HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - March 16, 1996 PH4
A
CITY OF LODI
AGENDA TITLE:
METING DATE:
PREPARED RY:
RECOMMENDED ACT/ON:
a 4
•
,COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Proposed Residential and Commercial Refuse Rate Increase
March 16, 1994
Assistant City Manager
The City Council consider the request for a rate
adjustment submitted by Sanitary Disposal
Incorporated for refuse service in the City of Lodi.
Such adjustment to be effective for all bills
prepared after April 1, 1994.
BACKGROUND: In December of 1991 the City Council adopted a "rate
methodology" to be used to compute refuse rates for
Sanitary City Disposal Company. After the first test
year the rate would be adjusted on an annual basis --the first year being a full
review of the costs associated with collection and disposal of residential and
coarnercial refuse and the second year being an adjustment for inflation and
costs associated with increased levels of service. April 1994 begins the
second year of a complete cycle.
I have reviewed the request submitted by Sanitary City and find the proposal to
be in accordance with the agreed upon adjustments with one exception. In the
proposal there is a request for an automated inventory system which had not
been discussed in previous years. Even though this system may generate savings
in the future it is a request not in conformance with my understanding of the
adopted review mechanism. If this expenditure were not allowed then the
increased rate would be 8.09 rather than 8.51.
As explained by Ms. Cindy Kline, of Barakat and Chamberlain, the main reason
for the increase is not increased salaries or inflation, it is to pay for the
costs of operating the material recovery facility for a full year. Over one
half the requested increase is a direct result of the costs of operating the
Material Recovery Facility for a full year. This includes not only the cost of
labor but of depreciation, and interest on the facility itself.
In accordance with the agreed upon procedure Sanitary City is entitled to a
rate increase of 8.01 effective April 1, 1994. Therefore the cost of the
normal residential service would be $15.87 per month (versus the current
$14.70, an increase of $1.17 per month) and rates for commercial would increase
by 8.01.
APPROVE a.
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
4'
• fb
FORDI]AQ: Not applicable
Respectfully submitted,
JLG/pn
U,I a..i44/TXTA.O1V
L. Glenn
Blatant City Manager
%.,,.,4.211C11 110. 1590
AN uh9CODIFIED OF -THE CITY OF
LODI. REPEALING ORDINANCE 1570 IM ITS A ESTASLISHING
NSW Min FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION. -
SS IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
SECTIOLI 1. Ordinance 1570 is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 - SOLID WASTE
as it relates to residential solid waste collection, the following
monthly rates are hereby established:
A. For any private dwelling house or residence, the rate for one
weekly garbage collection shall be:
1. Por the first 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds, Fifteen
Dollars and Eighty Seven Cents ($15.87);
2. For the second 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds each, Thirty
Nine Dollars and Sixty Eight Cents ($39.68);
3. For the third 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds each, Sixty
Three Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($63.48);
4. For one 20 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, Ten Dollars and Eighty Cents ($10.80).
-1-
• •
B. Owners or occupants of flats, apartments, mobile hoes spaces
or the tenants or lessees thereof shall pay an amount equal to Fifteen
Dollars and Eighty Seven Cents ($15.97) times the number of apartment
units or mobile hone spaces owned. sin services requested shall be
charged according to the C., —dal Rate structure, but in no event
shall the City bill the tenants more than the single cart rate.
C. For any residence requesting "backyard service" for the
collection of their waste cart(s), there shall be an additional rate of
Ten Dollars ($10.00) per month, unless the residence is granted an
exemption from the rate by the Citizens Advisory Board.
D. For any residence requesting a commingled recyclables cart(s)
and/or a yard/garden waste cart(s), sufficient to meet its waste
diversion needs, there shall be no additional charge.
s. Any residential customer may purchase from the City or the
franchisee for the price of Five Dollars ($5.00) each, especially
marked tags for affixing to trash bags which will then be collected
with routine waste removal service. Such tags may be used to
supplement, but not in lieu of other required solid waste collection
services for residences.
F. Rates set forth in this Ordinance shall be effective on all
bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
-2-
• •
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
SECTIO!_ 4. This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal
SECTION 5. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
',Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that such
rates are necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of
the franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the
purpose of purchasing facilities, equipment and materials necessary to
implement and carry out a Council -mandated recycling program, and for
other health and safety purposes.
Attest:
JENNIFER M. PERRIN
City Clerk
Approved this 16th day of March 1994
JACK A. SIEGLOCK
MAYOR
-3-
State of California •
County of San Joaquin, ss.
1, Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the
certify that Ordinance No. 1590 was adopted as
a regular sleeting of the City Council of the
16, 1994, and was thereafter passed, adopted
the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Council Members -
Council !embers -
Council Members -
Council Members -
City of Lodi, do hereby
an urgency ordinance at
City of Lodi bald March
and ordered to print by
1 further certify that Ordinance No. 1590 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
BOBBY W. McNATT
City Attorney
ORD1590/TXTA.01V
-4-
JEMMY= M. PSRRIN
City Clerk
•
• ORDINANCE NO. 1591
AN UN.'OPIFIED w+...+..Yl ORDINANCE OF THM CITY ..4.0•0.4.41.101P THE CITY
OF MOI ESTABLISHING NEW RATES FOR COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1571 IN ITS a.6. �Rr.. . .
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1571 is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 - SOLID WASTE - as it
relates to commercial solid waste collection monthly rates is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Monthly rates.
A. The monthly rates to be charged for garbage collection service
shall be as follows:
1. For owners or tenants of business houses, the monthly
rates shall be:
a. As set forth in the Commercial Rate Structure schedule
attached, when commercial bin service is requested.
b. Fifty Five Dollars and Fifty Cents ($55.50) per month for
once per week collection, when a commercial waste cart provided
by the contractor of ninety-five gallons and not to exceed one
hundred and fifty pounds is requested.
-1-
«,.
c. Alike38 gallon waste cart colla once per week, Fifteen
Dollars and flighty Sewn Cents ($13.87) per month; foss two 38
gallon waste carts, Thirty Sine Dollars and Sixty Sight Cents
($39.68` per month; and for three 38 gallon waste carts, Sixty
Three Dollars and Forty Sight Cents ($63.48) per month.
S. All of the rate schedules set forth in this section shall be
effective on all bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
$SCTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
$SCTION 4. This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
SECTION 5., This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
"Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that such
rates are necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of
the franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the
purpose of purchasing facilities, equipment and materials necessary to
implement and carry out a Council -mandated recycling program, and for
other health and safety purposes.
-2-
..,. , , .. ... _ v urn.; s,>rvv:t:. ,•Y'�:.�.arstrRrc{w
Approved this 164116 of March 1994
JACK A. SIEGLOCK
MAYOR
Attest:
uA4&L1 ak M. PERRIN
City Clerk
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the
certify that Ordinance No. 1591 was adopted as
a regular meeting of the City Council of the
16, 1994, and was thereafter passed, adopted
the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Council Members -
Council Members -
Council Members -
Council Members -
City of Lodi, do hereby
an urgency ordinance at
City of Lodi held March
and ordered to print by
I further certify that Ordinance No. 1591 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the 2&-e of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
BOBBY W. McNAIT
City Attorney
-3-
JENNIFER M. PERRIN
City Clerk
1W-10-1994 16:13 FROM i3AR15CAT 8 CICSIEER IN INC TO 91339333602R-940010 P.M/003
LAMM
ConlmWtciMM Rots ' ---
Piopoiled ROBS
DMI: April 1.1914
This!
Capacity Frequency 1 Week
all
containers 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
1 594.29 5108.99 5451.85 *337.73 31,31827 31.917.45
2 514353 8287.07 5631.34 51.114.80 *1,731.42 $2.48320
9 *192.77 *386.54 181455 *1.401.88 $2,14856 $3.018,97
4 *242.01 5484.01 5999.38 StXi68.92 82561.72 *3.814,73
8 *291.25 5582.48 31.177.87 51.975,99 ;2.976.87 54,180.50
s *340.49 ;680.90 51,355936 *2.263.06 $3,892.01 54.746.28
7 $389.71 *778.44 $1.54087 52„55011 53.907.17 $6.31209
s *438.95 3877.92 51.72239 *2.937.11 54.22231 *5.87778
9 $486.19 $073.40 $1.90189 $3,124.24 *41537.46 $8,443.68
10 5537.43 *1.07488 *9,08538 *3.411.30 $8.95281 $7.009.31
2
2 5132.27 $284.54 $586.78 *979.83 *1.506.14 82.14529
4 9219.48 $438.95 $851.19 51,418.59 52,111.16 *2.935.90
6 3308.70 $813.38 31,158.52 *1,357.55 $2,718.17 $3,732.50
8 *393.90 8'87.81 51,45204 12,29050 53.321.16 *4.526.11
10 $481.11 1962.22 51.74787 12,735.47 *3.920.21 15,319.71
12 3568.32 51.136.65 52,04288 *3,174.42 54,63128 *6,113.32
14 8666.54 51,311.07 $2,338.32 53,613.37 ;5,13624 $6900.92
18 3742.75 *1.485.50 $2,633.74 54062.34 55.74128 57.700.53
18 *829.96 31,659.91 52,929.18 *4.491.29 38,34627 38,494.13
20 $917.18 81.334.34 53,224.60 $4.93024 *8.951.30 $9.287.74
$
3 5110.24 5540.49 $679.68 11,131.53 51.898.01 32.373.13
8 $295.43 1590.85 31,089.04 51.722.38 52,490..89 $3.394.58
9 $420 61 5841.23 51,498.38 $2,31323 53,256.78 54.41602
12 5545.00 $1.091.59 $1.907.72 $2.904.08 54.080.58 53,437.47
15 5670.98 11,341.97 $2,31707 53.494.93 54,875.55 *6.458.91
18 *796.17 51.59233 $2.728.42 54,085.78 $5,670.44 87,480.37
21 $921.35 $1,84271 0,135.77 *4.87664 86.465.32 56501.61 •
24 *1.048.63 $2.093.07 $3,545.11 $5267.49 $7.260.20 $9.523.26
27 *1.171.72 52,343.44 53,954.47 *5.865.34 58.055.09 510,544.71
30 51296.91 *2.593.81 $4.3C3.81 56,44919 *8.849.98 511.566.15
MAR -10-1994 15:01
P. 02
ti -V 10-1934 1614 FFX 1 Dr4EWT 8 t3 W 1UEf& IN I NC TO 9120933360217- 940010 P. E1E33i003
LSCO
C 1 Rate
Plopn4ad Rates
SWIM, DOS: Apra 1, 1994
Total
Capacity
Containers
4
DONV23241...
5
6
Frvquancy 1 Wvsk
1
2 3 4 5 6
120822 5416.43 579300 51.28343 51,95.87 52.500.96
071.37 $742.75 51.51557 $202516 *2,87083 53.550.28
4534.53 51290.08 51,84014 $2,768.91 5325538 $6599.56
1697.69 $1,395.39 53263.41 53.511.00 *4.54013 54.344.44
1860.84 *1.721.70 a 12.88667 54.254.41 55224.89 *79898.13
51.024.01 52,048.01 *3.09.94 14297.15 56209.64 $8.84741
51,187.17 $2,374.34 93.933.21 $5,739.90 57.794,40 $10.596.70
61.35033 $2,700.88 54,458.49 (8,48286 *8.779.15 411,346.99
51.51348 $3.02697 $4.97925 37,725.40 39.763311 $259828
51,676.64 53,353.29 56403.02 $7,964.14 510.748.81 513244.58
5246.19 $492.37 $907.53 51,435.31 12.075.75 12,826.81
1447.32 5694.64 51244.72 $2,329.96 53.290.37 54,306.90
564846 $1,296.91 $2.181.90 53.224.60 $4,42499 58,783.08'
5849.58 51499.17 $2.819.09 *4,11924 85499.81 $7280.20
$1,050.72 92.101.43 33,45628 $5,013.88 56,77423 *8.737.34
31251.85 52503.70 $4093.47 $5,908.53 57,048.85 510.21445
51,45298 $2,906.97 $4.730.66 51,803.16 59.123.48 511,691.80
31,854.12 *3.30828 $5.387.85 $7,697 81 510,298.10 413,15573
51.85525 $3,710.49 $8.50504 $8.69245 511.472.72 514,645.85
$2,056,35 91.11275 58,64222 53,487.08 $12,641.34 $16.12269
6 5284.17 5568.32 $1,021.45 11.58721 $2,26581 93456.66
12 *528.27 51,046,53 51,772.55 $2,633.74 33,630.10 54.781.63
18 5762.38 51.524.75 $2.523.67 $5,560.28 *4,994.80 58,466.60
24 51,001.48 $200296 53,274.77 34.72681 58.359.08 98,171.57
30 51240.59 52,481.17 *4,02S.89 0,773.38 57323.57 59.876.55
36 51479.69 52.959.39 $4,777.00 56,819.89 $9.088.07 *11.581.82
42 51718.80 $3,437.60 84,528.10 $7,868.43 $10.452.56 513,288.49 -
48 31,957.90 53.915.81 16,27922 $8,91296 511,817.04 514.991.48
54 52,197.01 54.304.02 57.03033 39.969.50 $13,181.54 $16.696.43
60 $2,438.11 54,87223 57,781.44 511,006.03 514,548.03 518,401.42
MAR -10-1994 15:01
TGT=$ P.003
P. 03
ORDINANCE NO. 1592
AN Vw0.�♦ ORDINANCE OF THE LODI CITY vHY►�'bYYt
REPEALING OPDINANCE NO. 1563 IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND AMENDING
LODI MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 13.16, RELATING TO COMMERCIAL
10 to SO CUBIC YARD ROLL -OFF BOXES
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE LODI CITY COUNCIL, as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1563 is hereby repealed in its entirety, and
shall be of no further force or effect.
SECTION 2.
BAWL
A. The rates to be charged for commercial 10 to 50 cubic yard roll -off
box collection service shall be as follows:
1. For owners or tenants of business houses, the rates shall be
as set forth in the Commercial 10 to 50 Cubic Yard Roll -Off Box
Rate Structure schedule attached, when such service is requested.
B. All of the rate schedules set forth in this section shall be
effective on all bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
SECTION 4. This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
-1-
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
SECTION 5. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
"Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that the
commercial refuse collection rates established in Ordinance 1563 are
necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of the
Franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the purpose
of purchasing facilities, equipment, and materials.
Approved this 16th day of March 1994
JACK A. SIEGLOCK, Mayor
Attest:
JENNIFER M. PERRIN
City Clerk
-2-
•
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. 1592 was adopted as an urgency ordinance at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held March
16, 1994, and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Noes: Council Members -
Absent: Council Members
Abstain: Council Members
I further certify that Ordinance No. 1592 was approved and signed by
the Mayor an the date of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
HOBBY McNAZT
City Attorney
-3-
ulsoLtA0Ax M. PERRIN
City Clerk
MODIFICATION TO AGREEMENT •
SUM SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSINSSSSSS
THIS MODIFICATION TO THE AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 (The
Agreement) is entered into this day of Sdph-rovN 1991 by and between the
parties to the original agreement. All terms of the original agreement. save
and except those additions. deletions, and modifications specified herein shall
continue.
RECITALS
WOOSIOINOU
Paragraph 25 of the original Agreement (Collection Rates) shall be modified to
read as follows:
The City shall have the right to determine the rates
contractor may charge to customers for refuse collection
and transportation services. The rates established
shall be reviewed annually during the month of September
and, if appropriate, adjusted effective October 1. In
its determination of any appropriate rate adjustments,
the City Council may consider, by not be limited to, the
change in the Consumer Price Index and/or other indices
deemed appropriate for the past twelve months, and/or
any extraordinary increases or decreases in the cost of
equipment, insurance, fuel, Federal, State and/or local
government taxes, fees, assessments, or other special
costs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have set their
hands the date and year first mentioned above.
CITY OF L00;
ihomas A. Peterson
City Manager
Approved As To Form:
Bob McNatt, City Attorney
ORD1522/TXTA.02J
LODI S ITARY C,DISPOSAL COMPANY
v ' v acca, zza
President
Attest:
If
1 i., .
ce •e me e y erk
CC- C) CC • S Lc-- J-6 - C'.c ��9
•
.L. I _ 4 ' •' ' .414J ' • - • 1•
4 -1,1_ 1.64.1.1.111 =.'! f 1.1'1
CONTRACT ETON DROP RTES
1. Drop-oft/Pick-up $111.00
Charge Psr Bos
.2. Tana Disposed/Box
x Processing Charge
Processing Charge
x$25.00
3. franchise fes (4.8% of 1+2)
TOTAL BILL (1+2+3)
ONE -TIER DROP RATE
1. Drop-off/Pick-Up
Charge Psr Box
2. Tons Disposed/Box
x Processing Charge
Processing Charge
$181.30
x$25.00
3. franchise fa (4.8% of 1+2)
TOTAL BILL (1.2.3)
-5-
to
CCIQI CXAL 10 TO 50 CVIC_ Tian ROLL -O HATE .m..�..r'... u�.II_ 8C®UL•=
COMPACT Man FRE Y; r, . .. , DROP RATES
1. Drop-off/Pick-up $111.52
Charge Per Sox
2. Tons Disposed/Doc
x Processing Charge
Processing Charge
x$23.00
3. Franchise Foe (4.81 of 1+2)
TOTAL BILL (1+2+3)
ONE -TIM DROP RATE
1. Drop-off/Pick-00
Charge Per Pox
2. Tons Disposed/Hos
x Processing Charge
Processing Charge
$182.14
x$25.00
3. Franchise Fee (4.81 of 1+2)
TOTAL DILL (1+2+3)
-6-
LCA AO, Aryls
Mr. Mayor and members o a Lodi CLty Council:
Tbnight we hope to give you an alternate view from that heard on March 7, 1991&
when all speakers mere against the City "allowing" the garbage rate to increase.
None of us want an increase.
We are sure that each of you have reviewed the contract agreement signed in
September 1988 as well as the Refuse Rate Methodology in the Council minutes of
December 4, 1991. (Reference: CC -22(b)).
The third sentence of the contract shown on page 7, oaragraoh 20 and quoted
by Council Member Davenport at the March 7, 1994 City Council Special Meeting is
correct but it is taken out of context. The preceding and very first two sentences
of paragraph 20 are most meaningful and CAH NOT be overlooked nor ignored. Those
two sentences of page 7, paragraph 20, under the heading of "Breach by Contractor"
read as follows:
"In the event Contractor should default in the performance of any material
provisions of this agreement, and the default is not cured within 30 days
after receipt of written notice of default from City, then City may, at
its option, hold a hearing at its next City Council meeting to determine
whether this Agreement should be terminated. In the event City decides
to terminate this Agreement, City shall serve 10 days written notice of its
intention to terminate upon Contractor."
These two sentences are then followed by the very sentence which Council Member
Davenport requested to have stated into the record, here quoted directly from the
Contract:
"In the event City exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City
may, at its option, either directly undertake performance of the services
or arrange with other persons to perform the services with or without a
written agreement."
To be blunt, we feel there is no choice but to allow the rate increase to the
Lodi Sanitary City Disposal Company unless the City finds reason to question the
performance of the Lodi Sanitary City Disposal Company. The issue here is:
"WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS INCREASE?"
.re have never questioned helping those with a real monetary need but with
the current budget crisis in Lodi we should all share equally in the necessary
rate increase and reserve the 810.00 trash carts for those who can substantiate
their need.
Our presentation before the City Council in 1991 suggested the aforesaid
be the way to handle this contingency. We again request this substantisrtdan. of
need. Fair is Fair and just because a senior does not generate much garbage
(trash) in later lite, does not mean they are less responsible for the filling
of land fills in earlier years. Seniors -- consider your blessings -- help those
kids pay a little less because you agree to pay a little more.
In closing, we hope the Council will take note of the many absent faces to-
night -- those who do not object to the necessary increase and stay home because
they are satisfied with the quality of service and the way the City has handled
the natter. They are as proud as we are of Lodi's record in meeting the State's
mandate.
Thank you. Janet C. Pruss
Walter F. Pruss
471/ COUNCIL
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER. Mayor
DAVID M. HINCHMAN
Maya Pro Tempore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON. J.
FRED M. REID
wirsli....r...
CITY OF LOI0i�
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
CALL BOX 3006
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95)414910
(209)331.5634
TELECOPIER (209) 333479%
September 22, 1989
Dave Vaccarezza
California Waste Removal Systems
1333 E. Turner Road
P. 0. Box 319
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Dave:
..:i 4 �:.
THOMAS A. PETERSON
SOP WNW?"
?"a�
I..Ly 9.rda
BOB McNATT
City Attorney
4
'5EP 22'89
C Iy Attorney's Office
I need your assistance in answering a question. I received the attached
copies of Vienna Convalescent bills for Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI)
for infectious waste for the months of May and June. The bill they
..ceived from the City of Lodi, based upon your instructions, was more than
double the previous billing.
L --
Quite frankly, I don't know how to answer the inquiry without making both
of us look pretty bad.
Maybe you can give me an explanation as to why your rates are more than
double the rates on the open market.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Glenn
Assistant City Manager
JLG:br
Attachment
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
ACMLT135
•
,Californ'a
---waste
ren+ovN,y,len+,
V I
September Z50. 1989
Mr. •lorry t . Wenn
Assistant City Manager
City nt Lodi
Call Max :006
Lodi. Lk ub 4J—Jylt1
he: Vienna tonv.,let,cont
Infectious Waste
Dear Jerry:
itt response 1.o your letter of September 1.2. 1989. I would
1,4.c• to te•nt,nd }•cin al uur meeting on July 1•:. 191.9. ronec•rning
the: infectious waste raters presently being charged. Present at
the meeting were lom Peterson. Mob Mr Wet t:. t•e.ut s•t1 f . myself. and
utter members of my sten. At that time. we: discussed the infec—
tious waste r:+te•s and agreed that I should investigate rates
sh.irytd by ether eornpartic . in other areas of ilorttlerrt California.
As requested :,t 1h •'. me•etinq. 7 responded with the results of my
investigation by letter to Torn Peterson c,n August 16. 1969. That
letter answers your same question .!shed on September :2nd.
P1c'a::e refer to your files for the previous int•ormatien
supplied. l hope Lhi•• ininrmetian will be c•t us:e to you. 1r you
have: dny tui nett questions. please feel fre to c:ont..et lane.
u. i ti 1'.: t.. • t .: . .
1 1 �.i ti••It 1,
n VII
• .•1111
i 4•1:1 1 • • • . • •.
rectiktcu C Y chh; p. r•c t [cies.
!37.1 E. ?enc- cioo: Pa: Office 60. 110 led. (o!•frrnto 052 1.010 '`.20=';i6 -'•F27.
__ .•.•••,v.,...rrnv..+carunr.tsdY+a`:`n�;�!?i f!"�'U .�}7r uuiF."s.
JOHN R. tRandy) SNIDER. Mayor
DAVID M. HINCHMAN
Mayo, Pro Tempore
EVELYN M. OLSON
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
FRED M. REID
October 11, 1989
*CITY OF LOA
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
CALL SOX 3006 808 MCNATT
LODI. CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 Coy Attorney
(209) 334.5634
TILICOPIIR 1209) 3)3.4795
THOMAS A. PETERSON
Cu,' Wieser
ALICE M REIMCHE
City Clerk
David Vaccarezza
President
Sanitary City Disposal Co., Inc.
1333 E. Turner Road
Post Office Box 319
Lodi, CA 95241=0319
Subject: Vienna Convalescent Infectious Waste
Dear Dave .J2G .,,,,,
OCT 'I 3'89
City Attorn y's t fig Jr
I hope your letter of September 29, 1989 is not the explanation you want me
to give to Ken Heffel regarding my September 22, 1989 letter to you
requesting an explanation as to why your rates are more than double the
rates on the open market.
You previously provided the City with information regarding the infectious
waste rates being charged by one or two other disposal companies. That
does not give me the background information I would need in order to advise
Mr. Heffel that it is appropriate to double his costs. If I advise him
that this is what an ordinance passed by the City Council says, I am sure
we can both predict his reaction.I am confident he will push until he
gets his answer, and I don't think we will look too good
Sincerely yours,
111,7
;JE4P,Y L. GLENN
.•Asistant City Manager
cc: City Manager
City Attorney
GAREINFE/TXTA.01V
/ 90600-00)4987
Ir
�`EaC NEfERENCE4
MVICE LOCATION 100:
05/30/89
06/07/89
06/13/89
06/20/89
4042439
4042719
4043011
4043290
6ILLING AI)..USTMENTS:
06/30/89
U!SI:HIPTH.N
VIENNA CONVALESCENT
600 HAM LANE S.
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE:
LOCATION TOTAL
FINANCE CHARGE
ADJUSTMENT TOTAL
INVOICE TOTAL
iitivoct own00/30/89
-.__. •--- —iasouNT
39.00
39.00
39.00
39 ,I
156.00
2.42
2.42
156.42
;9AYMF_NTS RECEIVED AFTER JUNE 301 1969 WILL NOT 3E REFLECTED ON THIS
INVOICE. PLEASE RETURN TOP 7F THIS INVOICE WITH PAYMENT. THANK YOU•
PLEASE RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
•r•
BROWNIN'—FERRIS INDUSTRIES
BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS
NORCAL DISTRICT
PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE
P40 OTHER BILLIN° WILL BE MADE
(213) 263-6400
PAGE 1
261
BFI 260-477
gU500-0094987
„Am O c REFIRE
ULSCRu'T$*4
.77 7RV I CE LOCATION 100.r VIENNA CONVALESCENT
• 800 HAM LANE S.
05/01/89
05/08/89
05/15/59
05/22/89
►041340
041605
V041881
1042146
4iLLING AOJ JSTMENTS:
05/31/89
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE
TICKET CHARGE
LOCATION TOTAL
FINANCE CHARGE
ADJUSTMENT TOTAL
INVOICE TOTAL
PLEASE RETAIN THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
OROWNING—FERRIS INDUSTRIES
BFI MEDICAL wASTE SYSTEMS
NORCAL DISTRICT
PLEASE PAY FROM !NM INVOICE
NO OTHER MU WO WIL► DE MAGE
u.yact DAT. 05/31/89
AMOUNT
(2131 263-6400
PAGE 1
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
56.00 :„.0)
5.37
5.37
161.37
247
BFI 206477
RY
=�M . . •aR
al
CCthOrRIC
go-i—waste
removed system
August 16, 1989
Hr. Tom Peterson - City Manager
City of Lodi
Call Box 3006
Lodi, California 95241
Re: Infectious Waste Rate Survey
;:gar Hr. Peterson:
4y
Se .89
.ry Ma4.9ers otre
In following up on the meeting of July 13, 1989, concerning the
the infectious waste rates presently being charged, S am enclosing the
rates charged by a statewide company, American Environmental of Sacramento,
and a private franchised refuse hauler, Vacaville Sanitary Service, as
well as Sanitary City Disposal Company's charges. In every case, Sanitary
City Disposal Company's rates are lower or comparable to the rate being
charged for comparable service.
I hope this information will be of use to you. If you have any
questions, please contact me at your convenience
DV/rj
enclosure
Sincer
ad-de:VIC
.144
David Vaccarezza
President
[C Ci. LC C(� c[LI cgtpaectr inc.
1333 c i..rncr Roo:, Post Office 6oz 319 1odi. iuoufornic. '6241-031; '20;,) 369-P,276
:nfrates
r
1. UUICu II►IAOIMtfliL
Wilt Iii i!8!
II,ICTIOSS NAStt, Liu COMPARISON
31 CALLOI L LLL
$35.10 per buper
RegoIar weekly service
$45.00 per baaper
sootbly serrice
2. 7AC1►ILLI SAIITARY SIR►ICI $31.50 per buper
3. LORI SAI1rART UTI
DISPOSAL COMPAsr
I. AMSRICAa IJ►IAO1111f1L
2. WACIrILLI SAIITIAT sums
Cs
3. 1001 SASITRAT CITI
013705)1 OMIT
$21.01 per haaper
2f CALLOILj 6.j LL OALLO/ LILL
$25.00 per buper
riti regalar reek!! )salts
535.00 per Amer
rill )oathly service
511.51 per baaper 315.50 per Jasper
513.50 per baaper
SIAM COITAIIiIS
51 U
Doe (1) gal. to eight (8) gal.
One (I) qt. to eight (8) gal.
three (3) qt. to fire (5) gal.
COST
31.50 to $10.00 per cootaioer
$3.00 to $15.00 per cootaioer
$8.50 to $17.80 per cootaioer
'• 'micas larir000eatal and racarille Solitary require the cos.oaer to place the sharps
costaioer foto as iotectioos waste buper tor collection. Sanitary City Disposal collects
tie sharps coataioers iodiridoally sod does sot require the cuseoaer to place the
coataiaer into a baaper.
infee-ra Ill
•
scollY M. HIRATA
aaaatea
May 2, 1986
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
P 0 SOX t01O — IOtO E NAZILTON AVCNUC
OTOCttTON. CALIFORNIA 08201
12001 044.2301
David Vaccarezza
General Manager
California Waste Removal Systems, Inc.
P. 0. Box 319
Lodi, CA 95241-0319
Dear Mr. Vaccarezza:
tuatwt O OCIuCCMI
*avow Molt Ms
MAMOLILOPLZ
INPUT, wscT.+
I have received a copy of your February 14, 1986, letter to your
commercial customers in which you state that the establishment of a .
gate fee at the Harney Lane Landfill will increase rates paid by
your customers as much as 100% or more.
As we have informed you in previous correspondence relating to spe-
cific instances, and as I have personally discussed with you, the
transition from a franchise fee to a gate fee would not justify a.
100% increase in your rates. If you wish to increase your rates by
any amount that is your perogative, however you should not blame
the increase totally on the establishment of gate fees.
You are hereby requested to refrain from any such statements in the
future.
Very truly yours,
EUGENE B. DELUCCHI
Deputy Director/Operations
EBD:nj
N.0.19.4
c: Henry M. Hirata, Director
. jTom Horton, Solid Waste Manager
I'
HENRY M HIRATA
mows.
•
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
• O .OR 1.10 - 1.10 [ wA?LLTON
STOCKTON CALIFORNIA •111O/
110.1 11144 11.1
April 29, 1986
David Vaccarezza
General Manager
SanCo Disposal.Service
P.O. Box 319
Lodi, California 95241-0319
cuar,:C 0. DELUCC111
1.,,•,11 • {,1,1►CtON
MA11uEL LOPEZ
PL,.0 T • wane row
Subject: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE COLLECTION RATES IN REFUSE SERVICE
AREA B
Dear Mr. Vaccarezza:
On April 28, 1986, Mr. Lynn Beasely, P.O. Box G, Victor, CA 95253,
(209) 334-0955, contacted our office and questioned whether SanCo
can charge $4.50 for collecting an additional can on a one time
only basis. Mr. Beasely is currently a one can residential customer.
The rate established by the Board of Supervisors for each additional
can to Refuse Service Area B, which is served by SanCo, is $3.25 per
month. Since residential rates, for the unincorporated area of
the County, are established by the Board of Supervisors, your firm
may not charge rates higher than those established by the Board.
Accordingly, please contact Mr. Beasely to arrange for collection
of his additional can at the $3.25 rate. Additionally, please
review your residential rates for customers in the unincorporated
area of the County to ensure that your rates are not higher than
those which were established by the Board of Supervisors.
Very truly yours,
Tom Horton
Solid Waste Manager
TH:JP:rc
c: Henry M. ilirsta, Director of Public Works
Lynn 13.:asely
MEMORANDUM
To: Thomas A. Peterson, City Manager
From: Bob McNatt, City Attorney
Date: October 18, 1990
Subject: SOLID WASTE
As you know, in the past few weeks, California Waste Removal Systems has
notified the City of several perceived violations of its solid waste
franchise. I feel sure we are going to have to deal further with some of
these issues, so this memo will keep you apprised of what I have done so
far, and offer some legal observations.
As to the complaints about Waste Management of Stockton placing a bin at
the insulation contracting firm on Black Diamond Way, I think that is
resolved. I prepared for Bob Holm's signature a letter dated October 9,
1990 to Harold Reno of Waste Management, and I followed that up with a
phone call on October 17, 1990. Mr. Reno understands the situation (I
believe), i.e., that a contracting firm is probably a commercial user. Mr.
Reno has agreed to remove the bin.
He was also asked about information from California Waste that he has large
bins at residences on Elm Street, Hutchins Street, Carlo Way, and
Fairmont Avenue. He indicated he did not have specifics on these bins. I
suggested that if they were there to serve the contractors engaged in
remodeling of homes, they are probably commercial accounts and thus subject
to California Waste Removal'b franchise. He indicated he would get back to
me after looking into the situation.
On a related note, I have a copy of a letter from Dave Vaccarezza dated
October 12, 1990 in which he seems to say that he has an exclusive right to
run a recycling center and to collect alt recyclables in the City. I think
that is clearly wrong, although the answer is not completely apparent in
reading the franchise agreement and Municipal Code.
Paragraph 3 of the franchise agreement states in pertinent part:
"Contractor shall have the full and exclusive right to all recyclable or
salvageable material collected in connection with the refuse,..."
(emphasis added). In Municipal Code Section 13.16.010 1, "Recuse" is
defined as "... any and all discarded items and substances of every kind
When these provisions are read together, the conclusion which seems most
logical to me is that until an item is discarded, it is not refuse. That
would mean that the franchisee has a right to only those recyclable
materials which are discarded as part of the refuse collection.
as=a=2
REFUSE7/TXTA.01V
• • - --•^.+•.•...vNOive^Mrni^w'a c,:w•: _. w ;1: •.+ts.' e 7 '.d;.1�y; �s :
2. Scope of Agreement
Contractor shall furnish all materials and equipment required for the
orderly collection of refuse on a regularly scheduled basis to all
residential and commercial customers, within the City limits, and to
transport the refuse to a disposal site provided or designated by City.
Contractor's services shall be subject to the terms of this Agreement, the
Lodi Municipal Code, and all other county, state and federal laws pertaining
to the collection and transportation of refuse to which Contractor is
subject. Contractor shall perform the services provided for in this
Agreement only for the compensation provided in this Agreement, and not
otherwise.
3. Exclusive Nature of Agreement
Contractor shall have within the City limits, subject to the limitations
contained in this Agreement, the exclusive right and duty to collect and
transport to a site designated by the City all refuse except industrial
refuse. ` Contractor shall have the full and exclusive right to all
recyclable or salvageable material collected in connection with the refuse,
and shall have the exclusive right to any funds realized from the sale of
recycled or salvaged materials. The exclusive rights granted to Contractor
By this Agreement shall not interfere with or in any way restrict City's
right to collect, transport and dispose of septic tank, sand trap and grease
trap contents.
way 411444141# s OF
We would like to have curbside service at least once a year.
This service would be to pick up things not normally picked
up our weekly pick up/Ae.g.) Old ftrniture etc.
A
e''
oql 69,114,
, s
,..!..... (...' .....
(ree" 40'
, A
LrAAA S u7Lir) .
"XI
4/.17e1
ee/It,
( t";
4._ •
/4-
<-77 n
C/./.21.1.1a:CrAd
*
')A.41'774 (4 .)
/*4'71/1'u
..iry Pt•
• 10441-4'Ve
O
c.3
fl
CA MDRIDGE PLACE OWNERS' ASSOC TION
P.O. BOX 70378
STOCKTON. CA '95267 •
(209) 956.5660 (209) 339.9913
March 16, 1994
City Council
City of Lodi California
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, California 95241-1910
Re: Proposed Trash Rate Increase
Dear Council Members:
I am writing you this letter to inform you that the City Ordinances No. 1590 and 1591 on
tonight's City Council Meeting agenda are not in order at this time and a decision should not
be rendered. This is because, as you are well aware, at the last council meeting Stan Harper
gave our City Attorney, Bob McNatt, a copy of the contract between the City of Lodi and Lodi
Sanitary City Disposal Co., Inc. Mr. McNatt returned the copy to Mr. Harper and informed
him that the contract was a complete copy. With this in mind and after reviewing the compl rte
contract. I feel that I need to inform you that there has been no modification to amend the
"Modification to Agreement" that was dated September 18,1991, (ORD 1522/TXTA.02J). In
this modification the City Council changed the reviewing date for annual rate adjustments from
June to September and the effective date for these rate adjustments were change -1 from July 1 -
to October 1. With these City Ordinances in place there should be no decision at tonight's
meeting other than tabling the decision until September 1994, or the ordinances need to be
amended. I have attached a copy of the "Modification to Agreement" for your information.
If you have any quer".ions, please feel free to contact me at 339-9813 or in Stockton at 956-5660.
Sincere!
Tom '. i urp , CCAM
As agent for
Cambridge Place Owners' Association
cc: Board of Directors
Correspondence
EASTSIDE IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE , y:
CR. oL.,l vs 2i(.rr'r.v, 21.11.4,
P.O. Box 2444 •
• ' • .Lodi, Ca., 95241
(209) 368-8848
March 11, 1994
TO: Lodi City Council and Staff, Jerry Glenn, Kirk Evans
FROM: Virginia Snyder
RE: Annual curbside pick up of household discards/garbage rate increase
Okay, I know. You're tired of hearing about this, but it's too important to let an
opportunity for a valuable city service stip away. As I read it, the mood of Lodi citizens
will not stand for future garbage rate increases for some time. If we don't include
curbside pickup in this year's package, it may be years before we can bring it up again.
In the time allowed, we've polled as many of the 327 residents on our telephone list as
possible. Also, approximately eighty five citizens attended our meeting last night, and
there is a real feeling of anger and betrayal over the garbage increase. EIC has not taken a
position on the increase, nor do we intend to.
We have taken a position on a yearly curbside pickup, though. When I came before you
on February 2, 1994 to make this proposal, the mayor directed the matter to be discussed
at a shirt -sleeve session. rve telephoned the City Clerk several times to find out the date
for the shirt -sleeve, but it has not been scheduled, so we won't have a chance to discuss
this with you before your vote.
This council has demonstrated a willingness to create a vision for Lodi that is impressive,
and we want to help you further that vision. With the garbage increase and proposed
business license increase, the mood of voters is worrisome.
With the garbage increase, you are in a position to at least give voters a bonus that might
assuage some of the resistance that we're seeing. When residents see the very real benefit
they receive from a curbside pickup, some of the frustration might be abated. As you
know, the dumpster collection last October was tremendously popular with citizens --
people from all over the city brought their refuse to the sites, and we encouraged that.
Maybe you can create a win/win situation all around by at least giving rate -payers a little
more for their money. Cal -Waste is asking for a $1.25 per month increase. Dave
Vaccerezza says twenty-five cents per month will cover the cost of an annual curbside
pickup. Isn't there some room for negotiation to include a curbside pickup in the
package? Maybe Cal -Waste would include a curbside pickup for the same price, or
maybe you could split the difference with them. With such a small monthly amount, there
must be some way to include a curbside pickup in this rate increase.
Lodi City Council
221 W. Fie
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Sirs:
March 13, 1994
I hope to speak at the upcoming March 16 council meeting. However, I have a church
commitment every Wednesday evening. Therefore, I am expressing my opinions in
written form in the event I don't make the Wednesday meeting in time.
I will always have monthly bills. I want to keep those bills as low as possible. I also
realize that there will be periodic increases in my bills. Those increases are natural
and unavoidable. Such is the case with the proposed rate increase for waste removal.
As I understand it, two consultants were hired to figure out what the rate structure
method would be. One consultant was hired by the city and one hired by CA Waste.
The consultants did their homework, got together, and brought a proposal to the city
which approved the projected program. The program included the distinct possibility
of the proposed rate increase now under discussion. 1, personally, have expected the
increase, I just didn't know how much it would be cr just when it would happen.
Some people think CA Waste makes a lot of money from selling recylcables. As I talk
to people in other communities, they say the recyclable market is not that great. A few
recyclables pay off, others don't. Thankfully, CA Waste takes many different recyclable
items to slow the flooding of the landfills, not just those recyclables that are profitable.
Additionally, more people are recycling than was anticipated under the proposed
program. That added expense should be dealt with by the community, not CA Waste.
Finally, I wish to comment on the idea that Califomia Waste should make an annual
pickup of refrigerators, sofas, etc. I think that's totally unreasonable. I was impressed
in the past when Ca Waste allowed days where public loads could be brought into the
site at a drastically reduced rate. I also appreciated those days when extra bagged
trash has been picked up throughout the community for free. But to expect them to
pick up everything short of abandoned cars?
I'm sure the council is aware that CA Waste funnels a percentage of the recycling
proceeds back into Lodi schools to be used in the classroom. So I won't belabor that
point. I'm also confident that the city has the means to audit and monitor the profit
margin of the company to assure that it's reasonable. So I won't question that aspect.
What 1 will do is say again that although I wish my monthly bills never increased, I
know they occasionally will. As to the waste removal rate increase, I am
confident that it is necessary and would ask that you, as a council, also
accept it as such.
Sincerely,
.41313,ak.
Jay Bell
r,
•• 0.1"-r
s.
MARCH 15.1994
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF LODI
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CA. 95241-1910
DEAR COUNCILMEMBERS,
INCREASING COSTS IN ANY AREA OF OUR LIVES IS NOT POPULAR. BUT AT
TIMES IT IS NECESSARY. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LONG TERM INVESTMENT
OF THE COST. THAT LONG TERM INVESTMENT IS OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
RECYCLING IS AND HAS TO BECOME A WAY OF LIFE. .\ CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER IS HARD AT FIRST. RUT ONCE CHANGE BECOMES 1 NORMAL PART OF
EVERYDAY LIFE IT BEGINS TO FEEL RIGHT. 1L1. OF VS IL VE TO
PARTICIPATE IN CHANGING OUR ATTITUDES TOWARD RECYCLING3. WE HAVE
GROWN UP IN A TIME WHERE YOU WOULD DUMPED EVERYTHING NO `ATTER WHAT
THE PRODUCT WAS. WE HAVE PAID A DEAR PRICE FOR THIN. WE HAVE TOXJI'
LAND FILLS THAT ARE i;O1NU TO i'OST CS MILLIONS 1f' CLEA\ LP. LESS:
LAND TO USE FOR DUMP SITES. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE
ARE LEAVING OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO CLEAN UP. THEY WILL HAVE
ENOUGH PROBLEMS TO DEAL WITH BESIDES THE OVER ABUNDANCE OF TRASH TO
TAKE CARE OF. IF I AND OTHERS (;AN HELP THE FUTURE GENER.\TIONS IN
ONE SMALL AREA OF THEIR LIVES BY RECICLING AND INVESTING IN
RECYCLING THEN .\ RATE INCREASE IS NOT THAT HART) ro LIVE WITH. '
PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT CAL WASTE HAS DONE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. THEY
INVEST BACK INT() 'PHIS COMMUNITY . THEY PROVIDE JOBS FOR PEOPLE IN
LODI. THEY BUY PRODUCTS IN LODI FOR THEIR BUSINESS. CAL WASTE
DONATES MONE1 TO LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AND SeHOOLS. CAL h- STE HAS AN
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM TO REACH CHILDREN IN THE CI_ASSROO"S TO TEACH
'CHEM ABOUT RECYcL I NG . rAL WASTE H\S REDO i!a LANDFILL ;'SAGE TIIRU
RECYLING. WHICH HAS SAVED LODI FRO'1 PAYING FINES FOR NOT RECYCLING.
RIGHT NOW 'I'}1A'T 1S WHAT ALL ()F US HAVE TO I)0. IS 10 INVEST IN LODI.
PART OF THAT 1 NVESTMENT IS A RA'I'F•: I :CRF:\sE':OW. }tl'"1' ALWAYS LOOK AT
THE I.c)N(; TERM To SEE 1+11.\'1' f H.‘T 1 N\' E:5 r'1KNT W 1 I.I. E)ENFF1 T. o R
CHILDREN ANI) GRANDCHILDREN. OUR t'OMMU,N 1 1 Y .
s I':t'ERLY /
1 op
ROW1 N 'L\hkl h \U '•I \kki.r_
TO:
FSM: MIKE NILSSE1, CHAIRPERSCN, SENIOR CITIZENS C 1* ISSICN
DATE: MOI 16, 1994
Sinn REFUSE RNIE INMASE
THE SENIOR ��.1��11p4YT.wC,ClI S_S.Iy HAS MOP zw.A...4rvgri ANY
THE REFUSE FOSE INCREASE arAitr..71 •
Sam & Kim Hernandez
427 E. Vine St.
lodi CA 95240
March 15, 1994
City Council Members;
Regarding California Waste removal systems rate increase.
It is our understanding that this is a State mandate that cities comply
or face large fines. The plan that was recommended by the Citizens Task
Force and approved by our City Council was implemented by California Waste.
Although *is never anyone's desire to pay more, this inevitably is what
happens when State mandates require major restructuring of a current system.
We personally feel that this increase is justified and should be granted to
California Waste.
We have lived in Lodi most of our lives and have the utmost respect for
Dave Vaccarezza and Tom Sanchez as honest businessmen who care about our
community.
Sincerely;
Sam Hernandez
Kim Hernandez
March 15, 1994
City Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA. 95241-1910
Dear Council Members:
I am an Eastside Lodi resident and I support the increasing garbage rate.
I, like so many others like costs to be kept down, whenever possible.
Consider the service California Waste brings to our community; reliable
service, recycling and jobs.
The city agreed to help implement and finance the waste reduction plan,
now let's follow through.
Sincerely,
Andrea Madrid
So
March 16. 1994
Mayor Jack Sieglock
Councilman Randy Snider
Councilman Phil Peninno
Councilman Ray Davenport
Councilman Steve Mann
Lodi City Council
Call Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Dear Mayor Sieglock and Councilmanbers:
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed rate increase in our monthly garbage bill. The fads as I understand
them are as follows:
1. The City of Lodi adopted the three -cart waste collection and recycling program. This program
included the construction of the material recovery facility as well as other costs (carts, etc.). The program was
adopted to comply with the State of California mandate.
2 The City of Lodi recently hired an independent accounting firm to conduct an audit of California
Waste, the results of which indicated that the financial statements were fairly presented.
Fee increases of any type arc naturally unpopular in today's environment. The proposal to raise the business license
tax is a direct example. We personally do not have any significant objection to an increase in the business license
tax in general. However, we feel the City of Lodi needs to do their homework in developing a new rate structure
and work with those impacted. Most importantly, however, is to live up to whatever is adopted. Don't waste
everybody's time and money and then change the program.
My point is that we feel the City of Lodi is waffling on this garbage rate issue. You've done your job. You've
implemented a program to comply with the State of California mandate. You've audited the financial records.
What more can we ask of California Waste or the Council with respect to this matter.
We say honor your agreement with California Waste, approve the increase, and start tackling other issues facing the
City of Lodi.
Sincerely,
444t4.)
Bruce and Joy S
3026 Rosewood Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
DAVID P. WARNER
Mawr at Law
215 West Oak Street
Lodi, California 95240
(209) 368-3175
March 15, 1994
Jack A. Sieglock, Mayor
City of Lodi
Lodi, CA
Dear Mr. Sieglock:
I am writing regarding the request for an increase in garbage
rates to be considered by the Lodi City Council on March 16, 1994.
Due to prior commitments, I do not anticipate being personally
present at that meeting.
I believe .I am in agreement with most citizens when I say I
don't want an increase of any rates for any reason. While that is
a rather simple position which is tied to my own financial
interest, it ignores both the realities of life and the quality of
life and services which I expect to receive from this city.
I think we are fortunate to live in Lodi. It is a clean, safe
and efficient city. That can be proven at any time by looking to
neighboring cities or other cities in this state. Our refuse
collection and recycling program may be only one part of, but a
very important part of, that clean city.
As a citizen, I want the garbage collection to be done
cleanly, efficiently, and professionally. The California Waste
equipment and personnel fit that description. If the service was
cheaper, would the trucks look as clean? Would the employees look
as professional? What would the surrounding streets look like
after they had picked up the trash or recyclables? I know what it
would look like and that's why I live in the city of Lodi.
The recycling program is a good one and the envy of this
entire state. We cannot continue to take the cheap way out and
leave an environment for our children and grandchildren full of
our discarded materials. The right thing to do is to have such a
program and pay the price that comes with it, as difficult as that
pill may be to swallow.
As a lifetime Lodi citizen, I urge you to make the tough
decision and keep Lodi the city that it is, a clean, safe and
efficient community. We have started an excellent refuse and
recycling program. I urge you to continue to take the steps
•
necessary to keep that program in place and operating
If you have any questions regarding my thoughts
please feel free to contact me at either 334-0547
Your time and effort directed towards the welfare of
appreciated.
Very truly yours.
David P. Warner
DPW:ma
efficiently.
or opinions,
or 368-5175.
this city is
✓-1
CLUTCH & BRAKE XCHANGE, INC.
1800 E. Fremont Street
Stockton, Ca. 95205
March 16, 1994
Lodi City Council:
Being a vendor of California Waste and a
business operating in San Joaquin County, we
know how important it is in these economic times
to be able to depend on any protected revenue in-
creases that would facilitate expansion decisions,
employment opportunities, and ongoing operations.
We, like California Waste, do forecasting based
upon contracts and sales. We need to be able to de-
pend on our contracts being honored in order to
remain a viable operation, especially if large capital
investments are made based on these ongoing agreements.
Very Truly Yours,
Clutch & Brake Xchange
James T. Hitchcock
President
March 15, 1994
City council
City of Lodi
P.o. Box 3006
Lodi, Ca. 95241-1910
Dear Council Members:
There have recently been many negative comments about an
increase in garbage rates in Lodi, I would like to make
a couple of positive comments.
First of all, I would like to comment California Waste
for providing the city with a recycling program. Not
only does this program help in conserving the earth,
but it also saves the city from paying 10,000.00 per day
in fines. This program has brought down the amount of
garbage that go into the landfills and have put
recyclable materials into good use which has also
provided the city with more jobs.
I know that everyone is going through hard times, and
need all of the money they can spare, a small increase
is nothing compared to the hundreds of dollars that we
will be paying to clean up our city after our landfills
are overfilled.
Second, we should support California Waste because it
has helped the city meet the guidelines set by the State
Recycling Laws, in other words it is a requirement to
have some kind of recycling program. California Waste
has been a well respected company in Lodi that has help
out the community a lot, and now it's the communities
turn to give something back.
When you make your decision, I hope that you consider
the positive side to the increase, and also consider the
benefits it will leave for future generations, like a
beautiful clean city for all to enjoy.
Sincerely,
1/01, 2U-10")
Cynthia Becerra
,11,0+.rYa.4M.�. �, .i� ry+..::3'✓• .4,4•414`
SELDON BRUSAINSURANCE AGENCY!NCC.
f .
1100 WEST TOKAY STREET. SUITE B • LODI. CALIFORNIA 95240 " ' ` '
LODI (209)334-3255 STOCKTON (209) 931.6611
March 15, 1994
Mayor Jack Sieglock
and Members of the City Council
221 W. Pine .
Lodi, CA. 95240
.Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
I am writing you relating to the Council meeting of March 16, 1994
and the pending rate increase for waste removal. I have read the
local newspaper concerning the adverse comments, from the
community, on the increase.
I would like to inform you that I ata a part of the silent majority
that never appears before you to complain about the garbage company.
I feel their service is outstanding and the rates very affordable
in relation to other fixed costs that are a part of our household
budgets.
The Council has conducted studies on the garbage collection. The
Council has audited the Company's business, spending $25,000 of
the tax payers money, to see if they have been operating within
their contract on waste reduction and are honest and forthright.
As a taxpaying citizen, homeowner, and user of the service, I would
suggest that the Council has enough information to vote in favor
of the rate increase.
S cerely,
el C. rusa
SB/ds
SPECIALISTS IN DESIGN, SAI.ES AND SERVICE OF:
Personal L(% Insurance — Business Insurance — Group Insurance — Estate And Tax Analysis — Pension And Profit Sharing
+ae.Mn.aVG+...,ns �whv,-sa%stt`.Zt
R I N 1 1 N G a G R A P M I C S
City Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, California 95241-1910
Dear Council Members:
,Ct:l=1Vr1.[I
es#
'March 16. 1994
This letter is to let the council know how we as a small Lodi business feels
regarding the waste cart system rate increase.
First of all we know that no body likes to hear about price increases, my self
included, but sometimes they are necessary to better our self and our
surroundings.
If you look at the whole picture this increase is one that will benefit the city as
well as the business in Lodi, California Waste is not one of those companies
that take moneys from the local area and spend it out of town. they use local
vendors for most of there needs keeping revenues local, they also spend time
and resources for our local schools, which can do nothing but benefit Lodi in the
future and not to mention the recycling benefits we see that will help our
ecology.
Also the jobs provided to Lodi residents help the local economy and we as a
small Lodi business relay on these things to keep our business running and so
that we can provide services to the local community just like California Waste.
I feel that the rate increase that the City of Lodi and California Waste have
been working on for quite some time is a fair increase and will not harm the
residents of Lodi cr the City but will only help in the long run.
Please keep these thing in mind when making your decision regarding this issue.
Thank You
Ron Haworth
owner
14 Sank School STREET Lodi CAlifoRNiA 95240 PhONE 209 / 3 3 3 / 2559 FAX 209 / 3 3 3 / 7014
Ted Witt
101 Rivergate Place
Lodi, Calif. 95240
City Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, Calif. 95241-1910
Dear councilmembers:
Regarding the proposed increase in garbage rates in Lodi.
I have had the oppurtunity to observe Cal -waste while in
action. This company is among one of the finest operations
I have ever seen. Cal -waste not only does it's job removing
waste from our city, it does much more by looking toward
the needs of the future.
I have done business with other garbage companies and none
are as efficient. The total operation is the best I have seen.
If a small increase in rate is necassary to have a company
such as Cal -waste caring for our city, then so be it.
Sincerely,
Ted Witt
DAVID P. WARNER
ANorney al law
213 West Oak Street
Lodi, California 95240
(209)368-5173
March 15, 1994
Jack A. Sieglock, Mayor
City of Lodi
Lodi, CA
Dear Mr. Sieglock:
I am writing regarding the request for an increase in garbage
rates to be considered by the Lodi City Council on March 16, 1994.
Due to prior commitments, I do not anticipate being personally
present at that meeting.
I believe I am in agreement with most citizens when I say I
don't want an increase of any rates for any reason. While that is
a rather simple position which is tied to my own financial
interest, it ignores both the realities of life and the quality of
life and services which I expect to receive from this city.
I think we are fortunate to live in Lodi. It is a clean, safe
and efficient city. That can be proven at any time by looking to
neighboring cities or other cities in this state. Our refuse
collection and recycling program may be only one part of, but a
very important part of, that clean city.
As a citizen, I want the garbage collection to be done
cleanly, efficiently, and professionally. The California Waste
equipment and personnel fit that description. If the service was
cheaper, would the trucks look as clean? Would the employees look
as professional? What would the surrounding streets look like
after they had picked up the trash or recyclables? I know what it
would look like and that's why I live in the city of Lodi.
The recycling program is a good one and the envy of this
entire state. We cannot continue to take the cheap way out and
leave an environment for our children and grandchildren full of
our discarded materials. The right thing to do is to have such a
program and pay the price that comes with it, as difficult as that
pill may be to swallow.
As a lifetime Lodi citizen, I urge you to make the tough
decision and keep Lodi the city that it is, a clean, safe and
efficient community. We have started an excellent refuse and
recycling program. I urge you to continue to take the steps
• *
necessary to keep that program in place and operating
If you have any questions regarding my thoughts
please feel free to contact me at either 334-0547
Your time and effort directed towards the welfare of
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
rV P. u► .„_
David P. Warner
DPW:ma
efficiently.
or opinions,
or 368-5175.
this city is
p(iyWSilw?id3d;;.wi:d.. ,..h, .:•waa.',_.. �1;
ErEiv'» n
Ii•• •
March 14, 1994
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City Hall .
Lodi, California
When the State of California passed the Integrated Waste
Management Act of 1989, that law required every city in the state
to divert 25 per cent of it's solid waste from landfill disposal
by the year 1995. This diversion requirement increases to 50 per
cent by the year 2000.
The City of Lodi took a pro -active approach to meeting these
requirements by appointing a citizen's Solid Waste Management Task
Force which first met in January of 1991. They met many hours
trying to decide which alternative would be the most efficient way
to meet these state mandates. The task force recommended the
present system which included asking California Waste Removal
Systems to help the city meet the mandates of the state by
integrating the present system.
The facility, which California Waste Removal Systems built to
satisfy the mandate, is a state of the art operation designed to •
provide efficient service to the citizens of Lodi while maximizing
protection of our environment. This construction involved a large
financial commitment by the company.
I believe the system is working well and it appears that
California Waste Removal is doing everything it can to keep costs
in line. The proposed rate is still less than that of comparable
surrounding communities, many of whom do not receive the same
quality of service enjoyed by the citizens of Lodi.
Sincerely
1
1)117 --
Dennis Deg
Chairman,
City of Lodi Solid Waste Task Force
• •
- • •� r •... ": r ..
March 15, 1994
City Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA. 95241-1910
Bear Council Members:
I am an Eastside Lodi resident and I support the increasing garbage rate.
I, like so many others like coats to be kept down, whenever possible.
Consider the service California Waste brings to our. community; reliable
service, recycling and jobs.
The city agreed to help implement and finance the waste reduction plan, so
now let's follow through.
Sincerely,
(bldittg__ ClAkk
Andrea Madrid
•
March 16, 1994
Mayor Jack Siegiock
Councilman Randy Snider
Councilman Phil Peninno
Councilman Ray Davenport
Councilman Steve Mann .
Lodi (Sty Council
Call Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Dear Mayor Sieglock and Councilsnembax
t'•;' I6 r 2: d - ss
I am writing to you in regards to the proposed rate increase in our monthly garbage bill. The facts as I understand
. them are as follows:
1. The City of Lodi adopted the three -cart waste collection and recycling program. This program
included the construction of the material recovery facility as well as other costs (carts, etc.). The program was
adopted to comply with the State of California mandate.
2 The City of Lodi recently hired an independent accounting firm to conduct an audit of California
Waste, the results of which indicated that the financial statements were fairly presented.
Fee increases of any type are naturally unpopular in today's environment. The proposal to raise the business license
tax is a direct exampk. We personally do not have any significant objection to an increase in the business license
tax in general. However, we feel the City of Lodi needs to do their homework in developing a new rate structure
and work with those impacted. Most importantly, however, is to five up to whatever is adopted. Don't waste
everybody's time and money and then change the program.
My point is that we feel the City of Lodi is waffling on this garbage rate issue. You've done your job. You've
implemented a program to comply with the State of California mandate. You've audited the financial records.
What more can we ask of California Waste or the Council with respect to this matter.
We say honor your agreement with California Waste, approve the increase, and start tackling other issues facing the
City of Lodi.
Sincerely,
41444-)
Bruce and Joy Sasa
3026 Rosewood Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
REDWOOD OIL COMPANY _ , • •
NOR CAL FILTER DIVISION
2701 DEL MONTE ST.
WEST SACRAMENTO, CA 95691
March 14, 1994
Lodi City Council
221 W. Pine
Lodi, CA 95240
RE: California Waste Removal Systems
Dear Council Members:
Nor Cal Filter Company has been a supplier to California Waste
Removal Systems for the past twelve years and has enjoyed the
opportunity to provide goods and services in the Lodi area. Our
company has always supported the concept of local business as we
have multiple locations serving various local markets in the
Northern California Area.
It has been brought to our attention that California Waste Removal
will be appearing before the Council on Wednesday, March 17, 1994,
to submit a rate increase request based upon a rate making process
that was agreed to in October of 1992. We understand that California
Waste Removal has made a four -million dollar investment into the
community based upon that rate making process. To deviate from that
agreement could have disastrous effects to the entire California
Waste Removal Systems program.
We realize that no one is in favor of rate increases. However,
may we join with others in expressing our support of the concept
of maintaining local business and thus keeping the dollars and
employment in the hands of a company which has the interest of the
community as well as its own interest in mind.
Therefore, we respectfully recommend to the Council that you support
California Waste Removal in their rate increase proposal based upon
the October 1992 rate making process agreement.
Paul Caspar
Manager
Nor Cal Filter Co.
CORPORATE OFFICE: 455 YOIANDA AVENUE • P.O. BOX 428 • SANTA ROSA. CA 95402 • (707) 546-0766
March �1144,1994
Mayor :JLC
CityHall
��
Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
RE, California Waste Removal - Rate Review
RECEIVED
I{ tr,315 P11 1::?;
•A;
Dear Mayor Sieglocki
I am writing you •today in sLe .... t of the r , : „ e .:,11 rate adjustment for the
City of Lodi refuse disposal rates. It is sgrunchmarbmnding that at the
time the council made the decision to go to the new three cart system that
a rating plan was put into place to assist California Waste Removal Systems
in any future increase in costs caused by their investment in plant, waste
carts, or vehicles associated with the establishment and servicing of this
plan.
In being associated with the Vaccarezza's both professionally and
personally, I know that they have spent millions of dollars in investments
that were cone for only one reason, that .was to the State mandated
solid waste management rte.,., so Lodi would be in compliance with State
regulations that start in 1995. Obviously, if such a had not been
established, the City of Dodi would have had a difficult to impossibletask
of caning into compliance, and avoiding the substantial State penalties.
California Waste has always provided quality refuse service to the City of
Dodi for over 65 years. In that time, they have always provided this
service at a fair price. I'm sure your experience and financial reviews
continue to show their Commitment to the Lodi community.
At your Wednesday Council meeting, I urge you to reinforce the
"partnership" that was established in October, 1992 when this r. -yam., was
finalized, and affirm the rate adjustment that has became necessary due to
costs and increased usage of the three cart system. Your
of California Waste Removal Systems in this endeavor on Wednesday night
will be greatly appreciated, and show your continued commitment to keep
Lodi's refuse service a quality state -of -tie -art system.
Sirtcere1y,
Ccs
Dr/orb 11,,l'Apip
4.4
Vice President
Mr. John Frost, Administrative Manager
California Waste Removal Systems, Inc.
P.O. Box 241001
Lodi, CA 95241-9501
'i j!rnJj_'. clvi(•A.)ty tm,
•!t fl!;
Orr") ''.t ») O
tm Thorpe Oil I n .
351 N. Bedcmen Road • P.O. Box 367 • Lodi. CA 952417" t
(2091366-6175 • (2091462-4661 • .
Contractor's License /496e99
March 14, 1994
•
Councilman Jack Seiglock
221 W. Pine St.
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Jack:
I want to take this opportunity to tell you that we at
Jim Thorpe Oil, Inc. are solidly behind California Waste
Removal Systems recycling programs. Having known David and
Annette as long as I have, I believe that they are genuinely
concerned with supplying the best service possible to our
community.
I understand the huge response to recycling has caused a
need for more equipment. The glut of recyclables on the
market does not make a lucrative market. I am also painfully
aware that equipment repair and replacement costs continue to
rise.
Since California Waste rate making process was set in
October 1992, I feel that to ask that it be continued is not
out of lime. I am sure that Cal. Waste has committed very
substantial funds based upon the projected rising costs and
rate increases founded on continuation of the process as
agreed. To alter this planned rate setting process is not
fair. We urge you and your co -councilmen not to deviate from
the -agreed upon rate setting system.
Siricerly,
JIM TJ KF'b ULL, INC
Richard i horpe
President
March 14, 1994
Lodi City Council
P. O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241
RE: Garbage Rate Increase
Dear Councilmembers;
I am writing thb letter In SUPPORT of our present Recycling Program
provided by California Waste Removal Systems, Inc. For several years, the City
considered a number of options to handle the recycling needs of our City. Finally last
year, Lodi adopted a process that is worldng well Please don't Jeopardize this
successflil program by denying the rate Increase.
Relying upon the City's support, and designing a program to meet the
specifications of the City's Task Force, the local garbage company has responded by
purchasing equipment and trucks, and has a strong financial Investment in this
Program. It is my understanding that the original contract spelled out what the rates
would be and when a rate increase would be due In order to preserve and protect the
success of the Program. Now the garbage company is simply asking the City to hold
to its original contract. As a local business owner, I would hope that the City Of Lodi
would honor its contracts. If not, could I be nest?
Respectfully,
Larry H. Crump
Local Business Owner
cc Lodi News Sentinel
Lodi Oity Council
Call Box 3006
Lodi, Ca. 95241
ATTN: City Council Members
Dear Council Members,
March 13, 1994 _?f:rE:i�;'=ii
15
I have been interested to read of the concerns
regarding the proposed garbage rate increase.
I wrote to you in support of this recycling program
in October, 1992, when there was much debate about beginning
this program. I was pleased when the council decided to move
ahead with this program. I felt it was economically and
environmentally necessary to adopt a workable solid waste
reduction plan. Based on what I read and what I see in my
own home, I feel this plan has been very successful. It appears
participation in the program is high; therefore, diverting
solid waste from the landfill to the recycling center. Since
this is one of the aims of AB 939, I believe we are on the
right path.
I would not want to see Lodi take a step backward in
our waste reduction efforts. It appears we have a successful
program run by an efficient, locally -owned company. Shouldn't
we expect a reasonable rate increase at this time? I would like
to see us continue to support the company that has provided this
program to us. I hope you will support the rate increase and
keep our solid waste reduction program moving ahead.
Finally, on a social note, it is very encouraging to
see our children growing up with the thought that not being
involved with recycling and conservation is unacceptable.
Let's continue to look ahead as we round a seldom -seen positive
r ,er.
Sincerely yours,
Brenda Nicholas
517 Tara Place
Lodi, Ca. 95240
(209) 369-7769
OF ODI) ( ACTION SUP.)
47* 6: etwasi 73/4 -Me
7614);neffilda4e4it 1.11/:56/1"*~'
- roe halm exicereit
Er M Plogrouled M*/ *.,,;. • ::" . 0 Par Wow . ,
. 0 nano/ Yak CIO :! 0 Foe Pm. -:::.;cf: i::.,
0 woo •I osbo lif!••••••.:. 0 Per mewl 2:1(4%4 .-
0 Appoll ' 0 Val COMM .*::' 0 Ce0•1141411e4reeled
0 Rimy . : 0 . Pismo IMI4.1.1t.IS.. 0 . IN Vow Spam : —rt
0 1.02 as '' Plisse Comet ‘' • ' 0 Plow Ws Coo 41 ?Pa
4.
aktiLtut qo
ritoo Nthtt± (/;4-•
Uspe, bP- SAL- yap_
Jo. ojeAtaim, •
4
•
11)
I•.' t A.
Wit.} i cn Z: �J' !::9
Mr. Jack Sieglock
Lodi City Council
221 West Pine St.
Lodi, Ca. 95240
March 15, 1994
Dear Councilman Siegiock,
I am writing to you to express my support and to
encourage you to approve the rate increase for California
Waste Removal Systems. In 1992 the existing city council in
partnership with California Waste created a waste reduction
plan. This plan was to reduce our solid waste as mandated
by the State of California. At that time a rate structure
was agreed upon by the City Council and California Waste.
Because of this agreement California Waste committed a great
deal of money to build the facilities needed to implement
this reduction plan.
It is hard to understand how this agreement could now
be revoked. Is California Waste supposed to take down
their new building and return their machinery because you
have changed your mind? What message will it convey to
other businesses who are now doing business in Lodi, or who
are considering it? I think that it will show a lack of
strength and decisiveness and will reflect on the integrity
of our Council.
There is one other thing that you should consider and
that is this company's involvement in the community. As a
parent of two school age children I am impressed by
California Waste's involvement in our schools. The
recycling education program provided by Cal. Waste to all
our 2nd and 4th graders is excellent. Our students would
not be guaranteed exposure to this important issue without
this program. In addition, their monetary contribution to
our local schools should not be ignored. By contributing,
they show a sincere desire to help our schools during a time
of decreasing discretionary funds from the state. At our
school we have used the recycling donation to provide our
students with programs we otherwise would not have been able
to fund. I would hate to see either of these programs
jeopardized.
I realize that there are members of the community
opposing this rate increase, I am sure you have heard from
them as well. I wonder if these citizens have taken the
�_....._�._... .�.....---..r*.c.. e.a w+..a.e'.:n: ., aY.'E�*C+rd°.d✓+a=:'::r•;-'Tai�Lin�:.=%�'�'"�:r i�'i4:
4 wtv:
• •
time to visit the, now recycling center and to see what is
going on out there. If they did, I know that they would be
impressed. California Waste has become a leader in
recycling technology. We should be proud to have this
industry in our city. Please show them your support.
Acknowledge the Council's agreement. Vote in favor of the
rate increase.
Thank you for you consideration in the matter,
Sincerely,
Laurie Forster
JMM
Akio
Video
Productice
March 15, 1994
Lodi Qty Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Dear Council:
• •
I have recently read a number of articles regarding a garbage rate increase in Lodi and once again the
subject is surrounded by controversy. I am a resident of Stockton who has had the pleasure of producing
some videos for California Waste Removal Systems showing your innovative three cart system.
Through this experience, I have had the opportunity to learn about the solid waste industry and to better
understand how a variety of different recycling programs work. I think you already know that Lodi is
way ahead of other Valley communities in recycling programs and waste reduction.
It was only two years ago that 1 spoke to the council in regards to Lodi's waste reduction program and
asked you to accept the three cart system. Now I am asking you to support Lodi's waste reduction
system. The increase that California Waste Removal Systems is asking for docs not seem unreasonable.
Considering that I pay $18.35 per month for one can, a periodical leaf pick-up, and a poorly run•recy-
cling program.
As Councilmembers, you should support Lodi's recycling program. I think a $1.25 per house is a small
price to pay in order to sustain a good program.
Sincerely,
James E.
Preside
March 14, 1994
City Council
City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Dear Councilmembers:
Recently, there has been a lot of publicity about increasing
garbage rates in Lodi and most of it has been against the
increase.
While it would be nice for costs of services to never increase,
let's think about this further. California Waste provides a good
service to the community; the service they provide is reliable
and consistent; their drivers are courteous; they have good
trucks; and they provide jobs to our community in these difficult
times.
California Waste has made it possible for the City of Lodi to
meet the guidelines of the State Recycling Laws. This, I'm told,
will save the City of Lodi from paying fines of $10,000.00 per
day
The increase that California Waste is requesting does not seem
unreasonable. Consider that areas right outside of Lodi in San
Joaquin County will be paying $20.50 per month. That's for one
wastecart and no recycling.
When the City Council makes it's decision, it should consider all
of these things. Yes, no one likes prices to go up, but, let's
stop and think about what we're getting.
I, and others I have talked with, think the increase is
reasonable and I support it.
Sincerely,
di- -""
Brian J. Roek
924 Greenwood Drive
Lodi, CA 95240
.s,�c:•.a:�w,rrs�tfs7eic4''n:rk'S�''�;,Yr.',r'�:. �' :%r.
Mike's Upholstery
604 E. Lockeford
Lodi, Calif.
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is in response to the article in Tuesdays:NewSrSentinal
dated March 8, 1994 entitled "Wiens Rate Hike in Garbage."
Everytime I receive a bill, P.G. & E., phone bill. Auto Insurance,
Home Insurance, you name it the rates keep going up. The first thing I ask
is am I getting better services for the money and in most cases the answer
is no. When it comes to the insurance industry you get less.
Now I want to talk about Calif. Waste Removal. I have the weekly waste
can and I also go to the transfer facility 2 - 3 times a month. I'm amazed
at the amount of activity going on there. New equipment being installed, new
buildings going up all to keep pace with what the State of California now
requires for the refuse industry. Frankly were running out of room to dump
garbage and recycling is the new picture.
We have right here in Lodi a state of the art Refuse/Recycling Facility.
An easy drive from anywhere in the city.
Calif. Waste is often referred to as exclusive franchise. Get Real,
David Vaccarezza and his family reside in Lodi it is a family run business.
Any profits this business generates stays in this area, not going to an
out of town corporation.
I'll take my hat off to Dave and his crew anytime for what there doing
at 1333 E. Turner Rd. I wish the Insurance companies only asked for a $1.25
a month increase instead of doubling my premiums.
Thanks,
MA -LI cr—r-i:
Michael Pyle
Mike's Upholstery
..•,..,�. .+aa w:•�•n.a.^-r.;s•.,r,',4:SYS`t'a".:'ti•�`.14rM;y:a:�';
ORDINANCE NO. 1590'
AN UNCODIFIED URGENCY 0 DINANCI OF TM* CITY COUJICIL of TBE CIY! of
LODI, REPEALING .B i.. a ro)1Cs 1370 IN ITS MUM. AND =ST118LISSI8G
NEW RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
BE IT ORDAINED 8Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THS CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
$ECTION 1. Ordinance 1570 is repealed in its entirety.
$ECrION 2. Pursuant to Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 - SOLID WASTE
- as it relates to residential solid waste collection, the following
monthly rates are hereby established:
A. For any private dwelling house or residence, the rate for one
weekly garbage collection shall be:
„�. 1. For the first 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds, Fifteen
Dollars and Eighty Seven Cents ($15.87);
2. For the second 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds each, Thirty
Nine Dollars and Sixty Eight Cents ($39.68);
3. For the third 38 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, not exceeding sixty pounds each, Sixty
Three Dollars and Forty Eight Cents ($63.48);
4. For one 20 -gallon waste cart provided by the
contractor, Ten Dollars and Eighty Cents ($10.80).
-1-
B. Owners or, occupants of flats, apartments, mobile hens spaces
or the tenants or lessees thereof shall pay an amount equal to Fifteen
Dollars and Eighty Seven Cents ($15.87) times the number of apartment
units or mobile home spaces owned. Bin services requested shall be
charged according to the Commercial Rate structure, but in no event
shall the City bill the tenants more than the single cart rate.
C.. For any residence requesting "backyard service, for the
collection of their waste cart(s), there shall be an additional rate of
Ten Dollars ($10.00) per month, unless the residence is granted an
exemption from the rate by the Citizen's Advisory Board.
D. For any residence requesting a commingled recyclables cart(s)
A.
and/or a yard/garden waste cart(s), sufficient to meet its waste
diversion needs, there shall be no additional charge.
B. Any residential customer may purchase from the City or the
franchisee for the price of Five Dollars ($5.00) each, especially
marked tags for affixing to trash bags which will then be collected
with routine waste removal service. Such tags may be used to
supplement, but not in lieu of other required solid waste collection
services for residences.
F. Rates set forth in this Ordinance shall be effective on all
bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
-2-
2.
S1CT2ck1 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such cccflict may exist.
211012 111—..L.
This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising frac the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
sacrIon 5. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
*Lodi clews Sentinels, a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
BaCrION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that such
rates are necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of
the franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the
purpose of purchasing facilities, equipment and materials necessary to
implement and carry out a Council -mandated recycling program, and for
other health and safety purposes.
Attest:
Ap\ove.thia6th
J A. SIEGLOCK
MAYOR
IPSR M/./ PERRIN
ty Cler
-3-
..+. ,,._<..+rw..cr cw...u,.rsw..ra...,.,oliR. .- "i::'^i „•4;'+da',�%.i.....: w7':`., •
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict say exist.
SBCTIOIt 4. This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
SHCTION 5._. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
"Lodi News Sentinel', a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that such
rates are necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of
the franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the
purpose of purchasing facilities, equipment and materials necessary to
implement and carry out a Council -mandated recycling program, and for
other health and safety purposes.
this6th
J A. SIEGLOCK
MAYOR
Attest:
IFBR M/./ PERRIN
ty Cler
3-
•
State of California
County of San Joaquin, is.
X, Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. 1590 was adopted as an urgency ordinance at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held March
16, 1994, and wee thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council *sobers - Minn, Pennino, Snider and
Sieglock (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members - Davenport
Absent: Council *embers - None
Abstain: Council *embers - None
1 further certify that Ordinance No. 1590 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the date of its passage and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
BOBBY W. McNATr
City Attorney
-4-
NNIFER ivIS-m.WAA,(4
PERRIN
ty C1e
.i •
ORDI1NANCE NO. 1591 •
AM UNCODIFIED URGENCY ORDINANCE OF TME CITY COUNCIL OF TN! CITY
OF LODI ESTABLISHING NNW RATES FOR COMMERCIAL SOLID MAST!
COLLECTION, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE MO. 1571 2N XTS
BB IT (MAIM BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1571 is repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Lodi Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 - SOLID WASTE - as it
relates to commercial solid waste collection monthly rates is hereby
amended to rad as follows:
'Monthly rates.
A. The monthly rates to be charged for garbage collection service
n -
shall be as follows:
I. For owners or tenants of business houses, the monthly
rates shall be:
a. As set forth in the Commercial Rate Structure schedule
attached, when commercial bin service is requested.
b. Fifty Five Dollars and Fifty Cents ($55.50) per month for
once per week collection, when a commercial waste cart provided
by the contractor of ninety-five gallons and not to exceed one
hundred and fifty pounds ie requested.
-1-
c.F 38 gallon waste cart coli -once per week, Fifteen
Dollars and Mighty Sewn Cents ($1S.87) per month; for two 38
gallon waste carts, Thirty Mine Dollars and Sixty Might Cents
($39.6$) per month; and for three 38 gallon waste carts, Sixty
Three Dollars and Forty Might Cents (563.48) per month.
s. A11 of the rate schedules set forth in this section shall be
effective on all bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
FICTION 3., All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
SECTION 4. This is an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerat ,ns
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
.r
SECTION 5. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
"Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force ani take effect
immediately.
SECTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that such
rates are necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of
the franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the
purpose of purchasing facilities, equipment and materials necessary to
implement and carry out a Council -mandated recycling program, and for
other health and safety purposes.
-2-
Attest:
roved this 16thof Hardt1994
SR
J A. SISOLOCK
MAYOR
•
itA,cm. lt'A1..AA__ )
FIRPERRIN
ty Cle
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. 1591 was adopted as an urgency ordinance at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held March
16, 1994, and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members Mann, Pennino, Snider and
Sieglock (Mayor)
Noes: Council Members Davenport
Absent: Council Members None
Abstain: Council Members None
I further certify that Ordinance No. 1591 was approved and signed by
the Mayor on the date of its passagA and the same has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
Q c ' r /
BOBBY W. McNATr
City Attorney
-3-
IFBR t PERRIN
C ty Clerk
IACD Ruh
h
Nadia D616 Apri 1,1924
•
Attachment
page 1 of 2
Thor
Copality Rogow" /Wm*
05
Can einars 1 2 3 4 6 •
1
1 394-42 11110 1461.56 **2733 11,31127 $1A174S
2 3143 53 $927.07 3333.34 *1.114.80 41,731.42 42.40320
9 *162.77 1386.54 4814.86 31.401.58 12.14.56 $3,046.0/
4 4242.01 1484.01 1998.30 $1.66192 *2581.77 13,114.73
6 4291.01 188246 31,177.17 *1.015.99 *2.876.07 44.18010
6 *310.49 $630.4* 31.329.36 $2.253.112 13.3,9201 84,74626
7 138531 177944 11,540.57 $2,550.11 43,10747 40.31203
• 4438.86 9817.92 51.72298 42,1137.11 34,1231 $5.4/7.74
• 3483.19 *010.40 11.903.92 13124.24 $4637A3 33.443.55
10 1037A3 31.07438 stoma $3.411.90 *5,152.91 31,909.31
2
2 113217 4264.54 *686.76 9279.63 11.60614 i2,i49.18
4 *213.40 5438.96 *881.19 $1.411159 42.111.16 *2.938.00
6 3300.70 11313.36 41,16302 11.13755 *2,716.17 43.73250
5 $393.90 8787.81 *1.45204 *2.296.50 13,321.11 *4.528.11
10 4481.11 4962.72 *1,747.47 *2,738.47 43,921.21 45.31031
12 4661.32 11,138.66 12,04208 $3.114.42 34,63123 38,113.32
14 1656.114 *1,311.07 32,338.32 43,61337 30.136.24 30.106.82
16 *242.75 31.445.50 12633.74 14,05234 15,74126 47,700.53
18 1129.116 $165991 12.929.10 $4.49129 46,34621 18,494.13
70 5/17.10 41,834.34 13.224.80 $4,930.24 36,951.30 49.267.74
.8
3 117024 *340.46 $5 MAN 51,131.55 41,188.01 32,373.13
6 1295.43 3590.85 11,089.04 11,72236 12,490.69 $3,394 ss
O $420 61 5141.23 11.4118.31 12,313.23 $3,295.78 94.41602
12 3545.80 41.091.59 31,907.72 32.904.08 $4,080.65 *5,437.47
15 1670.58 $1.341.97 $2,317 07 33,494 93 $4,8/5.0* 46.459.91
15 *710.17 31.59233 $2,729.42 14,085.78 35,610.44 47,480 31
21 4921.36 41,54271 43,135.77 $4.676.64 $0.455.32 *0.::01.111
24 *1.048.53 12.093.07 43.545.11 15,;51.40 11;260.20 19.623.25
2/ 41.111.12 42.343.44 *3,964.47 $5,855.34 58,055.09 410,544.71
30 31,29591 42.693.11 $4,363.81 96,44419 58,14995 $11,566.15
Commercial Rau
Pummel Row
8ficlhl0 0854: App 1, 1954
•
Attadment
page 2 of 2
Told
Cepull8 Frmgu611cy / Week
a
Cosdab14rw 1 2 3 4 5 41
4
4 $201.22 141643 *783.60 51.28343 *186947 *2.000.110
$ 5371.37 5742.75 *1.315.07 52.02418 52.97083 53.05010
12 5334.53 51.04800 51,84014 *2,780.91 13.1135 ,35 15..030.36
18 1817.101 81.305.30 32,863.41 53.51160 *4.010.13 88.34854
20 5160.4 $1.711.70 *258617 14,254 41 *5,024.115 11,690.13
24 5102401 52,010.01 83,40954 $4.061.16 *4800.64 51.041.41
29 $1,1$1.11 32,314.34 33,833.21 35.73930 *7.1114.45 *10.091.70
32 11.33033 52,70045 44,450.49 50.48286 *1.173115 $11.346.15
38 *1.31348 53,021.17 *4979.75 $1.72540 58`71351 812,310.21
40 51,57664 *3,353.25 16.503.02 57,968.14 510.748.65 513, 44.58
5
5 1240.111 5132.37 390753 51.435.31 *2.076.75
$
282881
10 5447.32 5854.64 31,844.72 *,329.00 !.3.20031 54.30593
/5 1148,10 *1,2691 *2.181.80 53.12480 34.42428 $5,743 061
20 1849.68 51.690.17 *2.018.05 54.119.24 *3,518.51 37.200.20
25 *1.060.72 52101.43 13,45828 55.013.88 :8.714.23 38.737.34
30 81,251.85 52.503.70 *4.003.47 55.40453 57941.86 *10,214.40
35 51.45290 $2,653.07 14130.68 $63.16 $8.123.41 ;11,6111.60
40 11,864.12 $3.300.23 $8.367.85 *7.58781 *10.298.10 113.108.73
46 *1.15525 $3.71040 38.00504 56.58246 511.4/2.72 $14.643.85
60 *2.058.30 54.11275 *8.142.22 *9.487.08 112.647.34or *16.12299
5
0 5264.17 $588.32 51,021.45 31.38/.21 52.26561 33.05866
12 162i.21 *1.046.63 *1,77255 52,533.74 33,536.10 34./61.53
15 1762.311 *1.524.75 *2,523.67 *3,680.28 34.994.60 $b.456.60
24 *1.00148 52,00296 33,274.71 54.126.51 *4,359.08 58.171.57
30 51.240.59 *2,481.11 34.025.89 *5.77336 *7,713.57 $9.516.56
36 31.479.69 52,95939 34,771.00 36.819.09 *9.00007 $11.58152
42 51.71850 13,437.60 36.628.10 *7,566.43 *10.45256 *13,208.49
48 31551.800 13.91581 56.279.22 38,91196 311,817.04 *14.991.40
54 52,197.01 34204.02 1103033 $9469.50 *13.181.64 316.586.43
60 52.438.11 14.11/2:0 *1.181.14 *11406.03 114,546.03 518,401.42
ORDINANCR NO. 1592
AN =CODIFZSD UROINCT ORDINiNCZ OF TNM LODI CITT
RSPBALING ORDINRNCI MO. 1563 IN ISS sNTIA h . ,, sass AMONDINO
LODI MUNICIPAL CODs CHAPTSR 13.16, =LATINO TO COM INCISL
10 to 50 CUBIC YARD ROLL -OFF R02s8
Bs IT ORDAINED BY THs LODI CITY COUNCIL, as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1563 is hereby repealed in its entirety, and
shall be of no further force or effect.
SSCTIOI4 .
Badu.
A. The rates to be charged for commercial 10 to 50 cubic yard roll -off
box collection service shall be as follows:
wr.
1. For owners or tenants of business houses, the rates shall be
as set forth in the Commercial 10 to 50 Cubic Yard Roll -Off Box
Rat Structure schedule attached, when such service is requested.
s. All of the rate schedules set forth in this section shall be
effective on all bills which are prepared on or after April 1, 1994.
SECTION 3. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith
are repealed insofar as such conflict may exist.
-1-
•
SICTION 4. This i■ an urgency ordinance under Government Code Section
36934, and is based on health, safety and welfare considerations
arising from the need to collect appropriate fees for waste removal.
DICTION S. This urgency ordinance shall be published one time in the
*Lodi News Sentinel", a daily newspaper of general circulation printed
and published in the City of Lodi and shall be in force and take effect
immediately.
DICTION 6. The City Council of the City of Lodi hereby finds and
declares pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 that the
commercial refuse collection rates established in Ordinance 1563 are
necessary and reasonable for the usual operating expenses of the
Franchisee, including employee wages and benefits and for the purpose
of purchasing facilities, equipment, and materials.
Attest:
�Qil.l�tly�--
IFS PRRRIN
ity Clerk
this th
A. SIRGLOCK, Mayor
-2-
== ===== ====
e s
State of California
County of San Joaquin, ss.
I, Jennifer M. Perrin, City Clerk of the City of Lodi, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. 1592 was adopted as an urgency ordinance at
a regular meting of the City Council of the City of Lodi held March
16, 1994, and was thereafter passed, adopted and ordered to print by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members - Mann, Pennino, Snider and
Sieglock (Mayor)
Does: Council Members
Absent: Council Moberg - None
Abstain: Council Members - None
I further certify that Ordinance No. 1592 was approved and signed by
the Mayor an the date of its passage and the saw has been published
pursuant to law.
Approved as to Form
f—(.) uQc'Lt
BOBBY McNATT
City Attorney
-3-
4.; l.���� 1J
FSR1PERRIN
tyCle
•
CONTRACT RIOS PRIM= DROP RAT'S
OSP
1. Drop-off/Pick-DP $111.00
Charge Per Bat
2. Toss Disposed/Mos
s Processing Charge
Processing Charge
u$25.00
3. Franchise Fee (4.8% of 1+2)
TOM, SILT. (1.2.3)
ONS -TIS DROP RAT=
1. Drop-off/Pick-op
Charge Per Box
2. Tons Disposed/Box
A Processing Charge
Processing Charge
$181.30
A$25.00
3. Franchise Pee (4.8% of 1.2)
TOTAL. BILL (1+2+3)