Laserfiche WebLink
` consensus among the task force; LAGCO's compensation package; debris boxes; and <br />hr an alternate rate schedule which included all costs applied to all residents. <br />Jon Angin, General Manager - Los Altos Garbage Company, addressed the issue of <br />the rate increase of 68% which covered the period from March of 1993 to the present. <br />Factors attributing to this request included: economic downturn, increase for <br />ongoing expenses, general administrative expenses, franchise fees and revenue <br />attrition. Mr. Angin recommended looking at the actual increase <br />($842,000/$894,000) rather than looking at individual line items. Concerning the <br />debris box issue, he noted that the company still had fixed costs relating to debris <br />boxes whether or not they were being used (i.e. lease costs). Concerning general <br />administration expenses, Mr Angin noted that they were based on the revenue <br />generated in Los Altos Hills. <br />Robert Hilton, Managing Partner - Hilton Farnkopf & Hilton, referred to their final <br />report which had been distributed to all interested parties. In response to inquiries <br />made by Council, he suggested the question that should be asked is what the original <br />allocation methodology had been and how it compared to the present. Referring to <br />the allocation issue addressed in their report, it was their recommendation that the <br />Task Force address this issue. Mr. Hilton addressed the issue of compensation and <br />commented on the question under discussion: are the salaries at LAGCO and their <br />parent company NORCAL reasonable? Mr. Hilton reported that five companies in <br />the Bay Area were compared, with workmans' compensation not being included. <br />`, Based on their review, if the ESOP (employee stock ownership plan) was included <br />LAGCO was on the high side; however, if not included, LAGCO was low. Mr. <br />Hilton also commented on the leasing vs. ownership of equipment and the <br />depreciation factor. <br />Peter Hanschen, representing Los Altos Garbage Company, noted that they knew <br />there was a flaw in the allocation formula and they were hoping that the cities and <br />the company could agree on allocations which would be favorable to all. He further <br />noted that the company had entered into this contract with certain expectations. <br />They believed changes were alright if everyone agreed to them and if the company <br />still achieved their expectations. In response to an inquiry from Council that if all <br />the cities agreed to a change in the employee stock ownership plan would LAGCO <br />agree, Mr. Hanschen responded positively. However, he did note that if the Town <br />made a change to the contract then the company would have the option to change it <br />also. <br />Paul Eisenhardt, representing Los Altos Garbage Company, commented on the <br />allocation problem and the option of all the involved cities agreeing on a new <br />allocation method. He stated, however, that the company could not reach an <br />agreement with the Town without the agreement of the other cities. The allocation <br />December 6, 1994 <br />Adjourned Regular Meeting <br />