Council Digs in its Heels on Trash Rate Hike

After nearly three hours of sometimes heated debate among council members, a steady stream of residents and business owners speaking out in solid oppostion, review and re-review of various rate options by the city's consultant, and input from city staff, the vote on the proposed 22.6 percent Recology rate increase was ultimately deferred. 

The council voted 4-1, with Warren Lieberman casting the dissenting vote, to authorize city manager, Greg Scoles to enter into negotiation with Recology for an extension on the current December 15 contract agreement deadline.

Scoles will also have the authority to discuss a potential list of service reductions or other alternatives to lower the overall rate increase.

The public hearing, pursuant to provisions of Propostion 218, was held to consider the ordinance that would increase the city's solid waste charges. 

The proposition also gives the public an opportunity to oppose the rate increase through a written protest, however, the city only received 287 protests-- a small fraction of the number required to prevent the city council from raising the rate.

The city's consultant on the ordinance, Mike Brown, reviewed the rate adjustments options that were presented at September 27 and November 9 city council meetings. He reminded the council that the 22 percent is the amount allowed by the contract that the council entered into with Recology last year. 

As service provider, Recology is not a rate-setting entity, and is not seeking the rate increase per se. The company's cost increase is only about 1.5 percent of the overall proposed increase. The remaining 21-22 percent is due to insufficient revenue collection by the City of Belmont. That insufficient revenue collection is the result of the unexpetedly high number of customers who migrated to smaller trash bins--mostly from 32-gallon bins to 20-gallon bins.

The city council must now address the imbalance between the revenue it collects and the cost of the services. 

During the public comment period, both residential and commercial customers voiced their strong opposition to the rate hike.

Al Bullock, said that not only does he not produce a lot of trash, but that the Recology trucks are causing wear and tear on the city streets, which will ultimately cost the city even more money in repairs. "And another thing," added Bullock, "Why do I have to pay the six months in advance? I don't even buy green bananas."

Business owner Mary Morissey Parden asked for parity between residential and commercial customers, "It's not right to penalize the commercial customers, Parden said. "We should pay for what we use--recycling or garbage."

Parden also reminded the council that Recology doesn't set the rates, "You the council sets the rates," she said.

And a landlord whose tenants are mostly senior citizens said she would have to raise rents to cover the increased cost of trash collection. 

Consultant Mike Brown outlined the three rate options: a 22.6 percent uniform increase; 15.8 percent uniform increase; and 15.28 percent migration-based increase. Options two and three would have to be financed either through a city cash source (Rate Stabilization Fund, or Solid Waste Fund), or through a new fee cover the $365,000 fixed cost.

Regardless of how the council votes, the city still owes Recology $700,000 over two years according to the contract.

Councilmembers each had their say on the various options, or, on none of the options.

Councilmember Christine Wozniak wasn't crazy about any of the options, but weighed in on Option 2 (15.8 percent increase) because she felt it was the most progressive. She received applause from audience members when she suggested customers be awarded for good recycling practices.  

"We should still put pressure on those who still use the 64-and 96-gallon commercial and residential bins, and we should continue to award good behavior."

Wozinak continued, "We (city council), set the rates, and we owe Recology the money--it's in their contract."

Vice Mayor Dave Warden was teleconferenced in from London. He was prepared with staff reports and council agendas from April 2010, from which he read in great detail the rate discussions that took place before the city moved from Allied Waste to Recology.  "I'm a little annoyed by all of this," he said.

"We were sold a bill of goods when we signed this contract, and now we find out there was a $600-700,000 mistake," said Warden.

"And I think we need to figure out an Option 4."

Councilmember Warren Lieberman didn't like any of the three options, "I need to make sure that whatever I vote for has some equity. It's not fair for commercial to pay for the shortfall for what we don't get from residential."

"I think all three options are all inequitable, so I can't vote for any of those three," said Lieberman.

Councilmember David Braunstein emphasized creating a pricing structure that "is palatable to the council and the residents, but at the end of the day we have to pay Recology back."

And Mayor Coralin Feierbach concluded the discussion by saying, "They better think of another way--I'm voting no."

Since the contract agreement deadline is December 15, the city attorney Scott Rennie and city manager Greg Scoles suggested the council give Scoles authority to seek a deadline extension from Recology.