Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2002 B A K E R S F I E L D Mike Maggard, Chair Harold Hanson Mark Salvaggio Staff: Darnell Haynes SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMI'I'FEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, December 2, 2002 - 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT NOVEMBER 14, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding proposed increase in Kern County Refuse Fees.- Rojas 6. ADJOURNMENT S:\Damell~002Bud&FinanceCommittee~bf02dec2agen.doc DRAFT .B AK.ERS F I E L D ma ;~jer"~-n-'~- .. Mike Maggard, Chair Alan Tandy City Harold Hanson Staff: Darnell W. Haynes Mark Salvaggio AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMI'I-rEE MEETING Thursday, November 14, 2002 City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. · ROLL CALL Called to Order at 4:00 p.m. Present:Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Harold Hanson and Mark Salvaggio 2. ADOPT OCTOBER 10, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding Park Development Fee Georgina Lorenzi, Assistant to the Public Works Director, reported staff met with Brian Todd, Executive Vice President of the BIA, and came to agreement on the Park Development Fee increase. Staff agreed with Mr. Todd's request to use the Construction Cost Index instead of the Consumer Price Index and that the fee adjustment is to be based upon the annual averages for calendar years 2001 and 2000. Based upon this index, staff recommended al.95% increase to the Park Development Fee. This would increase the current fee of $635 per new single family unit to $647. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Thursday, November 14, 2002 ~. ~-."~: Page - 2 - Brian Todd, Executive Vice President of the BIA of Kern County, spoke regarding agreement on the-fee increase. The BIA also agreed to table their issue of applying a credit to the Park Development Fee for what they philosophically .believe to be new development's share of the recent Park bond grants. City staff has a fundamentally different view on the use of the Park Bond grants. Recent voter-approved propositions have .provided grant funds for local recreation and park projects; however, they are being used for enhancements beyond basic park facilities and are distinct from those provided 'by the Park Development Fee. The bond grants are one-time funds with special requirements that cannot be relied upon for basic park development. The bond funds are currently being used for recreational facilities (such as the Kern River Parkway new 32-acre park, aquatics and ice complex, etc.) which serve all residents and enhance the livability of the community. Public Works and Recreation and Parks staff will be meeting with Mr. Todd and the BI^ board in the future to discuss the issue of what amenities should be included in a basic 1 O-acre park with a review of-costs for those amenities. Committee Member Salvaggio made a motion to approve the 1.95% Park Development Fee increase. The Committee unanimously .approved. Staff will forward a resolution approving and adopting an adjusted fee for the development and improvement of parks within the City of Bakersfield to the City Council. 5, NEW BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding request for additional funding for the Bakersfield Senior Center/Retirement Housing Inc, senior housing project Economic Development Director Donna Kunz reported on the progress of the Senior Housing project over the last 18 months since the project received its financing award from HUD for a 202 Capital Advance in the amount of $6,670,500. In recent weeks design and engineering work has been completed and a contractor, S.C. Anderson, was selected to construct the project. When the construction estimates were completed, there was a shortfall of funding in the amount of $676,072. A letter was received by the City requesting additional assistance. November 30th is the official deadline given by HUD for the developer to close the escrow on the property required for the project and finalize the 202 advance. If this is not accomplished, HUD has indicated that the 202 funding ($6,670,500) will be canceled. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, November 14, 2002 Page - 3 - Staff met with the developer, the contractor and the Bakersfield Senior Center to reevaluate costs to try to work out a financing plan in which all parties contributed to eliminate the shortfall. The developer had $153,439 special contingency that was in the line items and because the construction estimates were so fresh and agreed upon, everyone was comfortable with a smaller amount in the HUD 202 requirement for contingency, so the $153,439 'can be use 'to help fill the funding gap. The Bakersfield Senior Center and the developer have agreed on a lower price for the land, which provided $31,000. Construction value engineering costs were reevaluated and $11,633 was identified and Retirement Housing Inc. provided a cash contribution of $120,000. This leaves a net shortfall remaining of $360,000. Economic/Community Development staff audited, recOnciled and Closed out all of the old completed HOME projects resulting in available funds of $215,000. In addition, $145,000 of HOME funds is available from a housing project at Union and 4th, which was a mixed use, multi-family project that is moving along without a request for the HOME funds. They already have a contractor and do not want to go through the HUD requirements. Using these two sources of funds will not impact other City commitments. It was discussed although this project received a HUD 202 capital grant for construction costs, the HUD 202 program does not cover all costs associated with this type of project and it is quite common that other monies are needed. Economic Development Director Donna Kunz expressed this project is too valuable to just stop at this point. It is a $6.7 million capital grant, structured as a 40-year loan, but it is forgiven .at the end of the 40 years. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the additional funds of $360,000 to the Bakersfield Senior Center Affordable Housing Project from the identified HOME sources. Richard Washington, Vice President of Business Development for the Retirement Housing Foundation, spoke and answered questions about the project. Committee Member Hanson made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of additional HOME funds of $360,000 to the Bakersfield Senior Center Affordable Housing .Project. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. Staff will forward the amendment to the agreement to the City Council. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7, ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:49 p.m. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, November 14, 2002 DRAFT Page - 4 - Attendance staff: Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes; Assistant to the Public Works Director Georgina Lorenzi; Economic Development Director Donna Kunz; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; and Recreation and Parks Supervisor Ken Trone Other 'attendees: Brian Todd, BIA of Kern County; Reporter James Burger, The Bakersfield Californian; Reporter Peter J. Rudy, KUZZ; Brian Jeter, Reba West, Polly Warren, Alvin and Gina McClellan for the Bakersfield Senior Center; Richard Washington and Joanne Yokata from the Retirement Housing Foundation cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:\Darnell\02Budget and Finance\02nov14sUmmary Discussion Points for Proposed Kern County Landfill Fee IncreaSe The Kern County Waste Management Department is proposing to increase countywide landfill fees in July 2003. Public hearings for commercial and residential landfill fees are scheduled for 2 pm on Tuesday, December 10, 2002. The County first announced a .proposed rate increase on September 18th, following it with a higher Proposed rate increase on October 8"'. Prior to the County's September 18 th announcement of the plan, the City of Bakersfield was under the impression that no fee increase was planned this year, per a discussion with the County's fee consultant on July 10"~. The possibility of a landfill rate increase had been mentioned to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWMAC), but no fee recommendation was requeSted or issued from that advisory group. During several metro area subcommittee (Ad Hoc) meetings, the County expressed that a single digit rate increase may be phased in. However, no final recommendation was issued by the .Ad Hoc committee. The Ad Hoc process was ended in August, with no report to SWMAC. Thus, .it appears the County is moving quickly and unilaterally to implement a fee inc-rease with little consideration of the stakeholders. Listed below are some key points to consider: 1. The Count has not rovided for stakeholder review of the rates, A review of the rate calculations, and the gross increase in revenues, should be shared for review and discussion. 2. The Count has not demonstrated the need a fee increase at.this time. The County Waste Management Department budget shows an $8.5 million unreserved fund balance. For an annual budget of $24 million, this is significant. Is a fee increase really necessary this year? 3. The County will raise fees without a fair fundin,q plan The'County does not have a proper funding source t~ pay for its share of recycling programs, so it charges extra for landfill fees. Cities pay for their own recycling, yet County area programs are funded by mixed City/County funds, resulting in higher landfill fees. The proposed fee increase ignores this problem. The problem should be corrected prior to adjustment of the fees. 4...The County will raise residential f=e~ and avoid qivinq ·credit for reducin, landfill use~ There is no economic incentive to recycle residential waste. The County keeps all of the revenue from land use fees,-regardless of landfill space and cost savings. Fair credits for residential recycling programs are needed. County fees originally included the cost of greenwaste handling, for example, but no credit is earned for recycling greenwaste. 5. The cities of Bakersfield and Taft will pay 24% more for commercial refuse .while other areas will pay less. Bakersfield and its businesses will pa~ over $900~000 extra to boost the County's landfill budget beyond it~ .current $8.5 million balance · County staff states that the fees need to be "re-normed' due to changes over the years. If the fees are in fact so uneven, the correction should be phased in to avoid economic shock. Cities should not bear the burden of the County's failure to perform the required annual study. Also, the proposed numbers may be skewed by differing weights in each jurisdiction. The County should share the study and provide an opportunity for comment by the stakeholders. RECEivED: 11 /13/02 7:15PM; ->CZTY OF EAKEREF'rELO; //752; PAGE 2 ¢'. ).~I/[3/2002 18:18 GG18628985 ~D P~ 82/87 ' KERH Cou, HA,AO [HT D[PARTHg,T Daphne H. W~hington, Dinar 2700 ~ S~e~ Suim 500 Bake~eld. CA 9330t-~70 (~I) 862-8900 (~0) 552.KERN (o;~on 6) Fax: (661) 8~-8~1 November 13, 2002 ,t~:/~.=.~.~.~.~/w~.~ VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL City of Bakersfield City Manager's Office Attn: Alan Tandy 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: SUBJECT: Proposed Landfill Fee Increase Thank you for your letter of November 1, 2002 commenting on the proposed adjustments to the waste disposal fees in Kern County. We appreciate your concerns, and are committed to working with the City of Bakersfield to create a fee structure that is as fair and equitable as possible. However, many of the objections to the fee proposal contained in. your letter appear to be based on an inaccurate understanding of our current and proposed fee structure. We are providing you with a fairly lengthy, two-part response to your letter so that you will be better informed as to the basis of the fee proposal and, once armed with this information, hopefully better able to constructively comment on our recommendations. Part One of this letter will provide you with an overall framework for understanding the structure of our fee recommendation. Part Two of the letter will respond directly to your specific comments. PART ONE: FEE S.TRUCTURr: The Kern County Waste Management Department is committed to the operation of a fair and efficient solid waste disposal system. Consistent with that commitment, we have made numerous changes in our operations over the last decade to reduce waste disposal costs and to contain the costs, as much as possible, for State and Federal environmental regulations. As a result of this work, waste disposal fees have not increased in the County of Kern since 1990. We do have a unique land use fee/bin fee/gate fee system in Kern County, which is designed to simultaneously reduce incentives for residential illegal dumping and create incentives for commercial waste diversion. This system has served the County of Kem and City of Bakersfield well, as both jurisdictions are meeting State waste diversion mandates while maintaining waste disposal fees well below statewide norms. Winner of local, state and national awards for innovation and efficiency. RECE~EVEO: 11/1:3/O2 7':16PM; ->CZ'FY OF BAKER:3FTELD; #'752; PAGE :3 ~ [[/~3/2002 18:i8 6618628~05 WHD PAGE 83/67 City of Bakersfield Page 2 November 13, 2002 This system is not perfect, as it incorporates an inherent trade-off as follows: flat land use fees, paid by residential property owners, eliminate financial incentives to illegally dump waste since residential waste disposal is not charged at the landfill. Conversely, the fiat nature of these fees limit the financial rewards of increased residential waste diversion by .all local jurisdictions mandated to increase waste diversion (all Kern County cities and the County of Kern). All of these jurisdictions, therefore, are challenged to meet State diversion requirements at the lowest cost possible - and most have successfully met this challenge without significant waste collection rate increases. The current land ~use/bin/gate fees were designed to charge equivalent amounts per ton of waste disposed ($29.00 per ton) regardless of whether a rate payer paid via the land use fee, bin disposal fee or at the 'landfill gate. Over the course of a decade, however, waste disposal patterns have changed. Thus, our proposed fee adjustment is designed to accomplish two primary financial goals: 1. Increase the fee per ton to an amount sufficient to cover projected waste disposal costs for the next decade. '2. Re-norm the fee so that the same amount per ton is charged to everyone disposing of waste in Kern County, regardless of whether they pay that fee via the land use fee, gate fee or bin disposal charge. As a part of our analysis of the current rate structure, we did identify several inappropriate "cross-subsidies" that result from the County's practice of pooling land use fees (primarily residential) and bin/gate fees (primarily commercial) in one solid waste enterprise fund. Thus, the funding for both unincorporated illegal dumping clean up and franchise system administration is recommended for elimination from the solid waste fund to resolve this issue for most jurisdictions. The green waste facility at Mount Vernon, however, is still funded from pooled revenues. We have met with the City's Solid Waste Services staff on numerous occasions in an attempt to develop a workable alternative for funding the Mount Vernon operation. To date, one has not been identified but we are committed to a continued joint effort to improve the financial equity of that operation. As discussed above, our fees were originally designed to charge the same amount per ton regardless of payment method. Over time, due to the imposition of commercial gate fees, the rate of commercial waste diversion has increased. However, the original bin disposal fees were left unchanged. Thus, on a per ton basis, commercial bin rate'payers are currently paying too much per ton and that is why our fee recommendation reduces the bin disposal fees. It appears that the City identified this inequity in June 2000 and, to reduce waste disposal costs, switched payment methods from a volume (bin disposal fee) to a tonnage (gate fee) basis. So, now that we are re-norming all of the fees, the City's disposal costs may increase more than other jurisdictions. In fact, however, all rate payers and ali RECE3:VEO: ~i~'13~02 ?=IEPM; ->Cl'Ty O1= EAKERSI=I'ELD; #?52; PAGE 4 '~ 11/13/2002 18:18 6618628905 WHD PAGE 84/87 City of Bakersfield Page 3 November f3, 2002 jurisdictions pay the same amount per disposed ton in our proposal. The City's costs appear to be increasing more than costs in other jurisdictions - not because you are being charged more than others, but because the City is losing the artificial discount it enjoyed relative to other cities due to your shift to gate fees as a temporarily cheaper method to pay your disposal charges. Fee .systems are often complex. A balance between accuracy and ease of administration is always struck at some level. Our current fee structure, and the proposed fee structure, both strike that balance appropriately. Based on currently available data, we have proposed setting the fee in a manner equitable for all jurisdictions and all rate payers. It has the .potential to have a more significant impact on the City of Bakersfield than some other jurisdictions because of decisions you have made in the past relative to your own fee structure and operating practices. There may still be some cross-jurisdictional subsidy problems with the way the Mount Vernon fadlity is financed. We are committed to resolving those issues, but not to the detriment of the effective, fair system we have developed and operated in Kern County for a number of years. PART TWO: SPECIFIC RESPONSE_R "The County's proposed landfill fee increase appears to impact the City of Bakersfield more severely than other landfill users. We .do not support the proposal, which:" City's Position - 'Lowers commercial fees 5% in the County and other cities, while raising fees for Bakersfield and Taft;" County's Response - The solid waste fees are the same in all parts of the County and do not vary by city. The proposed, gate fee for commercial waste is $36.00 per ton and the proposed bin disposal fee for commercial waste is $1.90 per cubic yard. These fees will apply in all areas of the County and in all dries in the County. The City of Bakersfield and the City of Taft chose to pay gate fees for the commercial waste they dispose in the County's system. Presumably, they chose the gate fee payment method to take advantage of an emerging inequity between the gate fee and the bin disposal fee. The County's proposed fee adjustment was designed to correct the inequity between the gate fee per ton and the bin disposal fee per cubic yard. The County has very carefully balanced the amount of the land use fee, the gate fee and the bin disposal fee .to ensure that each payment method charges an equivalent amount on a per ton basis. If the City of Bakersfield would prefer to switch back to paying the bin disposal fee, please let us know..We can cancel the City's current agreement to pay gate fees. City's Position - 'Raises residential fee by $9 per year, or 15. $%, in spite of our reduced use of landfills. The plan fails to relate residential fees to the amount disposed, as required by State law. It does not give credit to communities for effective greenwaste recycling programs. County's Response - As discussed above, the County has gone to great lengths to ensure the land use fee, gate fee and bin disposal fee are in balance on a cost per ton flECE'~VEO:.~ 11/13/02 ?:17PM; '='CI'TY 01= EAKEFISI=~:EL.O; #752; PAGE S ~ li/13/2002 18:18 GG18G28905 WMD PAGE 85/67 City of Bakersfield Page 4 November 13, 2002 basis, county-wide. The amount of residential solid waste disposed by any one community or any one residential pamel may be slightly more or less than the county- wide average. The method of rate calculation is used by almost all cities and counties, and complies-with applicable State laws. It is fundamentally no different than the average fee the City of Bakersfield charges for refuse collection, sewer fees or any number of other fees. If it is inappropriate for the County to average waste disposal charges across similar residential property,' then it is certainly inappropriate for the City to charge all residents the same waste collection fee. The same 'logic that argues against the cost and complexity_of a variable can .rate or variable sewer rate in the City applies to the County land use fee structure as well. The land use fee is not perfect, in that its fiat rate nature does not create the same individual diversion incentives that commercial gate fees produce - but the Kern County community has made a conscious decision to accept these weaknesses as the cost of a system designed to minimize residential illegal dumping. It is also important to remember that every County recycling program is also available to city residents and each city receives waste diversion credit from these County programs. City's Position - 'Raises Bakersfield's commercial fees by $7 per ton, or 24.1%. The City and a small group of businesses will pay over $900,000 per year more, while businesses outside the City will.receive a discount." County's Response - Again, the County's fees are the same in all parts of the County and in all cities. Businesses outside the City of Bakersfield will be charged the same fees that apply within the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield can choose to pay either the gate fee or the bin disposal fee, and either of those fees is the same throughout the County. City's Position - 'Continues the practice of funding County-only program costs with revenue from City businesses and.residents. ~ County's Response - The County worked with City of Bakersfield staff to identify the County-only programs that were of concern. The two County-only programs that were identified were illegal dumping clean-up and franchise hauler administration costs. The Waste Management Department no longer operates an illegal dumping cleanup program and the Department has recommended that franchise hauler administration costs be included in the upcoming fee adjustment, thereby eliminating any city participation in that program. City's Position - "The proposed fee increase appears to balance the County's landfill budget on the City of Bakersfield. The proposed fee increase appears to collect the majority of the County's new revenue from the City of Bakersfield, as opposed to other areas. County's Response - The proposed land use fees, gate fee and bin disposal fees were carefully structured to collect the same amount of revenue from all rate payers on a cost ~ 11~13/2002 18:18 GG18G28905 ~HD P/~,GE 0~/07 City of Bakersfield .Page 5 November 13. 2002 per ton basis. The amount of revenue the County expects to receive from any part of · Kern County, or any city, is $36.00 per ton. The method of payment will be either via the · land use fee per year, the gate fee per ton or the bin disposal fee per cubic yard of bin volume. Regardless of the payment method, the County expects to produce an equivalent amount of revenue per ton disposed, based on a County-wide average. The County did not target the City of Bakersfield or any other jurisdiction to "balance its budget." " City's Position - ~Furtherrnore, it hurts residents of. communities who help the Countywide system with their recycling efforts. Bakersfield should not be penalized for recycling. Historically, the County has included the cost of greenwaste disposal in landfill fees. Bakersfield 'has removed greenwaste from both commercial and residential disposal Charging Bakersfield according to. 'averages' from other areas fails to account for this." County's Response - The City of Bakersfield does not accept green waste from other cities and, therefore, does not really participate in a 'County-wide diversion effort.' The City's program does accept green waste from the unincorporated portion of the Bakersfield area and the County pays the City of Bakersfield for its share of this green waste. In addition, the County operates its own green waste recycling programs and these programs receive a significant amount of green waste from the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is not charged for the green waste that is managed by County facilities, but the City does receive diversion credit. SUMMARY The County has worked with your staff on these issues for the last year. We feel that there has been a constructive dialogue. If the City and County continue to work in an open, honest, and constructive manner, we expect to move toward resolution of any remaining issues. We must maintain a clear understanding of the facts - and the fact is that the County is proposing to equalize on a per ton basis waste disposal charges throughout the county. These charges are the same in all jurisdictions. They are calculated based on available data in a manner which is consistent with the City's own practices for Calculating waste collection charges. They are fair. The fee system is not perfect - no fee system is. However, we feel the facts, as presented in your letter, are somewhat distorted. The City has enjoyed lower disposal rates due to your derision to take advantage of an inequity that developed between the original bin disposal charge and the gate fee. Now that the inequity is being eliminated, and your disposal charges will match that of other jurisdictions and businesses, describing this change as some sort of unfair attack on the City is simply wrong. A better system for. shadng green waste diversion costs in Metropolitan Bakersfield needs to be developed - and can be developed - if we work together. This issue, however, must be pursued within the framework of a fee structure that is fair to all Kern County jurisdictions. ,~ ].]./~3/2882 ].8:].8 66].8628cJ85 [,JND PAGE 87/87 The Waste Management Department welcomes City participation in the development of a fair and equitable fee. We are formally requesting the opportunity to meet with you and the City Council, in a workshop format, to explore these issues in mom depth. Sincerely, Daphne H. Washington Director I:~LERICAi.~.ETTER S~lX)'Zt)2-50 OHW-'Tl~.dcc cc: Kern Count~ Scott Jonas, County Adml~lrat~m Office Ha~ Hall. Mayor, City ~ Baker~eld Bakenfflekl City Councl Eaul Rojas, Bakemrmkl Publb Work~ Olr~__~_er Kevin Barnes, Sol~ Waste [3irec~ B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy · City Manager November 1,2002 Ms. Daphne Washington, Director Kern County Waste Management Department 2700 M Street, Suite ·500 Bakersfield, CA 93309 RE: Proposed Landfill Fee Increase Dear Ms. Washington: The County's proposed landfill fee increase appears to impact the City of Bakersfield more severely than other landfill users. We do not support the proposal, which: · Lowers commercial fees 5% in the County and other cities, while raising fees for Bakersfield and Taft; · Raises residential fees by $9 per year, or 15.8%, in spite of our reduced'use of landfills. The plan fails to relate residential fees to the amount disposed, as required by State law. It does not give credit to communities for effective greenwaste recycling programs... · Raises Bakersfield's commercial fees by $7 per ton, or 24.1%. The City and a small group of businesses will pay over $900,000 per year more, while businesses outside the City will receive a discount. · Continues the practice of funding County-only program costs with revenue from City businesses and residents. The proposed fee increase appears to balance the County's landfill budget on the City of Bakersfield. The proposed fee increase appears to collect the majority of the County's new 'revenue from the City of Bakersfield, as opposed to other areas. Furthermore, it hurts residents of communities who help the Countywide system with their recycling efforts. Bakersfield should not be penalized for recycling. Historically, the County has included the cost of greenwaste disposal in landfill fees. Bakersfield has removed greenwaste from both commercial and residential disposal. Charging Bakersfield according to "averages" from other areas fails to account for this. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Daphne Washington November 1,2002 Page 2 If, after evaluation of these facts, a more appropriate rate increase is in order, we respectfullyrequest phasing it in to avoid such a large economic impact. We are willing to meet with you to discuss solutions. If any of our opinions are incorrect, please let us know why. Sincerely, Aian Tandy City Manager cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director · :' I 0 KERFI (:OUHTY HAFIA§EHEHT OEPARTHErlT Daphne H. Washington, Direct°~ 2700 'l~' Sfreet, Suito 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8900 (800) 652-KERN (o~tion 6) Fax: (661) 862-8901 October 8, 2002 htt~/www, co.kem.ca.us/w~.htm Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: SUBJECT: Adjustments to Land Use and Gate Fees By our letter of September 18, 2002, we advised you of the Kern County Waste Management Department's intention to present a request to the Board of Supervisors to set a public protest hearing for December 10, 2002 to consider and approve a proposed increase in the land use and gate fees, which are the primary source of revenue for managing the County's waste stream. At that time, the Department proposed an increase in the land use fee from the current amount of $57.00 per year for single-family parcels to $63.00, and an increase in the gate fee from $29.00 per ton to $34.00 per ton. It was also proposed to lower the bin fee from $2.00 per yard to $1.80 per yard. Within the last three weeks, however, the Department has received confirmation from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) that they intend to require construction of a double composite liner at the Shafter-Wasco landfill, and this requirement may be extended to other County waste facilities. The liners currently in use at County landfills, and those projected for future construction, are only single composite liners. The decision by the RWQCB essentially doubles the cost of liner construction for County waste facilities. As a result of the probable impact of the RWQCB's requirement, the Department will be requesting an increase in the land use fee to $66.00 per year and $36.00 per ton for the gate fee. The bin fee, therefore, would be decreased to $1.90 per cubic yard. A public hearing before the Kern County Board of Supervisors is still proposed for December 10, 2002 to consider these matters. If you have any questions concerning the revisions to these proposals, please feel free to contact me at (661) 862-8998. Sincerely, DAPHNE H. WASHINGTON, DI,,~TOR By: Thomas F. McCutcheon Special Projects Manager H:WlergeOocs~lotifyCitles-R evlsions.doc cc: ADM -Cities-city of Bakersfield Winner of local, state and national ~ awards for irtnovation and efficiency. NOTICE OF HEARING Questions About Land Use Fees DECEMBER 10, 2002 What do land Use fees pay for? The County operates and maintains a solid.waste system consisting NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on the 10th day of December 2002, at of landfills, transfer stations and recycling programs. The land use 2:00 p.m. in the Board of Supentisors Chambers, Kern County fee is paid by all owners of residential property in Kern County Administrative Center, 1115 Tmxtun Avenue, First Floor, Bakersfield, to pay for their proportional share of the system. Residential waste California, the Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing on the (ordinary household trash) may be disposed or recycled at the proposal to adjust the Solid Waste Management Program Service Charges for 2003-2004. 'These charges are the Land Use Fees that are County's solid waste system without paying additional fees. charged to all residential parcels for the operation of the County's solid waste system.. At said time the Board shall hear and consider all objections and protests, if any, to said adjustments to the fees. What is not covered by land use fees? Thisis not a new fee. Solid Waste Land Use Fees have been in place All business waste. Also, waste such as tires, cars, boats, camper since 1988 and collected at the same time and manner as general shells, dead animals, construction and demolition material, as well County taxes since 1989. The last adjustment to the land use fees was as other items, from all sources is not ordinary household trash. in 1990. For the last 12 years,.the fees have been $57.00 per unit per These are charged a gate fee if disposed of in the landfill. year for one to four unit residential parcels or $45.60 per unit per year for a five or more unit residential parcel. To provide for increased costs of operating the solid waste system, the County is proposing to raise the land use fee to $66.00 per unit per year for one to four unit parcels and Why does the County need alee increase? $53.00 per unit per year for a five or more unit parcel. Not many businesses could go 12 years without raising prices. Yet, the Waste Management Department has done just that. The Assuming the adjustment is approved, it will take effect July 1, 2003. If Consumer Price Index has gone up 38% since the last fee increase, written protest against the proposed fee is Presented by a majodty of the owners of residential property in Kern County, the feeadjustmentwill not and the County has absorbed additional costs due to new be made and the fees will continue at the current rate. regulations and mandated recycling programs. Since 1990, compliance with recycling, environmental monitoring and closure If you have questions regarding this notice, please call the Kern requirements has resulted in additional costs of 5 to 6 million County Waste Management Department at (661) 862-8889. A dollars per year. A major increase in the cost of landfill operations complete copy of the proposed ordinance and the report prepared was caused by the increase in prevailing wages in 2000, resulting by the Waste Management Department describing the fee and the parcels affected by the proposed increase are on file with the Clerk in additional costs of almost one million dollars per year. Recent of the Board of Supervisors, St~ Floor, 1115 Truxtun Avenue, changes to regulato~, compliance requirements for construction of Bakersfield, Califomia and are available for inspection during landfill liners are projected to nearly double the current cost of normal business hours, liner construction. In fiscal year 2001-2002 waste system expenses ALL INTERESTED PARTIES MAY ATTEND AND BE HEARD BY THE exceeded revenue by approximately 14%, and without a fee BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AT THE PLACE AND TIME INDICATED increase this annual budget shortfall will continue to increase. ABOVE. IF UNABLE TO ATTEND, YOU MAY FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE WITH THE CLERK OF THE BOARD, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 1115 TRUXTUN AVENUE, BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR HEARING. Solid Waste System Fee Increase Effective July 1, 2003 Public Hearing December 10, 2002 2:00 p.m. t 15 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield q {){)2 '"' Average buried in landfill for $57.00 = $29/ton paid to County Refuse & Bulky Brush Greenwaste Items Garbage Cans ~~' % ton / year recycled at ~' City Expense Greenwaste Brush Cart Proposed 2003 ~ ~ 1 Y, ton / year buried in landfill I! ~ -- -- X $36 / ton New County Rate $45 / year Land Use Fee Refuse Bulky (if adjusted for recycling) Cart Items $66 New Land Use Fee - $45 Adjusted Land Use Fee for Recyclin.q $21 Recycling Credit _Effect of County Landfill Fee Increase, The Kern County landfill fee increase proposed for July'2003 will affect various sectors of the .Bakersfield community as listed below: Commercial Bin Customerc $450,000 Small to medium businesses who use metal trash bins will pay 24% more. Commercial Compactors, Roll_Offs, and Other Trucks' $450,000 A few dozen hospitals, malls, large retail stores, and businesses with large loads will pay 24% more. Apartment Building~.~, $110,000 About 15,000 apartment units will pay 15.8% more. Residential Customer~ $650,000 About 72,000 homes will pay 15.8% more. Total Revenue Increase from Bakersfield Alone: $1,660,000 Projected Revenue Increase Outside Bakersfield: $ ??? Daphne H. Washington, Db'ector 27O0 'Id' Street. Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8g00 (800) 552-KERN (opUon 6) Fax: (661) 862-8901 December 10, 2002 h'~'~/w~.co.kem.c~.u~nd/wmd.h~n Board .of Supervisors Kern County Administrative Center' 1115 Truxtun Avenue' Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Members of the Board of SupervisOrs: . RE: Summary of process followed by the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Metropolitan 'Bakersfield Ad Hoc Committee to review City of Bakersfield concerns related-to adjustments in Solid Waste Management Program Land Use Fees and Gate Fees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 (All S.D.'s) The City of Bakersfield expressed concems about the County's combination land use fee and gate fee system, particularly as the land use fee relates to waste diversion, on several occasions over the last several years. Therefore, the Waste Management Department contacted City of Bakersfield staff and representatives .of the Bakersfield metropolitan area (Zone 2) franchise garbage haulers to initiate a process to better understand the City's concerns, and to explore potential joint diversion strategies fo{' Metropolitan Bakersfield when planning for the solid waste fee adjustment first began in the fall of 2001. The Department initiated this cooperative process at the very beginning of the fee adjustment process because we knew the issues woUld be complex and require a significant investment of time and resources. We also: understood, if a fee adjustment is necessary, the public would prefer to see all the issues addressed at once, rather than retum with. amendments and further adjustments within a short period of time. Therefore, the fee proposal your Board will be considering today was developed in an extensive, yearlong consultative process with the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWIVlAC) and its Metropolitan Bakersfield Ad H°c Committee. The Ad Hoc. Committee was initially convened at the staff 'level. Representatives of the Department, City of Bakersfield. Department of Sanitation, Zone 2 Haulers,. and Roland Consulting held numerous meetings to evaluate opportunities to imprOVe the effectiveness and efficiency of Metropolitan Bakersfield waste diversion efforts, jurisdictional reporting and fee structure. Our overarching goal was to evaluate and address all the issues 'raised by the City to the extent, possible. The Committee. agreed to evaluate the effectiveness of all options in meeting the fOllowing specific goals: · Generate adequate revenue; · Restore parity on a per ton basis between land use, gate, and bin disposal fee payers; [] Winner of lOcal, state and national awards for innovation and efficiency. Board of SuperVisors Page 3 December. fO, 2002 that the City of Bakersfield committed to correct remaining inaccuracies in its database in conjunction with a planned billing software upgrade. The Department does not know if the City's software upgrade has been completed or if the remaining data errors have been corrected. Another outcome of this effort is that it gave the Department more reliable information upon which the fee calculation could be made. .Issue 4: The 'City asked the Department to consider altemative funding strategies for the City's Mt. Vernon greenwaste facility. The County has been Paying a pro rata share of the facility's cost; however, to the extent that some of the money paid to the City was collected from within -the City limits, the City feels its residents are still paying a disproportionate share. -' Outcome: This issue is linked to the larger issues assoCiated with the City's desire to change the land use fee system to better reflect diversion efforts of individual jurisdictions and is discussed in conjunction with Issue 5. · .Issue 5: The City contends that the current system of applying the same land use fee to all residential parcels is unfair to the City of Bakersfield, since its waste diversion rate is higher than some other jurisdictions. Outcome: The Ad Hoc Committee ideniified a number of potential formulas, and fee structures to address this issue. The Committee attempted to solve this issue both as it related to Mt. Vernon and as it relates to the land use fee in general. The Committee evaluated proposals such as modest adjustments to .the current system, an all gate fee system, a regional recycling surcharge system and a variable (by jurisdiction) land use fee system. None of the options perfectly addressed all of the criteria outlined above. For example, the variable land use fee system would completely address the City's concern, but would require a complex, confusing annual adjustment to all jurisdictions' land use · -~fees to reflect annual-changes in diversion rates. An all gate fee system (i.e., eliminate residential land use fees) would also resolve this issue, but would increase illegal, dumping. The Committee recognized that some inequities are inherent in any fee structure. No alternative fee structure was identified that, on balance, was superior to 'the current system. This left the Mt. Vemon funding equity issue unresolved. The Department then sought out ways it could address the Mt. Vemon funding equity' issue without modifying the fee structure. For example, early in the Ad Hoc process, the Committee recognized that the City and County recycling drop-off programs provide essentially the same service to both City and County residents, and that it is appropriate for the County to fund its drop-off program with land use and gate fees becaUSe the drop-offs are equally available to City and County residents. Using the drop-off programs as a model, the Department Board of Supen~so~= Page 5 December 10, 2002 'subsequently implemented them.. However, the full Committee found that significant uncertainty existed. (and still exists) relative to the effect of future air quality regulations on waste hauling, the extent to which the City will extend its pilot curbside recycling program, and the effectiveness of the County-initiated Shafter-Wasco greenwaste facility in reducing equity issues associated with the Mt. Vernon greenwaste facility.. As a result of these uncertainties, and the inability of the Committee to identify a clearly superior alternative, the Committee endorsed the Department's recommended adjustments to the current waste disposal fee structure. The Department then concluded the Ad Hoc Committee process, and agreed to continue to meet and dialogue on ways to collaborate on diversion programs and funding in the metropolitan area. 'The Department drew extensively upon the analytical work of the Ad Hoc Committee to develop our proposed fee adjustments and to implement the other solutions the Committee identified. As noted elsewhere, the proposed fees continue to use Kern County's unique land use/gate fee approach, but restore padty between the vadous types of ratepayers within this system and minimize inequities between jurisdictions as well. Therefore, IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board receive and file this report summarizing · the process used to review City of Bakersfield's concerns related to adjustments in the Solid Waste Management Program Land Use Fees and Gate Fees. Sincerely, Daphne H. Washington ~j Director I:~C LERICAL~'OAR D'~:~(~2~EC 10-DHW_YS-RSLDOC Daphne H. Washington, Director' 2700 'Id' Street, Suite 500 · Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8900 (800) 552-KERN (option S) Fax: (661) 862-8901 December 3, 2002 http://www, co.kem.ca.us/wmd/wnM:hlm Board of Supervisors Kem County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: RE: Report concerning Cost Saving Measures (All S:D.'s) On January 20, 1998, the Waste Management Department (WMD) presented a report to your Board entitled Proposed Cost Cutting Measures. While WMD had historically controlled skyrocketing costs through innovative means and prudent budget management, projected reductions in revenue dictated the implementation of fu~er cost cutting measures. From time to time, since that report was presented, the WMD has updated your.Board on the various cost cutting measures that have been implemented. The purpose of this report is to describe the cost savings that have been realized by implementing the measures that were approved by your Board, and to provide estimates of future savings from innovative operations and systems being developed and used by the WMD. Cost Savin,qs Achieved Days and hours reductions at solid waste facilities - A reduction in the days and hours of. operation at County landfills and transfer stations have resulted in cost savings of approximately' $655,000 per year. An additional cost savings of $169,000 was realized from the reduction in gate attendant labor expenses. Therefore, a total cost savings of $824,000 per year was achieved as the result of implementing these changes. Compactors at transfer stations - WMD has installed compactor units at the Buttonwillow, Glennville, Lebec and McFadand-Delano Transfer Stations to reduce the number of hauls at these facilities. 'l'he net savings from reduced hauling costs, less the amortized, cost of the compactors, is approximately $132,000 per year. Conversion from P#vate C°ntractor to County Staff- Operations at the Buttonwillow Transfer Station were modified to 'use solely WMD staff when excessivelY high bids for a pdvate contractor operation were received. The Transfer Station operations in Glennville, Lebec and McFadand-Delano were also converted from a private contractor operator to WMD staff. The use of County employees to operate these facilities, rather than private contractors, has resulted in an approximate cost savings of $225,000 per year. Conversion of Lost Hills from a Landfill to a TranSfer Station - Savings of $92,000 per year in operating costs have resulted from the conversion of Lost Hills from a landfill to a transfer station. Load LJrnit Reduction at McFarland/Delano Transfer Station - The reductiOn in the size of loads accepted atthe McFadand/Delano Transfer Station significantly reduced the amount of · . Winner of local, state and national awards for innovation and efflcien Board of Supervisors Page 3 . December 3, 2002 Grants - WMD staff continues to seek altemative sources of funds to reduce costs to the County for significant projects, and programs. As Part of this effOrt, since 1998; grants totaling more than $1,447,497 have been obtained for a variety of programs (including bum dump remediation, used oil recycling, the household hazardouswaste program and special waste facility). Some grants give direct cash awards, others reimburse or directly pay for costs incurred by VVMD for implementing programs.. Closure Site Maintenance Program - A major maintenance prevention program, combined with the WMD's purchase of additional equipment (Bobcat loader) and tools, and a system of multiple contractor purchase orders ready for use on an "as-needed basis' has resulted in reduced maintenance costs at closed, inactive and remediated solid waste facilities. By performing comprehensive site evaluations prior to and after the rainy season, utilizing the Bobcat to do continuous maintenance work during the year, and having open purchase' orders with multiple contractors, it has been' poss~le to achieve early identification of minor maintenance problems and to obtain more reasonable, competitive pricing for necessary repairs. Utilization of the Bobcat and a two-person maintenance crew will result in a maintenance cost savings of approximately $88,000 per year, over and above the initial cost of the equipment and tools. Cost Savinqs Projected Financial Assurance for Groundwater Correct, Ye Action - Regulations require the County to maintain assurance of financial responsibility for completing corrective action for all known or reasonably foreseeable groundwater releases fi'om waste management units. The primary method used to clean up releases to groundwater in the mid-90's was "Pump and Treat', a very costly technology often .applied to leaking underground .tank sites. In 1997, the estimated cost for groundwater cleanup in Kern County was a staggering $48,873,000! In recent years, WMD has been at the forefront of technological studies to investigate natural processes that occur in Soil and groundwater near landfills. These processes called natural attenuation, and theYmay reduce or eliminate the concentrations of pollutants. The potential for applying monitored natural attenuation (MNA) at each Kern County landfill is being evaluated. The results demonstrate that MNA can successfully be applied, often in conjunction with landfill gas control systems, at all of our landfills. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has accepted these demonstrations. As a result, estimates for groundwater cleanup at Kem County landfills now total approximately $5,000,000, a cost reduction of 90%. Alternative Cover Design for Landfill Closures -Govemment regulations provide that closed landfills must be covered in a manner that meets exacting requirements. WMD's staff have sought out efficient but less costly alternative cover designs. With the approval of state and regional regulators, one such alternative cover design is being used for the closure of the Lebec Sanitary Landfill. An altemative cover design is also proposed for the China Grade Sanitary Landfill. Depending on the size of the landfill, it is estimated that for each landfill closure site where alternative cover designs can be used, they will save between and $2,500,000. Model Final Closure and Post-closure Maintenance Plan - Consultants were retained to develop the Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plans (FC/PCMP) for the Lebec Daphne H. WaShing~on, Director 27OO '~r' Sbeet,'S.u~ 5OO Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862.~J00 (800) 552-KERN (oplion 6) . Fax:. (661) 862-8901 November 13, 2002 htlp://www, co,kern.ca.us/wmd/wmd.htm VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST CLASS MAIL City of Bakersfield City Manager's Office Attn: Alan Tandy 1.501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: SUBJECT: Proposed Landfill Fee Increase Thank you for .your letter of November 1, 2002 commenting on the proposed adjustments to the waste disposal fees in Kern Countyl We appreciate your concerns, and are committed to working with the City of Bakersfield to create a fee structure that is as fair and equitable as possible. However, many of the objections to the fee proposal contained in your letter appear to be based on an inaccurate understanding of our current and proposed fee structure. We are providing you with a fairly lengthy, two-part response to your letter so that you will be .better informed as to the basis of :the fee proposal and, once armed with this information,, hopefully, better able to constructivelY comment on our recommendations. Part One of this letter will. provide you with an overall framework for understanding, the .structure of our fee recommendation. Part Two of the. letter will resp°nd directly to your specific comments. ' ..PART ONE: FEE STRUCTURF The Kem County Waste Management Deparlment is COmmitted to the operation of a fair and efficient..solid waste disposal system. Consistent with that commitment; We have made numerous changes in our operations over the last decade to reduce waste disposal costs and to contain the costs, as much as possible, for state and Federal environmental regulations. As a reSult of this work, waste disposal fees have not increased in the County of Kern since 1990. We do have a unique land use fee/bin fee/gate fee system in Kem County, which is designed to simultaneously reduce incentives for residential illegal dumping and create incentives for commercial waste diversion. This system has served the County of Kem' and City of Bakersfield well, as both jurisdictions are meeting State waste diversion' mandates while maintaining waste disposal fees well bel°w statewide norms. ..... . Winner of local, state and notional awards for innovation and efficiency. J~Oh~- ~,O~..,~'C:~..., city of Bakersfield Page 3 November 13,.'2002 jurisdictions pay the same amount per-disposed ton in our proposal. The Ci~s costs appear to be increasing more than costs in other jurisdictions - not because you are being charged mOre than others, but because the City is losing the artificial discount 'it enjoyed relative to other cities due to your shift to gate fees as. a temporarily'cheaper method to pay your disposal charges. Fee systems are often complex. A balance between accuracy and ease of administration is always struck at 'some level. Our current fee structure, and the proposed fee structure, both strike that balance appropriately. BaSed on currently available data, we have proposed.-setting the fee in a manner equitable for all jurisdictions and all rate payers.. It has the potential to have a more significant 'impact on the City of Bakersfield than some other jurisdictions because of decisions you have made in the past relative to your own fee structure and :operating practices.. There may still be some cross-jurisdictional subsidy problems with the way the Mount Vemon facility is financed. We are committed to resolving those issues, but not to the .detriment of the effective, fair system we have developed and operated in Kem County for a number of years. -PART TWO: SPECIFIC RESPONSES 'The County's proposed landfill fee increase appears to impact the City of Bakersfield more severely than other landfill users. We do .not support the proposal, which:' · City's .Position -"Lowers commercial fees 5% in the County and other cities, while raising fees for Bakersfield and Taft;' County's Response - The solid waste fees are the same in all parts of the County and do not vary by city. The proposed gate fee for commercial waste is $36.00 per ton and the proposed bin disposal fee for commercial waste is $1.90 per cubic yard. These fees will apply in all areas of the County and in all cities in the County. The City of Bakersf~ld and the City of Taft chose to pay gate fees for the commercial waste they dispose in the County's system. Presumably,' they chose the gate fee payment method to take advantage of an emerging inequity between the gate fee and the bin disposal fee.. The County's.. proposed fee adjuStment was designed to correct the inequity between the gate fee per ton and the bin disposal fee per cubic yard. The County has very carefully balanced the amount of the land use fee, the gate fee and the bin disposal fee to ensure that each payment method charges an equivalent amount on a .per ton basis.. 'If the City of Bakersfield would prefer to switch back to paying the bin disposal.fee., please let us know. We can cancel the City's current agreement to pay gate fees. City's Position - 'Raises residential fee by $9 per year, or 15. 8%, in spite of our ~ · reduced use of landfills. The plan fails to relate residential fees to the amoUnt disposed, as required by State law. It does not give credit to communities for effective greenwaste recycling programs. County's Response - As discussed above, the County has gone to great lengths to ensure the land use fee, gate fee and bin disposal fee are in balance on a cost per ton City of Bakers~ld Page 5 November 13, 2002 per ton basis. The amount of revenue the County expects .to receive from any part of Kern County, or any city, is'$3~.00 per'ton. The method of payment will be either via the land use fee per Year, the gate fee per ton or the bin disposal fee'per cubic yard of bin volume. Regardless of the payment method, the County expects to produce an equivalent amount of revenue per ton disposed, based on a County-wicl~ average. The County did not target the City of Bakersfield or any other jurisdiction to "balance its' budget." City's Position- "Furthermore, it hurts residents of communities, who help the Countywide system with their recycling efforts. Bakersfield should not be penalized for' recycling. Historically, .the County has included the cost of' greenwaste disposal in landfill fees. Bakersfield has removed greenwaste from both ,commercial and residential disposal. Charging Bakersfield according-to 'averages' from other areas fails to account forthis." County's Response - The City of Bakersfield does not accept green waste fr°m other cities and, therefore, does not really participate in a "County-wide diversion effort." The City's program does accept green waste from the unincorporated portion of the Bakersfield area and the County pays the City of Bakersfield for its share of this green waste. In addition, the County operates its own green waste recycling programs and these programs receive a significant'amount of green waste from the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is not charged for the green waste that is managed by County facilities, but the City does receive diversion credit. SUMMARY The County has worked with your staff on these issues for the last year. We feel that there has been a constructive dialogue. If the City and County continue to work in an open, honest, and-constructive manner, we expect to move toward resolution of any remaining issues. We must maintain a dear understanding of the facts - and the fact is that the County is proposing to equalize on .a per ton basis waste disposal charges throughout the county. These charges are the same in all jurisdictions. They are calculated based on available data in a manner which is consistent with the City's own practices for calculating waste collection charges. They are fair. The fee sYstem is not-perfect - no fee system is. However, we feel the facts, as presented in your letter, are somewhat distorted. The City has enjoyed lower disposal rates due to your decision to take advantage of an inequity that developed between the original bin disposal charge and the gate fee. Now that the inequity is being eliminated, and your disposal charges will match .that of other jurisdictions and businesses, describing this change as some sort of unfair attack on the City is simply wrong. A better system for sharing green waste diversion costs in Metropolitan Bakersfield needs to be developed - and can be developed - if we work together. This issue, however, must be pursued within the framework of a fee structure that is fair .to all Kern County jurisdictions. ~=NI¥:~; ~11¥ UP UAKEH~klELD; '3241850; N0V-4-02 t0:3§AU; PA~E 2/3 ]~ A K E ]{ S F I E L D Alan Tandy · City Manager November 1, 2002 Ms.' Daphne Washington, Director Kern County Waste Management Department 2700 M.Streel, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93.309 RE: Proposed Landfill Fee Increase Dear Ms. Washington: The County's proposed landfill fee increaSe appears to impact the City of Bakersfield rr~re sever_ely.than otherlandfill users. We do not.support the proposal, which: · Lowers commercial fees 5% in the County and other cities, while raising fees for Bakersfield and Taft;, · Raises residential fees by $9 Per year, or 15,8%, in spite of our reduced use of landfills, The plan ~ails to relate*residential .fees t° the amount disposed, as required by State law. it does not give credit to communities for 'effective greenwaste recycling programs. · Raises BakerSfield's ~comme'rCial fees by $7 Per.ton, or 24.1%. The'City and a small group of businesses will pay over $900,000 per year more, while buSinesSes the City will receive a discount. · Continues the practice of funding County~ly program costs with revenue from City businesses and residents. The proposed fee increase appeam lO balanC~ the COUnty's landfill' budget on the City of Bakersfield. The proposed fee increase appears to collect the majority of the County's' new revenue from the City of Bakersfield, as opposed to other areas. Furthermore, it hurts residents of communities who help the C~untywide system with their recycling efforts, Bakersfield should not be penalized for recycling.. Historically, the County has Included the cost of. greenwaste disposal in landfill fees. Bakersfield has removed greenwaste from both commercial and residential disposal. Charging Bakersfield according to "averages" from other areas fails'to account for this. -.. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-37.51 · Fax (661) 852-2050