07/15/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

contractor) of operations and, upon satisfaction tothe Town, fair rate adjustments to the contractor and should also allow for periodical rate studies (at the expense of the contractor) to assure that the Town's rates are competitive in the region. Concerning changes to existing programs, it was recommended that the yardwaste transfer operation be closed as soon as possible and a yardwaste pickup program be implemented. In addition the number of Town Cleanup Days should be reduced from four to two and the basic solid waste service in Town should be mandatory to all residents. It was noted that presently not everyone in Town was billed for recycling. Some residents did not contract with Los Altos Garbage Company for garbage pickup and therefore were not on the master billing list. In addition some residents were granted waivers by the City Manager for garbage service after submitting a suitable explanation of what they did with their garbage. The City Manager further noted that rates could increase by as much as 85% to bring the program cost in line with expenses. The City Manager presented a chart for Council's review showing where the trash dollars went: of 100% collected customer fees, 54% was for operations and 34% for disposal. Operations included the following: 30% trash service, 10.1% debris boxes, 2.6% clean-ups, 10.1% general recycling and 1.1% yardwaste. Disposal included: 25.4% tipping fee, 4.7% San Jose Business Tax, 0.3% San Jose Enforcement Fee, 0.4% San Jose AB 939 Fee, 0.4% County Health Fee, 0.2% County Planning Fee, 1.6% State AB 939 Fee and 0.9% Eastin Tax. Also included in the 100% is 2% for Household Waste/Administration and Overhead and 10% for the franchise fee. Another chart explained the break down of a quarterly bill: cost per month = $17.50; total quarterly bill = $52.50. Of the $52.50 total quarterly bill, $23.85 was for universal recycling (includes cleanup days, household hazardous waste and general recycling), $8.40 for backyard service (roll out for 100-200 feet) and $20.25 for garbage service. Regarding what changes were anticipated, the final chart indicated a 55% increase for landfill costs and a 25% increase for operational costs. The Financial Consultant presented an overview of the report she had prepared on a financial evaluation of the solid waste costs. Council discussed the various issues raised by the City Manager in his report. Siegel suggested the Council give serious consideration to partially raising the rates now as he thought it was too much of an increase to raise them all at once. Tryon asked for a comparison with other cities of rates paid and services received for solid waste. Hubbard also agreed with raising the rates now as well as later with a slightly larger increase now to cover the increased costs in a reasonable manner. July 15, 1992 2