10/29/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager requested consideration of October 23, 1974 committee action out of order to accommodate Robert Deverell, chairman of the Garbage Board, who was able to be present for a short time to (0060) answer questions with regard to the Board's recommendation to allow the proposed increase in e garbage rates. There were no objections and the item was brought on with explanation from the Chair that the Council had tentatively approved the proposed increase for a six-month period, during which time a study and analysis of the proposed rates would be conducted by staff to determine whether the action at the .end of the six-month period would be continued, rescinded, or modified by the Council. Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mrs. Campbell to approve the Octboer 23, 1974 committee action. Councilman Murray inquired about, the propriety,: of segregating the item for public hearing when it had not been publicized as a public hearing. Councilman Williams responded that in committee it was brought out that the present issue was different than that under discussion when previous I public hearing was held, hence it was intended to open the question for public comment at this time. (0111) Councilman Keller repeated his concerns - he wondered how the Garbage Board could justify a 30% increase in commercial rates, and what action would result should the rates be found ex- cessive at the end of six months. He also inquired about the 5~ differential between residen- tial ($2.95) and commercial rates ($3.00) for one can pickup once a week when the garbage haulers themselves, he said, advocated the commercial rate was more ecnomical. e Mr. Deverell said the Board felt the 30% commercial rate increase was not excessive after re- view and comparison with rates in other cities and taking into consideration inflation, cost of equipment and labor, etc. With regard to the differential between residential and commercial one-can pickup, he said, the commercial rate was really not more economical because on com- mercial routes usually the haulers had to go farther for the pickup then on residential routes. He added that there might be some adj,ustment in that rate resulting in a greater differential if a customer were to place the garbage can on the curb. Mr. Deverell explained that the Board had decided upon an annual review in February, so the proposed six-month trial period would fit in with that decision. (0190) Councilman~McDonald said he would vote against the increase. He was concerned for people on fixed incomes and noted the increase granted a short time back. He preferred waiting until after an analysis of costs was made rather than granting an increase and possibly hav:b'1g to make another change after the six-month period. Mr. Deverell explained that .the six~month trial period probably came about because the garbage people apparently were not furnishing the data upon which a good analysis of costs could be based. He said a system was being estab- lished to gain the same statistics from all the haulers, thereby allowing better comparisons of costs. In the meantime, he said, the haulers were facing an inflationary trend in addition to higher costs and it was felt an increase in rates was justified. He added that the com- mercial haulers had not had an increase since 1971 and they did need some help so they would not have to absorb the increased dumping fees in effect since failure of the County's garbage e levy. (0270) Councilman Murray was bothered by the indecisiveness of having to wait for staff analysis to justify the requested increase, or making the increase and having to reconsider that action later on. He. felt it would be better to accelerate the staff research as quickly as possible; it didn't seem proper to authorize the increase and then reconsider the action to see if it was the right thing to do. Councilman Williams thought there was no question that some increase was warranted. He said if the proposed increase proved to be inequitable or improperly distributed the mechanism did exist to change both the allocation and amounts in the future without serious damage to anyone in the process. Not to grant some increase in face of higher equipment and labor costs seemed unfair, he said. (0313) Councilman Keller noted that in some instances the increases amounted to 50% or 60%, that it was not a flat 30%, and that to him seemed excessive. Co~ncilman Murray agreed and commented on staff's report that there was doubt about the validity of the rates established in 1971. He thought the basis on which the increased rates were established should be known before action was taken. (0330) Manager explained that the auditing s~ct~on of the finance department found that some way of . analyzing the basis upon which the pr9posed rates were structured was needed rather than just making a comparison between the 1971 and 1974 costs. That analysis, they found, in view of the changes in routes and ownerships,. different bookkeeping procedures among the various haulers, etc. , could not be accomplished without taking finance department staff away from other high priority work, including the annual audit. So the six-month period ~as recommended to give the opportunity to reconstruct the garbage haulers rate structure. The extent of the analysis was not known, he said, because it wasn't known for sure how much financial informa- tion would be available from the haulers, although that information had been offered, so long as it was kept confidential. The Garbage Board evidently was convinced that without some sort 3b\ 10/29/74 - 3