HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - April 5, 2023 PublicComment_EmailPUBLIC COMMENT
RECEIVED BY EMAIL
April 5, 2023
From: Anthony Sutter
To: Olivia Nashed
Ce: Katie Roedner; City Council Comments; Steve Schwabauer; Janice Magdich; Charles Swimlev
Subject: Re: Resolution G-1: WM Rate Question and Numbers
Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 6:57:18 PM
Attachments: Updated - Waste Management Rates.xlsx
Updated - Waste Management Rates.pdf
Hello Olivia -
Thanks for the confirmation of receipt of the e-mail.
I noticed that I left off a partial sentence in my original e-mail: "The numbers were taken from
the" presentation by Charles Swimley at the March 15 council meeting.
Also, I read the agenda for tomorrow's meeting and saw the brief info on the 1,000 35 -
gallon can compromise. I updated my spreadsheets (admittedly there was very little info to get
a clear picture), but could you forward these updated PDF/Excel documents to the council
members?
One point about this new compromise I wanted to include in the updated message to the
council: I thought Waste Management justified this can size update as necessary to standardize
the trash can sizes to streamline their efficiency. If so, why the random 1,000 35 -gallon can
limit? If three cans exist (35, 64, and 96) what does it matter if there are 1,000 or continuing
with 14,000 35 -gallon cans?
Thanks again Olivia for all your work!
- Anthony Sutter & Katelyn Roedner
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 11:57 AM Olivia Nashed <onashed4odi.gov> wrote:
I apologize: fortamorrow night's City Council meeting.
Olivia Nashed
City Clerk — City of Lodi
(209) 333-6702
From: Olivia Nashed <L)[lasl1edalodi.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Anthony Sutter >; Katie Roedner <kroednerR( gmaiLc4_M>
Ce: City Council Comments <eouncilcommentsWodi.goy ; Steve Schwabauer
csschwabaueralodi.govy; Janice Magdich <im i a l i 7 v>: Charles Swimley
<CswimleyWodi.go >
Subject: RE: Resolution G-1: WM Rate Question and Numbers
Mayor and Councilmembers are blind copied on this email.
Good afternoon Mr. Sutter and Ms. Roedner,
Thank you for your email. It has been received by the City Council for tonight's City Council
meeting.
Thank you,
OCivia Washed
City Clerk
221 West Pine Street
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
(209) 333-6702
CITY 0H
0 `�,� /
4
r
L I F 0 F N I A
From: Anthony Sutter <anthony.sutter@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 9:28 AM
To: City Council <CityCouncilaIodi.gov>; City Council Comments
<councilcomments4Lod ,.gu>
Ce: Katie Roedner <kroeslner gmail.com>
Subject: Resolution G-1: WM Rate Question and Numbers
Dear Council Member Bregman and the Lodi City Council —
I know you probably have a hundred e-mails about the Waste Management increase, but I
just wanted to add one question and a few numerical observations.
Question: Will the 20/35 gallon customers continue to see a $5 per month increase every
year of the contract to raise them up to the standard 64 gallon levels? The rate letter itself
seems a little unclear, but I wasn't sure if the plan was slowly bring them up the same level
(so for the 35 gallon customers: $35.60 this upcoming year, $40.60 the next year, and
$44.06 the following year) or keep them at the same level ($35.60) for 3 years.
Numerical observations: Attached are the same PDF and Excel document with three sets
of calculations through 2026:
• the proposed rate structure (assuming WM is bringing the 20/35 gallon
customers to the 64 gallon price)
• one with a $1.50 annual across the board increase from the current rates
• one with a $2.50 annual across the tiers increase.
While the public works department likes to use the cost per gallon stats, I think it's
important to look at the overall numbers and work backwards. The total revenue by year is
what is most fascinating to me.
A simple across the board $1.50 rate increase for all tiers in the next year is essentially the
same total revenue ($747,701) as the WM proposed rates ($747,056), while providing a
much more equitable sharing of the SB 1383 costs that WM claims is the reason for the
increases. Depending on what the window of revenue the City and WM are looking at, you
can see the revenue trends out for the three years of the contract. A $2.50 annual increase for
three years yields the same revenue as the proposed rates (assuming the continued rise of the
20/35 gallon rates).
These numbers do not take the CPI adjustments; changes in Lodi population; the increase
in revenue if the overfilled garbage rules are actually enforced; or the savings from WM not
having to replace 14,000 cans and I assume — ironically — throw all the 20/35 gallon cans
away. The numbers were taken from the
Overall, my takeaway is that it seems Waste Management is trying to conflate the
increased costs due to SB 1383 with the issue of removing smaller garbage cans. I
understand that a rate increase is necessary to cover the extra costs of green can
pickups brought about by SB 1383. However, rate hikes on the 14,000 20/35 gallon
customers and rate cuts for 6,000 64/96 gallon customers seems like an inequitable way
to go about it.
Thank you for your time and your service to the community.
Anthony Sutter & Katelyn Roedner
1121 S School Street, Lodi, CA 95240
IMO
in C)
a) A
-ro Cli Lri
cr lqr C7, ca
r, rIp n tn
4A
oq
t; cc
= 0
I u
tn
C
r
0,0 SO 0' M,
o d �o 0
ri m 4-
tn vv vv -4
00 m 'ZI, 0
m c:> m 00
Ln �D �D Ln
E m C3 Ln
0
u
-Fo 7m- -Fu -Fo
to bo bo tio
�� � ;2 W
,6 r� pj
rl R -Z
Or m 4 w co .4
M -t
-4 11 rlt
CL vi V� %q
U
0
c
w
to 0 0 0 C
- 00
4�1 �n t). 'J" V� In w
0
u
41 0
S
m 00 0 Q =c
CC CD m -t m c
m m �t 1* <
in lj� -
C) Ln 'D Z1, 0
0 '4 m A w
Q m w �D Ln
E I m m m
0
u
Fo Wo
bn to
0 Ln
bD tO bO
m �t -It -q w
m w w w m
0 0 0 0 qr
q C� IR cq ft�
0) 0 " M 'It �t Ln
0 M M M M M
M lc� C� rl� lzf� LA
0� C) m o w w 6
Fumoot"�
- in H -zt N �A
0 iA
c
oto Wit -p Clql L�q Q-1
0 o o o 0
vi- V) v)-
0
u
'n
cu o �4 o w �D
kD 00 ID 0 0
0 IOW6664,ic
m m 4 't
LM �n 1/1 V). V).
N
0 10
f�4 0
0 Ln w ;t 0 F-
0 -t M M W
1-4 m m Ln
N 0 m 00 w Ln
u
txo CD
-Fu, cr:> Lrn -F� -Fo
w rl
�w bD On
Ln -It �D
m I 'D W 0)
0 Zt 0 Is 02
0 Ln Ln c 00
ci o6 6 -,r 4 M
a) o m w m Ln m
lr� rfi cl� ll� lzl� M
0 �D 0 M M
m w o Nt r1l
4j� �n M rl
w 0
t;
oo 0 �o m
q: L� �q u�
0 0 0 0 0
(D
m
0 cc
r4 U
rm o r4 o w w
4 w Co oo �o o 0
rl -m c) Ln Ln c7i
m r4 m J� 't
j). 0
0 Ln tD ZT 0
0 -t Ln m oO
0 m oo w Ln
E -4 m 0) Ln
0
LA
'4� u
w to
0 Lo -F.
w
v
M LD �o m
,a
�E 00
CL tn �n 1%
u
0
-C� �o C3) 0)
LQ p 'R
(D o o o o
1/� V� V) vv
0 a)
u
Ln
rj �D w w
o� R
m
cc Ln a) c
W m �t
N 14 4 J).
to
Ln
00 ro -It 0
0) 0 m w
14 m w w Ln
E m 0 Ln
0
E
bo
o Ln
�� S w to
-It It K* LO
w ID �D m
�o 0 0
Cl! O� O�
C) 'It 'IT
a) oo m Ln to
M CO I�t N -t 0
C:� 6 06 ce 06
-1 m -,* N
-4 '�t r1i V)- Z�
u o V) An. v�
0
00 ro C))
w �D Ln
AA AP, A4
o
u at
EA
N o w ID m
oo ID o o :3
m Ci c
m 4
Ln V� �n An
o
oo m -;r o
N CA o M co
o
Lr) Co �D Lo
m E m 0 m
I o
E
u
bo
o Ln -F -F
bo bo
4 'D
w w w a)
w 0 -It 0
m 00 0 00
C3 L6 4 4 66
col wt rml Ltn 60,
m rl� r-:, o6 ce PZ
r.4 Rr
46 ll�
0 w a)
w m 0 0 0 0
m >
CC
0
0 u
r4 m
e4(vNow
0 oo w 0 o
r4 -
Li ui "i
'a rJ cn -,t
CL co ro C)
2 0) 0 m oo
CL m 0 Ln
Ln Lo LD Ln
E
o
.S V
.VO =
6 U
txo W
c) Ln -F�
to to
I �mo
li Lo
M M
�o Lo
-1 Do cc!
cc
a
rn
P,
—o tn i^
Ln
N
0
r, o m m
tA -1 -1 o
-; v ljv VV �n VV
vI, o >
4)
u cc
N 0 w r, m
.2 ri -! Lq oq
m Ln Ln c) -It
> N m m o
cc lf� A/� �n -4
t4 m
w m -;t o
m o m x
Ln ID �D Lo
0 E m 0 m
o
uj u
m
w w bo bo
o Ln -It �D
C14 m �o m
ID 0 �t C) 0
tn rq C� q �q C9
Iq 0 zl' -;T
0 W 0 M
r4 w Ln F, Ln
0 in m r,4 in
r4 0 j) j).
m w r, oo
(D 'I c� r,� q
I o 0 -4
in lf� An lf�
4^ 0 >
u w
ac
o �D r, @
oo Lo 0 m :3
m 'Y' "i ,, E
N m 'Zi o
> vi in
m cc
41
oo m �t o
M 0 m oo
Lo �p Lo Ln
E m Ln
>
LLI U
w
0
Q 7 'M 7
m 0
w w w
o m �T �D
(N m w m
LO 0 -�t 0 in
m m 0 �o en
'A r-� w m �4
(1) 0 Ln Ln c7
0
W'o 0 0 r, m N
oo -�t �o Ln R?
'n m " " ,
In ll�
o
. S
R m -I o o -q c
(D v). In in AA cu
Ln V w
,4 0 cc
u
Nm ol IoD rolo
> -'T o
> oo m �t o
cn c) m oo
Ln Lo w Ln
E m c) Ln
o -4
V
:3
u
-Fo -Fa -6 w
m to 00 bD
n �n �; LO
rq m 171
�o
'n Bp
LO rl
m m
00 m r, Ln
,4 cc g 4 r,�
0 0 Lo
m
0 Zn In
C.
-�o rl m
(D 't q
Ln . 0 a
in V� if� 0)
>
0 (D
u cc
(N 0 ID r, m
:3 rq -! Lq oq C3
w 00 w m N c
'M
in m
10
> 0
00 m * 0
0) 0 m 00
Ln �o LD Ln
E m 0 Ln
0
V
n
wi u
0)
4
m
an bD to to
0 m -zt w
r,j rn w 6)
�o 0 Z1, C) 0
m co 0 10 09
W C) LO CNI r"
r W CC rq
0
- V� M r4 J). co
C) V� �n 4A
m a CD
Ar� 0
U
o �D r, o
w 0 m
Q) Ln Lri r4 Lri
r4 m Ln o
> m J).
00 m 'T 0
M 0 M W
Ln W w m
C E m 0 LO
0
u
m
cc
bLO tO W bD
0 0 -It LD
" m ID m
�D 0 I;r 0
M ri q IR:
Lr;
0 2
a) a) Ln Co t.
oo m F, Ln
r4 11) m " ll�
46 v)- 1^
Lrl w t,
a) r- o
0 r4 6 C3 r4
L!
0
U
r-4 o �o r,
> rq -! m w
m m w " m
m r4 m -;1- 0
cu oo m t 0
c m 0 m oo
Ln D D Ln
E m 0 m
0
V
w =3
QJ U
M,
m
cc
-6 76 mo -Fu
w m w w
C3 &n 3 to
CN CA al
From: Kirk Sasaki
To: City council comments
Subject: Waste Management Contract
Date: Wednesday, April 5, 2023 2:42:31 PM
Dear Lodi City Council Members:
We don't believe an evergreen clause such as the one in the Waste Management contract is the best
interest of the citizens of the City of Lodi nor a prudent business practice.
While we understand that Waste Management needs to continually invest capital to fulfill the terms
of their contract, it can do so without the need for an evergreen clause.
Who does this clause benefit? The citizens of Lodi? If so, how? Waste Management? Definitely.
As you know council members change. City staff change. Don't hand -tie future council members or
the citizens of Lodi by not removing this clause.
Eliminating the evergreen clause will require WM to come back to the table and cause the then
current council and city staff to purposefully examine the contract and evaluate whether to renew or
seek other options.
Just letting a contract such as this go on autopilot, in our minds, is not exercising best -practices and
does not serve the bet interests of the citizens of Lodi.
Sincerely,
Bruce Sasaki, Joy Sas ki, Kirk Sasaki
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or legally
privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any dlsctosure,
copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone otherthen the intended recipient is prohibited.