The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/29/1993 B A K E R S F I E L D Kevin McDermott, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Daniel Kane Staff: John W. Stinson AGENDA ' BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITFEE Monday, March 29, 1993 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference' Room 1. .County Landfill Gate Fees (Paul Dow/Joel Heinrichs) 2. Project Clean Air 3. Set Next Meeting MEMORANDUM DEPA~TN~NT OF WATER & SANITATION SANITATION DMSION ~arch 29, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY CITY MANAGER FROM: PAUL DOW WATER & SANITATION MANAGER BY: MIKE SIDES ~ SANITATION SUPERINTENDEI~ SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM COUNTY RMA DIRECTOR REGARDING LANDFILL GATE FEES AND MANDATORY COLLECTION In reviewing the recent Council Meeting "taped" proceedings, the following analysis depicts staff concern with regard to the implementation of gate fees and attainment of mandated diversion goals. Opening statements from the County RMA Director acknowledged the lack of mandatory collection in the Metro Area; this issue is of primary concern to the City of Bakersfield. While the RMA Director did not address this issue further during his statement tot he City Council, it remains the primary issue in the proper implementation .of gate fees. The County took issue with the City stance that urban areas could not achieve recycling goals without implementing mandatory collection. The RMADirector went on to state that gate fees are viewed as a "diversion" program, but supported the statement with statistical graphs assumably derived from the experience of other jurisdictions. It is the belief of City officials that gate fees alone will not change waste generation habits, therefore disposal will indeed occur. The mode of this disposal will be via community containment systems, commercial bins, or illegal dumping. Therefore, the County needs to take a more broad view of this issue, including a more common sense approach in analyzing and depicting a realistic diversion impact on our community. Some questions we need to ask are "Where is the garbage going to be diverted to?" and "Mow might any illegal or unauthorized dumping activities impact existing collection rates?" Several graphs were supplied to the Council; Graph #1 indicates that residential customers are paying twice their share for disposal of the refuse generated. Two concerns become immediately apparent; the accuracy of the waste generation study, and the fact that this situation will not change as businesses will offset their costs through increased fees to the very same residential customers; these facts make graph #2 nonsensical. Graphs #3 & #4 only become of issue if you accept the premise ti%at gate fees are a valid diversion program, and graph 5 is a comparable survey. Gate Fee Analysis Page 2 Councilmembers provided what City staff feels are very valid statements in regard to this issue during the City Council Meeting. City residential and commercial property owners are indeed impacted by the lack of mandatory collection in County areas. The cost of Kern County residents and businesses illegal dumping activities is borne by City taxpayers through their collection fees, which are adjusted anually. These impacts are realized by all City property owners because the City is obligated to collect/clean up all the generated refuse that is either dumped (legally or illegally) in City taxpayer containers (residential or commercial) or on vacant property. The cost of such illegal activities impacts collection fees, and cannot be viewed as revenue neutral. In summation, it is the opinion of staff that the County is attempting to avoid a "politically" sensitive issue while increasing fees for all taxpayers. This situation further hampers our efforts to provide a mandatory, comprehensive refuse collection service when County residents are allowed to retain an incentive to illegally dump. MEMOS\GATEFEE.A93 SOURCES OF WASTE COMPARED TO SOURCES OF REVENUE (LAND USE FEES) III 05 Ag Demo com/Ind Res. SOURCE ~ % O'F TOTAL WASTE~ % OF TOTAL REVENUE SOURCES OF WASTE COMPARED TO SOURCES OF REVENUE (GATE FEE) 0.9< Z III 'O 0.5~ LU 0.4 / Ag Demo Com/lnd Res. SOURCE WASTE I REVENUE [ . WASTE DIVERSION EXPECTED IN 1991 DUE SOLELY TO GATE FEES Waste (13.5%) (86.5%) ALTERNATIVE WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS COST COMPARISON 160 $!50 $135 Z O 120 ....................................................... : .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... rn.. $100 100 ................................................. : ......... . .................................................................................................................................................................... --> 80 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... : .................................. LLI m 60 ............................................................................... '---: ............................... : ................... 20- $13 Gate Fee Composting M.R.F. Tires Curbside PER TON GATE F'EES IN COMPARABLE COUNTYS Sacramento San Joaquin Sonoma San Diego FreSno Tulare Riverside San Bernardino Ventura Santa Barbara KERN COUNTY 0 5 10 15 20 '25 30 35 40 45 50 Dollars BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM March 29, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /,/'/ / /V / FROM: JOHN W. STINSON~SISTANT ~ITY/MANAGER -SUBJECT: PROJECT CLEAN AIR MEMBERSHIP The matter of City membership in Project Clean Air was referred to the Budget and Finance Committee for review. The Committee suggested that I contact Project Clean Air to see if the City's $15,000 contribution made by the City in 1992 included membership. I was able to contact Linda Urata, their Executive Director who indicated that based on our contribution they would consider the City a rsponsor and have included us on their letterhead as we had requested. I explained that it is difficult to have the City be a member of a non-profit organization as we could be asked to be members of every non-profit in the Community. She agreed and suggested that it might be more appropriate for the City Manager to be an individual member rather than the City as an organization. She said the City has been very supportive of Project Clean Air and said she would send me a copy of the video we funded in 1992.