Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - December 17, 1986 (104)CITY COUNCIL MEETING swrVutwo.- 17 toa6 HARW LANE SANITARY LANDFILL GATE FEE RES. NO. 86-187 City Manager Peterson reported that, at its regular meeting of July 2, 1986, the City Council unanimously adopted a OC -7(b) resolution approving an agreement with the County of San OC -27(a) Joaquin providing for the implementation of a gate fee at the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill. A copy of this agreement was Madded for Council approval. The agreement provides, among other things, that the gate .fee of $2.00 per cubic yard for industrial waste brought to the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill be effective on the date of the execution of the agreement (July 8, 1986). The agreement further provides that the same gate fee be applied to residential and commercial waste generated within the City limits and brought to the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill for disposal no latter than December 31, 1986. This gate fee is in lieu of the present 78 of refuse bill revenue collected by the City which is remitted to San Joaquin County for dump charges. The delay in the inilementation of the gate fee for residential and ocamercial customers was granted by the County at the City of Lodi's request to permit the City time to undertake the first-ever camprehensive review and evaluation of the operations of the City's contract hauler, Sanitary City Disposal Copany. One of the purposes of the study was to determine the need for rate adjustments in addition to the gate fee. To oonduct this study, the City Council, at its regular meeting of June 4, 1986, retained the consulting firm of Eljumaily-Butler Associates of Santa Rosa, experts in the field of waste management. For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the complexity of the assigrment, the drafts of the study, along with a proposed ordinance and franchise agreement was just delivered to the City within the last two weeks. Assistant City Manager Jerry Glenn has spent considerable time reviewing the contents of same with the consultant. There remains to be aooatplished discussion with Mr. Dave Vaccarezza of. Sanitary City Disposal CcffpuW before the final results of the study can be transmitted to the City Council. Hopefully, this will occur sometime in February, 1987. In the meantime, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the City and the County of San Joaquin, the $2.00 per cubic yard gate fee will be charged on residential and oocamercial refuse taken to the Harney Lane Sanitary Landfill for Disposal effective December 31, 1986. This equates to approximately 38 cents on the first can and 18 cents on the second can. This represents a 7.88 adjustment which should also be applied to all commercial rates. In addition, we are aware that Sanitary City Disposal Cmpany will be approaching the City Council for an overall rate adjustment in the immediate. future. The draft report prepared by the City's waste management consultant includes a recommendation for such an adjustment. Tb minimize confusion for the rate payer, it C _y Manager Peterson further advised that several alternate approaches have surfaced as staff has revieu;ed this issue. These are: 1. request of the County an additional time extension for the implementation of the gate fee on residential refuse C"W: This is really not a practical. alternative. In the first place, the County most asmzedly would deny the request. The six-month delay in this fnpleoentatian woo an acoommdatim on the County's part. Syesyone in the County, including Loa's industrial comamity is paying a per cubic yard gate.fee with the exception of Lodi•s residential and commercial oca■amWes. 2. inplement the $2.00 per cubs yard gate fee aitfectiva December 31, 1986 in ac000donoe with the to* and aoaditians of the July 20 1986 agseaaec:t beineen the City of Lodi and the County of Sen Joaquin C"Wt skis Mould result ion, awaning the City CWVxd I ultimately grants a cute ' ad j=bmt in reepoeAIR to the ant£cipabed request for *e ftm Sanitary City Disposal may, tMO separate garbage rate incseeses which is to be avoided if possible. 3. the City pay to the County the gate fee as billed effective Deoaober 31, 1986 until such date as the City Council acts on the imp]smentaticn of the gate fee and appears on the utility bill C NP: This would cost the City approximately $14,000 per month until the gate fee is placed in effect. The City would not recover this expenditure. This is not in the best interests of the city nor does it represent sound utility managameat. In addition, the City Atton-Ay has saes conossa nett this could be intiaapc+sbed as a gift of public 'funds. 4. the City pay to the Coad the g:te fee os bdlled �Eft etiw DeawAbw 31, 1146 mail anoh Me M the City Carail ads ca -1 of the 9M* be ad it appm= cat the Utubw- bdu with the PWWAso that OW adjure -t Jn the 9da soba iaalodt Abe ragys nt to tM City caro an appapdab toded- cos ar tMo the City in t!r gate fee is tin imberie COMM: This gives the City Council tine to euatdUy evaluate the esrtire garbage rate pIteture, paaclnQs dasat3nq OW or more shirtsleeRre Sessions to this anevi,et► prior to arriving at a decision. In addition it p wvidee far the ultimate reecvery of expenditures made by the City in meeting the gate fee charge. Following discussion with questions being directed to Staff, Council, on motion of Council Member PirJarton, Reid second, adopted Resolution No. 86-187 that the City would pay to the County the gate fee as billed effective December 31, 1986 until such date as the City Council acts on the implementation of the gate fee and it appears on the utility bill with the proviso that any adjustment in the garbage rate include the repayment to the ' l•--tiL.LLY aua..QjV—,A:...... �.. uu..i..�wU= %.11.Y a concern that this could be .terpreted as a gift of public funds. 4. the City pay to the County the gate fee as billed effective December 31, 1986 until such date as the City Council acts on the implementation of the gate fee and it appears on the utility bill with the prauzso that any adjustment in the garbage rate include the repayment tD the City over an appropriate period, one or two years perhaps, of any expenditure made by the City in satisfying the gate fee in the interim C)WW: This gives the City Council time to carefully evaluate the entire garbage rate picture, perhaps devoting one or more shirtsleeve sessions to this review prior to arriving at a decision. in addition it provides for the ultimate recovery of expenditures made by the City in meet-ing the gats fee charge. Flollowing discussion with questions being directed to Staff, Council, on motion of Council Member Pinkerton, Reid second, adopted Resolution No. 86-187 dem' that the City would pay to the County the gate fee as billed effective December 31, 1986 until such date as the City Council acts an the implementation of the gate fee and it appears on the utility bill with the proviso that any adjustment in the garbage rate include the repayment to the City over an appropriate period, one or two years perhaps of any expenditure made by the City in satisfying the gate fee in the interim. n 4+» d <_ tE>TM i9 . '' .* aft• ': ?d✓z�x � +�w,i ry..