. A new letter would need to be sent each year by ACWMA staff requesting another CPI adjustment from the Board of Supervisors. IMPACT: If approved, the CPI increase is likely to be in the range of two to four percent, which would add an additional $. 12 to $.24 surcharge to each ton of garbage deposited at the County landfills. Staff anticipates that if the CPI increase is approved, approximately $7,000~ in additional revenues would need to be generated by Dublin's ratepayers. It is likely that more than half of this would be returned to the City to help support the City's Recycling programs.' Approximately 65% of the Measure D fees paid by Dublin ratepayers were returned to the City in Fiscal Year 1998/1999. This was due to two factors. First, self-haulers, which include construction and demolition contractors, must pay this fee when they dump at the County landfills. The City receives a portion of what they pay. Second, a decision made by the Recycling Board to allocate an additional 5% of revenues to municipalities from discretionary funding was authorized. This discretionary funding is determined on a year-by-year budgetary basis. The Recycling Board chose not to reallocate the 5% in Fiscal Year 1999/2000. RECOMMENDATION · The City recently received a letter from the Oro Loma Sanitary District accompanied by a Resolution opposing the proposed Measure D, CPI increase. Oro Loma is asking other local jurisdictions in Alameda County to support and assist their efforts by passing similar Resolutions or writing to the Board of Supervisors. At this time, .staff is requesting that the Council provide direction on how to proceed in this matter. The following list contains several different options that the Council may wish to consider. 1. The first option would be to do nothing. This would be the logical choice if the Council is not opposed to the increase. Based on a $.20 increase and Dublin's estimated 1999 tonnage of 34,800.: 2. The second option would be to ask staff to draft a Resolution similar to that of Oro Loma, or to write a letter to the County Board of Supervisors expressing the City' s opposition to the increase. The City mayalso wish to write to the Recycling Board and the ACWMA. This option could' be seen as a preemptire measure to act while the proposal is still in a draft stage and before the issue has come before the Board of Supervisors. 3. Option three would be to walt to draft the letter or Resolution until the new Recycling Plan has been approved and ACWMA staff has officially requested the increase from the Board of Supervisors. The Council may wish to wait until the issue comes before the Board of Supervisors and the ultimate decision regarding the increase is considered. In addition to these options, there may be others that the Council may wish to consider. Staff would welcome any input from the Council. ORO LOMA SANITARY DISTRICT 2600 GRANT AVENUE ,SAN LORENZOo CALIFORNIA 94580 TELEPHONE 510 276-4700 ADMINSTRATION FAX 510 276-152B PLANT FAX 510 278-7382 RECEIVED October 11, 1999 OCT 1 999 Guy Houston Mayor Dublin - City Hall 100 Civic. Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 CITY OF DUBLIN SUBJECT: OPPOSITION TO PROPOSAL TO fINCREASE GARBAGE DISPOSAL The Honorable Guy Houston: The O1'o Loma Sanitary Disl~iet Board of Dir~ctox's would ~ppxcciatc yore suppoz~ m~d ~sismc¢ in 0ppos~g a pro~scd incr~ ~ ~e cos~ of g~bage ~osal fe~s. Sp=~c~ly, ~c A]~e~ Co~ R~ycling Bo~d b c~y a~p~g to ~se ~ ~ COLA to ~c l~ge s~ch~ge ~ey a~dy colI~t for ~ch ton of g~age d~osimd hto ~e i~11. Undoub~dly, ~e proposed fee berne will be p~sed along to ~e public ~ ~e fore of higher g~bage rates. ~is mm ~e~e is happropfiate kcau~ ~ ~cyol~g Bo~d ~ready ~ subsmfi~ mffifi-mfllion dolI~ ~n~I ~com~ ~ ~e fore of $6.00 for each ton of garbage IndfilI~- ~d subsmtiaI rescues. Moreover, while you and I ~re accountable to the voting public, a majority of the eleven mcmbers of the Recycling Boatel are NOT elected officials. As elected officials I'm sure you'll agree that you and I have a duty to protect the public from unnecessary charges and fees carried on into perpetuity. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors appointed ~e majority membership on the Recycling Board, mad the proposed increase requires the Board of Supervisors approval. From Oro Loma's perspective, the idea of adding an annual COLA surcharge to existing Measure D levies is unwan'amed and sends the wrong message to our customers. - · If you agree that this fie increase should be opposed, I would appreciate your considering an Agency/City Kesolution of Opposition, or at least a letter to the Board of Supervisors expressing your opposition. I have included copies of a sample resolution that your agency might consider passing, and a Measure D fact sheet highlighting the issues we believe are important to addrcss. If you:have any: questions or concerns please feel free to call me at home at (510) 352-1000. ..- ""' ' Very truly yours, Howard Kerr President, Board of Directors HK:MCC.'rj Enclosure ATTACHMENT 1 Why the Alameda County Recycling Board's Proposal to Increase the Measure D $6/per ton surcharge at the Altamont and Vasco Landfills is inappropriate: FACT: FACT: FACT: FACT: FACT: FACT: FACT: Since 1992, all of the cities and sanitary districts within Alameda County have implemented successful recycling and green waste programs which have diverted thousands of tons of materials from the landf~l. A majority of Measure D goals have already been achieved. Future a~complishmcnts will be smaller in comparison to what has already been accomplished. Any significant measurable results achieved in the future may be out of proportion to the cost of achievement, The Recycling Board was created to administer the money collected under Measure D, and to act as a resource to assist industry and government in m~ting the goals of Measure D. Measure D was not enacmd m perpetuate another government agency into perpetuity. The Recycling Board wants to implement the COLA increase because successful source reduction and diversion programs are reducing tonnages at the landfill, and this results in declining revenues to the Recycling Board. ~ The public (our customers) perception to such an increase may be "the more we recycle, the more we pay!" Customers do not differentiate between charges/costs for garbage or recycling sexyices - they simply look at the total cos~. Over the years, the Recycling Board has had difficulty identifying projects t._,o fund. To now increase these costs to support a largely undefined need is inconsistent with sotind..fiscal policy.· · · - P~pared by: The Oro Loma Sanitary. District 2600 Grant Avenue San Lorcnzo. CA 94580(5 1 0) 276-4700 Resolution No. 3054 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING PROPOSAL TO INCREASE MEASURE D GARBAGE DISPOSAL PER TON SURCHARGE RESOLVED, by the Sanitary Board of the Oro Loma Sanitary District, Alameda County, California, that The Alameda Cou.n. ty Source Reduction and Recycling Board is preparing the Alameda County Recycling Plan, which it expects will be completed by December 31, 1999; and That contained in and made a part of the Recycling Plan is language which specifically as'ks that the Recycling Board submit a letter to the ,~damecla County Board of Supervisors requesting that, effective July I, 2000, the Board of Supervisors implement a "COLA" increase to the Measure D surcharge on all garbage disposed of at the Altamont and Vasco Road Land~Iis; and That since 1992, all of the cities and sanitary districts within Alameda County have implemented successful recycling and green waste programs which have diverted thousands of tons of materials from the landfill; and That amaj ority of Measure D goals have already been achieved; future accomplishments will be smaller in comparison to what has already been accomplished; and, any significant measurable results achieved in the future may be out &proportion to the cost of achievement; and That the Recycling Board wants to implement the COLA increase because successful source reduction and diversion programs ~r8 reducing tonnages at ~e landfill, and this results in declining revenues to the Recycling Board; and That the public (our customcn) perception to such an increase my be "the more we recycle, the more we pay," b~ause customers typically do not differentiate between charges/costs for garbage or recycling services - they simply look at the total costs; and this COLA proposal will increase the cost of garbage disposal; and That over the years, the Recycling Board has had difficulty idcnti&ing projects 3_0 fund; and That to now increase these costs to support a largely undefined need is inconsistent with sound fiscal policy; and That the proposed increase will ultimately be passed along to'the public in the form of hiE. her garbage rates. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Sanitary Board of the Oro Loma Sanitary IJistrict does hereby oppose said increase and intends to actively and fully support opposition to the proposed Measure D COLA incre~-se b~fore the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. ATTACHMENT 2 FURTlqF. RNIORE, the Sanitary Board further d/xccts that the Oro Loma Board President execute a "letter of position" opposing the Recycling Board' s proposal on behalfoftho District and its customers, and that a copy of his letter be direct majled to city and sanitary district council and board members whose jurisdictions are affected by the proposed COLA/ncrcase. I cc'rdfy that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted by the Sanitary Board of the Oro LOrna Satdiary District, Alameda County, California, at a meeting thereof on the 2 day of October 1999, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES, Members: Crowl e, NOES, Mcmbezs: None ABSENT, Members: None Dias, Kerr, Landis, Sidari Countersigned: