Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-11-15 PacketM - MOTION CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting Prompt CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 15, 1995 6:30 p.m. RC - ROLL CALL AD - AS DESIRED VV- VOICE VOTE M/RC 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 . Mayor to read . Mayor to Read M/RC all once . Mayor to Read RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff`and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Report for October 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims for Damages Received from Helen Miller; Lori Ann Cashada, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier c. Adoption of Ordinance Adopting 1994 Uniform Fire Code, Amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, Entitled, Respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning, and Amending Chapter 4, Entitled, Fires d. Award of Bid for Steel Bolted Water Tank to Peabody TecTank Company in the Amount of $21,815 e. Authorize Continued Advertising for One Vacancy on Airport Commission AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. M- MOTION RC- ROLL CALL AD AS DESIRED VV- VOICE VOTE 7. PUBLIC HEARING- 7:00 p.m. M/RC a. Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Adjusting Fees and Charges for Refuse and Recycling Collection in the City of Ukiah i. Approval of Revision to Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Agreement ii. Authorization of Budget Amendment 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Closed Session 1 st a. AD b. Reallocation of Interest Income and Distribution of PERS Surplus Identify Council Desired Discussion Topics for Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting of November 29, 1995 9. NEW BUSINESS 1VdRC VV VV M/RC M/RC M/RC 10. 11. 12. a. Authorize Transfer of Funds, $9,510.52, from NCPA General Operating Account for Hydroelectric Plant Work b. Approval of Amendment to Contract with Municipal Resource Consultants for Revenue Enhancement Services for Business License Information and Transfer Tax, Franchise Fees and Property Tax c. Approval of 1996-97 Budget Schedule and Setting of Date for Council/Staff Goal Setting Strategic Planning Session d. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Ukiah and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency for Grant Administration of Economic Development Block Grant No. 94-EDBG-333 e. Discussion of Formation of Joint Powers Agreement for Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission f. Approval of Appraisal Report for Right of Way Acquisiton at 825 North State Street, Shoemaker Parcel g. Adoption of Resolution Approving Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS CLOSED SESSION Announce Announce Announce a. G.C. Section 54956.8 - Conference with Real Property Negotiator Regarding 825 North State Street Property, for Right of Way Acquisition from R. Shoemaker Parcel b. G.C. Section 54957.6 - Conference with Labor Negotiator, Ukiah City Manager - Management Unit c. G.C. Section 54956.9 - Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation: One Case 13. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to ............. To November 29, 1995, 7:00 p.m., in Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting RESUME CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 15, 1995 6:30 p.m. Approved Approved Denied Adopted Awarded Authorized 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 . . . RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff.and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Report for October 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims for Damages Received from Helen Miller; Lori Ann Cashada, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier c. Adoption of Ordinance Adopting 1994 Uniform Fire Code, Amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, Entitled, Respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning, and Amending Chapter 4, Entitled, Fires d. Award of Bid for Steel Bolted Water Tank to Peabody TecTank Company in the Amount of $21,815 e. Authorize Continued Advertising for One Vacancy on Airport Commission AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. · Adptd Res. No. a. 95-26 staffrec, less 1.6% recovery of funds lost in prior year Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Adjusting Fees and Charges for Refuse and Recycling Collection in the City of Ukiah i. Approval of Revision to Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Agreement ii. Authorization of Budget Amendment 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Allocate Cityfimds a. Reallocation of Interest Income and Distribution of PERS Surplus only method PERS surplus as recommended by staff Discussed b. Identify Council Desired Discussion Topics for Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting of November 29, 1995 9. NEW BUSINESS Authorized a. Authorize TransfEr of Funds, $9,510.52, from NCPA General Operating Account for Hydroelectric Plant Work Approved b. Approval of Amendment to Contract with Municipal Resource Consultants for Revenue Enhancement Services for Business License Information and Transfer Tax, Franchise Fees and Property Tax Approved c. Approval of 1996-97 Budget Schedule and Setting of Date for Council/Staff Goal Setting Strategic Planning Session Approved d. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Ukiah and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency for Grant Administration of Economic Development Block Grant No. 94-EDBG-333 Schneiter City Rep. e. Discussion of Formation of Joint Powers Agreement for Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Approved & auth. f. Approval of Appraisal Report for Right of Way Acquisiton at 825 North State Street, staff to offer appr. amt. Shoemaker Parcel Adptd. Res. 95-27 g. Adoption of Resolution Approving Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding Apprvd. as Prpsed by City Manager No Action 10. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS 11. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS 12. CLOSED SESSION In- 10:08 Out - 10:55 p.m. see 9f. a.G.C. Section 54956.8 - Conference with Real Property Negotiator Regarding 825 North State Street Property, for Right of Way Acquisition from R. Shoemaker Parcel b. G.C. Section 54957.6 - Conference with Labor Negotiator, Ukiah City Manager - Management Unit c. G.C. Section 54956.9 - Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation: One Case 13. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned to .......... To November 29, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. CITY OF UKIAH CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 November 15, 1995 6:30 p.m. 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 1, 1995 . . o RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Persons who are dissatisfied with a decision of the City Council may have the right to a review of that decision by a court. The City has adopted Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure which generally limits to ninety days (90) the time within which the decision of the City Boards and Agencies may be judicially challenged. CONSENT CALENDAR The following items listed are considered routine and will be enacted by a single motion and roll call vote by the City Council. Items may be removed from the Consent Calendar upon request of a Councilmember or a citizen in which event the item will be considered at the completion of all other items on the agenda. The motion by the City Council on the Consent Calendar will approve and make findings in accordance with Administrative Staff and/or Planning Commission recommendations. a. Approval of Report for October 1995 Disbursements b. Deny Claims for Damages Received from Helen Miller; Lori Ann Cashada, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier c. Adoption of Ordinance Adopting 1994 Uniform Fire Code, Amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, Entitled, Respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning, and Amending Chapter 4, Entitled, Fires d. Award of Bid for Steel Bolted Water Tank to Peabody TecTank Company in the Amount of $21,815 e. Authorize Continued Advertising for One Vacancy on Airport Commission AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS The City Council welcomes input from the audience. If there is an item of business on the agenda that you are interested in, you may address the Council when this matter is considered. If you wish to speak on a matter that is not on this agenda, you may do so at this time. In order for everyone to be heard, please limit your comments to three (3) minutes per person and not more than ten (10) minutes per subject. The Brown Act regulations do not allow action to be taken on audience comments in which the subject is not listed on the agenda. 7. PUBLIC HEARING- 7:00 p.m. ao Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Adjusting Fees and Charges for Refuse and Recycling Collection in the City of Ukiah I. Approval of Revision to Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Agreement ii. Authorization of Budget Amendment 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ao Reallocation of Interest Income and Distribution of PERS Surplus Identify Council Desired Discussion Topics for Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting of November 29, 1995 9. NEW BUSINESS a. Authorize Transfer of Funds, $9,510.52, from NCPA General Operating Account for Hydroelectric Plant Work b. Approval of Amendment to Contract with Municipal Resource Consultants for Revenue Enhancement Services for Business License Information and Transfer Tax, Franchise Fees and Property Tax c. Approval of 1996-97 Budget Schedule and Setting of Date for Council/Staff Goal Setting Strategic Planning Session d. Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Between City of Ukiah and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency for Grant Administration of Economic Development Block Grant No. 94-EDBG-333 e. Discussion of Formation of Joint Powers Agreement for Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission f. Approval of Appraisal Report for Right of Way Acquisiton at 825 North State Street, Shoemaker Parcel g. Adoption of Resolution Approving Management Unit Memorandum of Understanding 10. 11. 12. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS CLOSED SESSION a. G.C. Section 54956.8 - Conference with Real Property Negotiator Regarding 825 North State Street Property, for Right of Way Acquisition from R. Shoemaker Parcel b. G.C. Section 54957.6 - Conference with Labor Negotiator, Ukiah City Manager - Management Unit c. G.C. Section 54956.9 - Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation: One Case 13. ADJOURNMENT To November 29, 1995, 7:00 p.m., in Civic Center Council Chambers, 300 Seminary Avenue for Joint Meeting with Planning Commission The City of Ukiah complies with ADA requirements and will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities upon request. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 DRAFT The City Council convened in a regular meeting, of which the agenda was legally noticed and posted, at 6:30 p.m. Roll was taken and the following Councilmembers were present: Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. Staff present: City Clerk McKay, Public Utility Director Barnes, City Engineer/Public Works Director Kennedy, Senior Planner Stump, Planning Director Sawyer, Assistant Redevelopment Director DeKnoblough, Finance Director Elton, Assistant to the City Manager Harris, Public Safety Director Keplinger, Fire Marshall Sprehn, Fire Captain Evans and Fire Operations Commander Sandelin. 2. Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance The City Clerk delivered the Invocation and Councilmember Wattenburger led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Approval/Correction of Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 18, 1995 Councilmember Mastin made the following corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of October 18, 1995; Page 1, Item 3a., 2nd paragraph, 1st line, change "Ramon" to "Ramona"; Page 4, Item 9e., sixth paragraph, last line, add "and Mendocino Transit Authority" after the word "sharing"; same page and Item 9e., llth paragraph, second line, delete "in the" and replace with "on", and third line add "area" after the word "Street" and replace the word "lot" with "area". Councilmember Wattenburger made a correction to Page 1, Item 4, noting he had abstained from the vote, instead of the indicated vote of AYE. M/S Mastin/Wattenburger to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 18, 1995, as amended. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 4. RIGHT TO APPEAL DECISION Mayor Schneiter reviewed Government Code Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Shoemaker pulled Item 5d. Rejection of Bids Received for Tree Trimming Services. No. D1683. This item then became New Business Item 9d. M/S Shoemaker/Wattenburger to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 5a. Received and approved Report of May 1995 Disbursements 5b. Received and approved Report of June 1995 Disbursements 5c. Received and filed report of purchase pursuant to U.C.C. Section 1522A3 for three personal computers for the Finance Department from Blackship Computer Systems, Inc., in the amount of $6,218.36 5e. Awarded bid for four 50KVA, three 150KVA, and one 500KVA various electrical transformers to General Electric Supply Company in the respective amounts of $6,911.20, $21,702.03 and $11,456.45. 5f. Awarded bid for seven S.W.A.T. Entry Vests to U.S. Armor Corporation in the amount of $10,647.29 The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS No one came forward. The City Manager noted the need has arisen since the close of the agenda for Council to take action on four items of business which cannot wait until the next agenda. It was the consensus of Council to add the following items of emergency business as follows to this agenda, as follows; 9e. Authorize Sale of Surplus Ambulance Fire Med 4. 9f. Authorize the City Manager to Cancel Order for One 1996 Crown Victoria, Amend Purchase Order 27456 to Reflect Two Vehicles at 2/3 Price and Issue New Purchase Order for 1995 Crown Victoria LX in the Amount Remaining 1/3, Plus $2,500 Trade-in for 1987 Buick Regal. 9g. Consideration of Memorandum, Dated October 19, 1995 from MCOG Relative to Eel River Pump Project. 12a. Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation - Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 one case. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Sa. Approval of Resolution Adopting the Housing Element Update of the Ukiah Valley General Plan The Planning Director reported on the State requirements for housing elements, which must be reviewed by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for legal compliance. He explained this has been accomplished and it now must be forwarded to Council for adoption so that it can be submitted to HCD for certification and remain in good stead for block grant funds, as directed by the HCD. Councilmember Mastin noted he found several non-substantial typographical errors and reviewed them with staff and Council. M/S Mastin/Wattenburger to adopt Resolution No. 96-25 adopting the Ukiah Valley General Plan Housing Element Update, as corrected. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. NEW BUSINESS 9a. Authorize the Mayor to Execute Amendment No. 5 of Engineering Services Contract for Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Project Between the City of Ukiah and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc., Dated May 21, 1992, for an Amount Not to Exceed $68,900 The Public Utility Director reported as the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Project is nearing completion, required additional engineering services are needed. He explained this amendment No. 5 will cover the additional tasks required for completion of the construction phase, prime engineering requirements for the State Water Resource Control Board and the installation of needed primary process equipment. He reviewed the reasons for funding shortfall and the funds needed for these additional tasks and amendment No. 5 to Kennedy Jenks Consultants Inc. original agreement. Council queried staff regarding total costs for engineering, equipment, technical manual, and computer integration. Councilmember Shoemaker indicated his surprise at a charqe for a manual when the City has paid them so much money and i~dicated maybe it could be provided as gratis. Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 M/S Mastin/Wattenburger authorized the Mayor to execute amendment No. 5 to agreement between the City of Ukiah and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants dated May 21, 1992 for an amount not to exceed $68,900; authorized a budget amendment to increase the expense budget 611- 7410-250 in the amount of $48,600 transfer from City Capital Fund 620 and from District Capital Fund 650 $15,822 each, to cover unfunded portion of Items 1 and 2 and increase the revenue budget in Fund 611 by $16,956. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 9b. Authorize Acquisition of Easement From Triond, a General Partnership, and Expenditure of Public Funds in the Amount of $12,170 for Public Street Purposes on Northeast Corner of Brush Street at State Street Councilmember Shoemaker removed himself from this portion of the meeting due to a conflict of interest at 6:58 p.m. The City Engineer/Public Works Director reported on the need for funding authorization in the amount of $12,170 for the acquisition of an easement for street and utility purposes on property owned by Triond, a general partnership, on the north side of Brush Street, for a 10 foot strip of land. Mayor Schneiter noted a correction to the map attached as an exhibit. M/S Wattenburger/Malone to authorize the easement acquisition for street and public utility purposes on property located on the northeast corner of Brush and State Streets, address 915 North State Street, and owned by Triond, a General Partnership, subject to construction conditions as identified in this report for the monetary amount of $12,170 and authorized the acquisition of title and escrow services from Redwood Empire Title Company. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. Absent: Councilmember Shoemaker. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 p.m. 7a. Consideration and Introduction of Ordinance Adopting 1994 Uniform Fire Code, Amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles i and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, Entitled, Respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning. Councilmember Shoemaker rejoined the meeting at this time. The Fire Marshall reported the City adopted the 1988 Uniform Fire Code in 1990 with amendments. He reviewed each of the amendments made at that time and since. He explained that the Uniform Fire Code is published every three years by the International Fire Code Institute. He explained the State of California adopted and published this code, with amendments, on July 1, 1995. He reported this code now becomes effective 180 days after publishing, and local jurisdictions have this time to adopt the code to allow future amendments. He noted if a jurisdiction does not adopt this code during this time frame, it becomes effective by State statute and is not allowed to be amended until the next code is published in three years. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 7:06 p.m. No one came forward. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 7:07 p.m. M/S Wattenburger/Malone to read the title only for the first reading of the Ordinance. The motion was carried with a unanimous voice vote of all AYE. Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 The City Clerk read the title only of the proposed Ordinance. M/S Wattenburger/Mastin to introduce Ordinance amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, entitled, respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning, and amending Chapter 4 entitled ~. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 9c. Reallocation of Interest Income and Distribution of PERS Surplus The Finance Director reported on the auditors findings and recommendations for two possible adjustments to accounting records due to the August disposal of investments and explained accounting methods for all funds and city funds methods for interest reallocation and noted the need to determine PERS Surplus distribution. Discussion ensued regarding reduced account funds and effects. The City Manager requested a recess to discuss this matter with staff. Recess - 7:21 p.m. Reconvened - 7:24 p.m. The City Attorney offered the advise that the City's outside investment counsel should review this matter and recommended tabling this item of business until the regular meeting of November 15, 1995. M/S Malone/Wattenburger to table this discussion and continue this matter to November 15, 1995. The motion was carried by a unanimous voice vote of all AYE. 9d. Rejection of Bids Received for Tree Trimming Services, Req. No. D1683 Councilmember Shoemaker quieried staff reagrding the costs of certified tree trimmers, prevailing wage job, three person crew with equipment costs, and the bid process. The Public Utility Director reported the low bidders were deemed inadequate and explained the non-compliance matters with the bid specifications. Councilmember Shoemaker expressed concern about rebidding this to accommodate certifications and would prefer to award the bid to the lowest bidder. M/S Shoemaker/Schneiter to award the bid for tree trimming services to the lowest bidder. Discussion ensued regarding certification qualifications and City staff's attempts to gain bid compliance. The City Attorney noted it is common practice to reject all bids instead of trying to gain bid compliance. Mayor Schneiter called for the question. The motion on the floor failed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone and Wattenburger. M/S Malone/Mastin to reject all bids for Trees Trimming Services, opened October 10, 1995. The motion was carried by the following Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 4 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, and Wattenburger. NOES: Councilmember Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. 9e. Sale of Surplus Ambulance Fire Med 4 M/S Wattenburger/Malone to declare the vehicle known as Fire Med 4 to be surplus property and authorized the sale of the vehicle to Miksis Services, Inc. for $5,000, as is/where is with no warranty, written or implied. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 9f. Purchase of Vehicle for Police Department M/S Shoemaker/Wattenburger authorized the City Manager to cancel one 1996 Crown Victoria from production and delivery in February; amend purchase order 27456 to reflect two vehicles at two thirds of bid price; issue new purchase order for 1995 Crown Victoria LX in the amount of remaining one third, plus $2,500 trade-in value of 1987 Buick Regal. The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter. NOES: None. 9g. Consideration of Memorandum, Dated October 19, 1995 from Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) Relative to Eel River Pump Project Councilmember Shoemaker reported to Council on this issue which is being considered by MCOG, and clarified MCOG's stance. Mayor Schneiter expressed concern regarding an opened ended Environmental Impact Report costs, and whether this effort by MCOG is appropriate considering the funding constraints of public agencies. He noted several other local water agencies, who are experts and have actual legal water rights and authority. Discussion ensued regarding State water rights questions, the funding constraints of MCOG with transportation issues, the responsibility of water rights resting at the Board of Supervisors, and storage issues with previous water rights issues mistakes. The City Attorney informed Council of a Joint Powers agreement approved by the County, and there is an upcoming water board meeting to discuss efforts to consolidate water districts. Discussion ensued regarding proper water representation and expertise needed concerning complicated water rights issues. Councilmember Shoemaker noted he will forward Council's comments to MCOG. 10. CITY COUNCIL/REPORTS Councilmember Mastin - Distributed an information packet of Economic Development and Financing Corporation information to Council which contained a purpose statement, loan guidelines, and one year goals. Councilmember Malone - Reported that next week there will be a goal setting meeting including Cul%ural Arts Advisory Board, the Sun House Guild and Endowment Fund, and noted the upcoming Parducci appreciation dinner next week. Councilmember Wattenburger - Congratulated the City Manager on her recent 1995 Woman of Achievement award received from the Business and Professional Women of Ukiah; noted the Airport entrance sign, and reported on his attendance in the Pumpkinfest festivities noting he received great reviews, and thanked the Community Services Department for their efforts. Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 5 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH - November 1, 1995 Councilmember Shoemaker - Reported on his participation in the Pumpkinfest activities; reported on MCOG meeting he attended surrounding the SAFE program call box program; reported on the Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority progress on the new Household Hazardous Waste facility; and reported on the Annual League of California conference he attended in San Francisco. Mayor Schneiter - Reported on Geothermal issues; reported he met with staff and PG&E; and noted a Mayors/City Managers meeting tomorrow with in Ft. Bragg. 11. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENT HEAD REPORTS City Manager - Noted the costs for a National League of Cities subscriptions; proposed a date for a City Council/staff team workshop; and reminded Council she will be on vacation next week. Recessed - 8:17 p.m. to Ukiah Redevelopment Agency Reconvened - 9:09 p.m. CLOSED SESSION 12a. Closed Session for Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation - Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (1 case) Into Closed Session - 9:10 p.m. Out of Closed Session - 9:45 p.m. The City Attorney noted no action was taken. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. CCMIN.212 Cathy McKay CMC/AAE, City Clerk Reg. Mtg. November 1, 1995 Page 6 ITEM NO. 5a DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REPORT OF DISBURSEMENTS MADE DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 1995 Payments made during the month of October, 1995, are summarized on the attached Register of Payroll and Demand Payments. Further detail is supplied on the attached Schedules of Bills, representing the four (4) individual payment cycles within the month. Accounts Payable check numbers: 73854 to 74294. Payroll check numbers: 62035 to 62419. This report is submitted in accordance with Ukiah City Code Division 1, Chapter 7. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and approve attached Report of Disbursements. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Candace Horsley, City Manager Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Coordinated with: Kimberly Sechrest 463-6230 Attachments: Report of Disbursements APPROVED :~~i3~~,.Z~-_ AGENDA.WPD/krs CITY OF UKIAH REGISTER OF PAYROLL AND DEMAND PAYMENTS DATE: OCTOBER 1995 Demand Payments approved: Check No. 73854 to 74294 inclusive. FUNDS: 100 120 140 141 142 150 220 230 260 300 315 320 332 400 405 410 550 575 600 618 611 612 640 652 660 General Fund Capital Improvement Park Development Museum Grants National Science Foundation Civic Center Construction Parking Dist. Rev. Fund Parking Dist. #1 Rev. Fund Downtown Business Improv. Gas Tax Airport Capital Improvement Airport Clear Zone Fund Federal Emergency Grant Recreation Enterprise Youth Services Ukiah Conference Center Fund Lake Mendocino Bond Garage Airport Flood Damages Sewer Construction Fund City/District Sewer San. District Revolving Fund Redip. Sewer Enterprise Fund Sanit. Disp. Site $96,275.09 662 663 665 $3,410.00 670 $5,119.08 675 $384,463.65 678 $1,220.36 680 693 695 $4,217.50 696 697 698 $3,847.00 800 $41.69 805 $2,523.53 820 $12,590.76 920 910 $15,770.58 900 $19,579.28 940 950 $372,604.19 960 $30,290.43 962 $25.58 965 966 $14,199.31 310 JPA/LTF Fund Countywide JPA Refuse/Debris Control U.S.W. Billing & Collections Contracted Dispatch Services Public Safety Dispatch Ambulance Service Clubhouse Renovations Golf Warehouse/Stores Billing Enterprise Fund Fixed Asset Fund Electric Street Lights Water Liability Fund Worker's Comp. Fund Special Deposit Trust Payroll Posting Fund General Service Community Redev. Agency Redev. Housing Fund Redev. Capitol Imprv. Fund Redevelopment Debt Svc. Special Aviation Fund PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 62035 to PAYROLL PERIOD 09/24/1995 to PAYROLL CHECKS NO. 62231 to PAYROLL PERIOD 10/08/1995 to 62230 TOTAL 10/07/1995 TOTAL 62419 TOTAL 10/21/1995 DEMAND PAYMENTS PAYROLL DED. CHECKS PAYROLL CHECKS TOTAL PAYMENTS CERTIFICATION OF CITY CLERK This register of Payroll and Demand Payments was duly approved by the City Council on $81.37 $130,039.18 $1,103.42 $2,888.24 $24,512.96 $15,503.72 $3,434.82 $21.72 $695,666.97 $10,922.42 $67,727.35 $9,931.67 $93,837.51 $222.02 $11,657.03 $4,000.00 $143,887.87 $2,181,616.30 $143,132.11 $336,286.36 $2,661,034.77 City Clerk APPROVAL OF CITY MANAGER I have examined this Register and approve same. City Manager CERTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I have audited this Register and approve same for accuracy and available funds. Director of Finance O~ ~o ~ . i ~DZ U ~ ~ Z oooo~o~o~o~o~o~oooo~ o~ooo~o~~m~oo~o~ 0 ,-t ,,-I ,.t I~ 0 0 O0 h 2: 0 0 O0 ~ H 0 0 O0 D ~ 0 0 O0 [-,0 U ' 0 ~ 0 0 U 0 t- ~ ffl~, N ~ I'~ 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O0 O0 O0 O0 ~.~ O0 O0 O0 O0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0~0~ mmmm z n~ DD~D ~ ~ 0 0 ~mO Oh m 0 0 ~ N O 0 ~ ~ ~  O m O~ ~ N ooo ~ ooo M ~o ~ . U M ooo 0 0 0 0 ~t 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0000000000 00000 000 0000000000 00000 000 0000000000 00000 ~ ~ o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ~0 0000000000 00000 ~0 0000000000 00000 · 00 0000000000 00000 NNN 0~0~0~0 00000 ~ M M M M MM MM 0 h O0 O Z~ ooo ~ H H H [~ ~0 I~ · ,"¢ 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 ,-I O~ ~ r,~r~ ,..10 mO 0 O0 I ~10 0 O0 0 0 ,..¢ 00 0 000 0 000 ,=1 ,H ,-I ,-I 0 ,H ,-I~ ~' ~ O0 ,-I ,-¢ O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0¢ 0~1 ',~ ~' O0 0 O0 ,-I ,-I O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ,-I m ,...I ,-I ,-¢ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 m 0 0 m ~0 ~ .. ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ H ~ ~H 0 0 0 O0 0 00~ 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 0 O0 0 000 ~ 0 0 ~0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 H~ 0 000 Z Z ~H H 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 ~ ~ O0 ~ ~ ~ · O~ 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O~ H ~ H ~Z H ~ HZ >~ U . 0 I 0 000 0oo 000 ~ ,.-i ,-I 000000o000o0000oo000oooooo000000000o00oo000000o000000000 O000OO0000000000000oo000000000000000000000000oooooo0000o 00000000000000000000000000000000o0000000oo00000000000000 NNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNN~NNN~NNNNNN~N~N~N 000 000 000 UUU ~ UUU b m 0000 Z ~ 0~o · ooooooo000oooo000000ooooo000000000o0oo0000000000000ooooo 0 00o00000oooo0000o0ooooo000000oooo00000000ooooo00oo000o00 o 0o0o0o0o0000000000000000o00000000o0ooo000000000000oo0ooo o NNNNN~NNNN~NNNN~NN~N~NNNNNN~NNN~NNNNN~NNN~NN~NN~NNNNN~ ~ O0000MO~OOOONOOOOO~OOMM~OOOOOOOOMO~OOOONOOOOO~OOMM~O00 0 0000000~0000~0000~0~00~0000000~0000~0000~0~00~ 0 UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU ~ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH O ~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Offi H O0 O0 O0 O0 or~ oo oooo oooo 0ooo ooooooooooo OO o~ o o ooooooooooo oo oo o o 0o0ooooo0oo oo oo o o ooooo ooooo ooooo o0ooo o 00oo0ooo0oooo 0 0 0000000000000 0 ~ 0 0~0 0 O0 0 0~0 ~ 0 O0 0 0~0 U N NN N ~ ~ 0 O0 0 ~NNO HH.H 0 ~ O0 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ u 000 000 0~00~00 ~00 O0 O0 0~00~00 ~00 O0 O0 0~00000 ~00 O0 O0 0~0~0~0 O0 O0 : H H ~ ~ M~O 0 0 0 0 ~mO0 00000 ~00 0 O0~M 000~ .MO00 ~HHH ~000 ~ 0 .....o ~0~0~ 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 0000000000000 0 ~O0~OOH~O~O0 0 ~OMM~O~HH~H~O 0 000000000~0 HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHH ~UUUUUUUUUUUUU HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHNHHHHHNH H ~ 0 o oooooooooooooooooo ooo oo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OO OO O O OO O O O O O O OO O O OO O O O O O O ~~O OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO ~OO OO OO O O OO O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OO OO O O OO O O O O O O ~ OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOO OOO OO OO O O OO O O O O O O Z . ~ ~~0000~~0~ 00~ HH O0 0 0 O0 · 0 0 ~ 0 0 UU ~ ~ U ~ UU O0 0 UU U ~ Nh HH h hh Z ~ ~HH HNH ~ N ~ H ~ Z H ~ ~ 00~ m ~ O ~ a ~ O~HO~OON~N~OOOOOH~ W~ ~H~ 000 ~ ~ 000 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ 0~0~00~0~00~0 ~ P~ 000 ~ ~ 000 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ....................... 4'~ dd~ ..... ~ 4 ' ~ d ' o o o 000~00 000.00 HH HH OO OO HH 0 OO ~00%00 O O ~oo~oo HOODOO ~o~oo ~om~oo 0~ ~ 0~ ~o .U ~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUO ~ ~ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH ~ UHHHHHH Z > oo oo ,-I o o o o oo o o o oo ,-I o oooooo o o o o oooooo o o o o oooooo ~ ooo oo oooo ~Noooo o ooo oo oooo oooooo o ooo oo oooo oooooo ~00 00000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 ~ 000 O0 0000 000000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 ~ 000 O0 0000 000000 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 000 O0 0000 000000 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~0000 ~ 000 ~ ~ ~~ HH ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 .0 ~ 000000 0 000 ~ O~OH ~00~ · ~ 0 0 ~ O~ 0 0 · 0 ~~ 0 ~0 ~ 0~00 00~ HHHH ~0 U . > 00000000 00000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 0~ m 0N t~ ~00~ ,~ 0 N N,~ 0 O0 N N 0 0 00 0 O0 0 0 0 00 0 O0 0 0 NNNNN~NN~NN~NNNNNNNNNNN ~ ~ NN ~ NN ~ N 00000000 00000000 00000000 O00~N~O 000~0000 ON~O000000000~O00000000 0 00000000000000000000000 0 00000000000000000000000 0 . U H H HH .. Z O~ ~ ~ · . o~ o HH Id oooo88888888888ooooooooo8 . Id 0000 000000000 O ~ ~o U ' 0 ~ 0 0 Z 0 U U O~ O , > oo~ ~~ o ~bo~ooo o H O~OOMr~OM~t~OO~O~O~O~qO~O~0 0 ~oo~ ~ oo H 2: oo M: H oo D ,.~ oo O~ M MM U . 0 I 0 O0 O0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo oo ~ ~ ~ O0 O0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 000 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 000 0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 ...... 0 ..... 0 . . ~ o~ ~ o oo m ~ ~ oo~ o ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ o o o ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~o o oo o ~o ~ o oo ~o oo o ~ o o ~ M M ~Z M M H Z H ~ H H ~ D ~0 0 ~0 0 ~ ~ ZZO M~O M U U ~ 000 ~ 0 0 ~0~ ~ N~ 0 ~ ~ 0 000 000 ~0~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~ ~ ~ 0 ~0~ 0 ~0~ 0 00~ ~ 0 000 000 0~ P ~ 0 ~ .. . · . . . .,.. . . . ~o 0 ~ ~ OM  · H~O H ~ 0 0000 ~ H 0 0000 D ~ 0 0000 O~ DO ~ U . 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 N ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 000 0000 0 0000 000 0 0 O0 0 0 000 0000 0 0000 000 0 0 O0 0 0 000 0000 0 0000 000 0 0 O0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ~0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ~ 0 0000 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ~0 o oooo o o o o ~ ~ ~ oo~ ~ o ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ooo o~ ~ .... ~ ~ o ooo~ · o o · ~ o o ~ 0 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 0 0 0000 000 0 0 O~ H H u z zzzz ~ ~ z z~z z ~ zz ~oozz z ~z ~ ~ ~ ~z U U ~ ~ 00000 0 0 0 : 000 ~ 0 ~00~ ~H 0 O~PO~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~ 00000 ~ 0 0 000 ~ 0 NO~ ~PO0 0 ~0~0~ ~ ~ ~ P~ U H ~ 000 ~ N 000 D ~ 000 ~ . > 0 0 000 0 000 0 000 ~ ~ 0 N~O0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 00000 oo oo oo oooooo o oooooo o oooooo ,~, ,,:, ~ o ,,:, o ,~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooo ooo ooo 0 ~ 0 ~ UUU UUU~ 0 ~ ~> 0 0 0 0~000 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 00000 0 · 0 00000 ~ ~ ~ O~O~m o ~ o oooo~ 0 ~ ~ HH x m Z ~ O m X H H ~ ~ ~ U H ~ ~ x ~ ZHH~HH ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ u n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u u ~ H l ~ ~ o U ~ ~N~ o ~N~H 0 0 0 000000 0~ ~ ~0~ 0 ~ 0 H 0 0 ~ ~ Z ~ o Ho~ ~ o ~ ooo~o ~ ~ ~o~oH N ~ ~ ~ o o o ~ ~ .... ~ ....................... d d d ~ ' ' 000 h ~ h ~ UUUUU ~ ~ h ~ Z O~ u~ ~ v ZZZZZ Z ~ ~  .. Z m~ ~OZ ~ 0 ((~ ~ ~0 h 0 ~ m ~ U ~ ~ \ 0 h ~ 0 z ~ U ' > ~ ~ 0 U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000 0 0 0 000000000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 0 ,-I 0¢ 0,1 ~ 0 I'" ,,dOC ~'l ~ ~ 0 ,-I P- ~' I'-I'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 o o o . 0 o o . o ~ x x ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ U O O 0 0 000000000000000 0 0 000000000000000 0 0 000000000000000 ~ . ~ ~0000000~ 0 ~ 0 0~00~~~00 0 ~ 0 O0000000~OON~ 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 .......... ~00~0~ 0~0~00~0 o~~o oo~o~oo U ~ U > ~ ~ > ~ m om .n z .~ ! ~ zM m~ oo ~ff z~ H ~o O ' I O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 I~ r. r- ooo ooo ooo O0 O0 O0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 NNN~N~NN~NNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNN~NNN~N~NN OH~HH~OOO~O~OOOOOO~OOHO~OOO~OOOO~O~OH 000 000 hhh ~ hhh 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 o ~ ~ hh 0 ~ ~ mz UUUUUUOUUUOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUOUUUU ~ OD h HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~ ~ ~ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~... ~ o mzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz z~ ~x z ~00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 h~ ~0  o~ ~ ~ ooo ~ ~ ooo ~ ~ ooo > ~ ~ 0 U U rq~ O0 0 0 0 0000 0000000 O0 0 0 0 0000 0000000 O0 0 0 0 0000 0000000 I oo o o ~ ~ 0 ~ 0oo0 ~ 0 o,i ,-I iN el ~ ~ ~, I'- 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ ,-I 0 ,-,I ,H ,-I 0 0 ,-I 0 MOO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 00o 0~o o~o ~ 0~o 0 ~o oo ~ o oooo ooooooo oo o o oooo ooooooo oo o o oooo ooooooo ~ ~ J - ~ ........... ~ o~oo~ ~ o ~ ~ ~o~ ~o~oo~ oo o o ~ ooo~ ~o~o U ~O ~Z Z 0~ m ~ H 00000 > i~000 ~0 ,-.I gl r,. (D I'~ 0 0 0 o 0 o o00 ,-.I ~ ,-t ,-t ,-I o ,-I ,.-I ,-.I o 0 o o 0 0 ooo o o 0 0 o o 0 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00~00 U 00.00 o o o 0 0~00000000000000000~000 0 000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000000000 ~0~0000~0~00~000~00 00000000~0~000~0000000 000000 000000 000000 0000~ x x x N U U UU N~UU ~ h h ~ ZH hhh~ ~ h~h~hhh hhhh~h~ h ~m~ h~hh ~ ~00~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~M~ 0 ~00~00~0~00~0~0~00~ ~0~ ~NO0~ ~ ~ ~ 0 · ~ ~ ~ ~0~~00~00~~~ ........................................ mOOm · 0 ~mo M O O ~ Z Z a m Z h h m ~ ~ UUUUU M Z ~ 0 ~hhhhh H zo H 0 ~0~ 0000 0000 O0 O0 000 000 0000000000 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 000 0000000000 0 0 0 O0 O0 0 000 0000 0000 0000 .... 0000 u 0000 Z ~v~oo O0 O0 O0 · . O0 ~0 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0~ U HHH UUU~ D~DO 0 000 0 ~ 0 ~ 000 ~m ~ mmm~ O00~OH~O00 0 0 ~ O0 O0000HO000 0 0 0 O0 0000000000 0 0 0 O0 ~oooooo~o~ o ~ o oo 0~00000~0 0 ~ 0 P~ ~ZZ~ O ~ Z~OZ Z 0 H HH~ 0 0 0 U ,~m ooo~ · , . o~m 000 000 000 HHHH ZZZZ 0 [~ U ~ OU ~ > HUUU ~ ~m ~ ZZZZ 00o z 0 HOOO . 888 [~o U . o ~ 0 o Zo Z ~.. 0 o f~ I~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ -- OO~O~O~'lO0~O~O(~O~)l~O0000 ~ O~'~l~O~'~O~,~O~O~O0~O~O 0 ~ t' 8o U . > ~ 0 0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ,~,~ 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 0 ~0~0 0 ~0~0 0 000000 0 000000 0 ~ ~,~ 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 D o 0 m H ~ 0 ,~ 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0000000 IIIIIII ~ 0000000 ~ ~ 0000000 0 000~0 0 O00mO 0 000~0 00~ 00~ · 00~0 e U U ~ O0 ZZ ~ 0 0~0~O0 0 000000 0 000000 O~O~Om 0 000000 H H H z ~ ~ ~ 0 u H ~ ~ ~H ~ ~ ~ > ZHZHZ~ ~ 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0000000 . ~ 0 O ~ ~0~000 0 0 ~ ~ 00~O~0 U h O~ ~0 U ' 0 I 0 ~0~~~0~ 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 IIIIIIIIIIIII1111 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 00000 00000 00000 elm O0 O0 O0 ~0~ 0 ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 ~ON~ 0000000 0000000 0000000 000000~ 000000~ 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 00000000000000000 ~N~NNN~NNN~NN~NN~ 0000~00000~0000 ~O0~~N~~O O000000~ONO~O000 000~00NM~0~0O~O 000000000000000 000~ O0 0000 O0 0 0000 O0 0 OOOO~ ~ ~OO~ ~000~ ~0 ZZZ~OZ O O O ~ O O O O O O O O O O O OOOO N · ~ ~ ~ OOOO . . 0 0 0 0 0 0000 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ~ ~ 0000000 0000000 0000000 OO~O 0000000 ~0~0~ 0000000 MM M OOOO ~HHHH~ HH~H~ ..°08888g OUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH O · DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Z~ Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu Mo ~ 0 ~Z ~DDDDD ~ ~00000 D,O U . > 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 00000000 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,-I ,-S n O 0 0 ~ O0 0 000 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 ~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 ~ U 0 ~ . · . H 0 ~ ~ 0 0 O0 0 000 G ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ O0 ~ ~ 0 ~ Z Z~ ~~ ~ ZZZ ~ 0 00000000 0 0000000~ 0 00000000 0 0 0 H 0 ~ 00000000 ~ ~ ~ OOO0~O00 UOZD.Z~DDZO D i~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U D~ 0 ~Z Z ~H~ M Z ~ N 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~M ooo ~ ~ ~M~ ODD ~ O~ 000. 0 U o H O~ H ~ 0000 0000 0000 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 ,-I ~0 0 0000 0 0000 0 0000 ,~ O0 O0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 ~ O0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 O0 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 ooo~ o ~ o~ 0 ~000 0 0000 0 0000 0 ~ 000~ 000~ 0 0000 O0 O0 O0 O0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0000 0 · · 0 ~ 0 0000 0 0 O0 0 O0 U U h 0 ~ ~hhh m oooo ~ ~ HHHH hhh H ~ ~ h h h ~ ~ h 0 h~m~O m D 8 0 ~ ~ ~ m ~ Z~ 0 ~ ~ DDD~O m o o o U U ~h ~ ~ ~ 0 h.. HM O~ .U ~ Z> U O~ ~ o D~ ~ UZ ZZZ ~U~U Z U I 0 ~ i ~ hhhh h h U~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ D~ O~ O~ ~ ~~ H U ' > ~ 0 ~ 000 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 000 00000000000000 00000000000000 00000000000000 0 00000000000000 0 0 O0 0 00000000000000 0 0 O0 0 00000000000000 0 0 O0 ~ 00000000000000 N 0 ~ U 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 . -- ~ ~ ... 0 ~ ~ ~ ooo o ~ > ~ ~0 m ~ 00~ O ~ ~0 h ~ 0 0 · ~ O0 0 ~ ~HO Z O0 0 m H~O ~0 ~ ~0 UUU HHH >>> DDDO U 0000 ~00 ~00 00000000000000 00000000000000 00000000000000 ~00~0~~00 ~0000~0~~00 ~HHHHHHHHHH~HH ~HHHHHHHHHH~HHz 00000000000000 0 00000000000000 0 00000000000000 0 0 ~NN~N~NN~N~ ~ 0 ~,............ · ~VV~O~O000 ~ ~ 000000~00~ 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 m Z hh °°°°°°°°°°°°°° 0 b Z ~UUU =ooo Q ~ ~ ~UUU 0 0 Z :~ U~ ~QO~ ~>~U 0 0 ~HHHHHHHHHHHIII ~HHMMHMHHHHHIII .HHHHHHHHHHH~II H ~0 U . > 0 0 U t- H · 00~ 0 00000 0 00000 0 00000 OOO OOO OOO OOO OOO ~O~T~~ ON~ T ~ O ~~~ OOOO O ~ ~ OOOOOOOOOOO ~ ~ OO O OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O OOOOOOOOOOO UUUUUUUUUUO ~ ~ ~ OOOO OOOO OOOO ~O~ OOO OOO O O 0 ~ m~moo U ~ ooooo ~ ~ ~oo ..... ~ 00~ ~ ~ OOO~ ,>000 ~HHH ~DDD ~ ! ~oo0 ~ ~ 0 o ~ ~o~  O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O ~ OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO ~0~00~0~ 0~0 ~ ~ · 00~0000000 0000 0 O0 ~ ~~~00 ~0~0 T ~ 0 ~~00000 00~0 ~ ~ 0 H ZO Z ~Z4 ZZ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~OV~ 0~0~0 0 ~ 0 · OOOO OOOO OOOO ~O OOOO z ~h DDD ~ O O O h~ ~UU~ ~DDO Z00Z O~O O~ ~HO0 UHHHHH 0~ HHHH ODDD 0~ OOOO hhh hO00 D 0 OhhhhhhhhhHh ~~ ~ ~ ~DDDDDDDDDDD ~ UU ~ UUUUUUUUUUU ~~ ~\ ~ ~ ~ ~ h 0 H 0 0 0 0 ~H 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 O0 ~~ ~ ~ 0 ~H ~ 0 O0 00000 O0 O0 0 00000 O0 0 O0 00000 O0 O0 0 00000 O0 0 O0 ~ 0 0 0 0000 0 ~ 00000 O0 O0 00000 O0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 O0 00000 O0 O0 00000 O0 ~ 0 O0 0 O 0 0 0000 0 O0 O0000 O0 O0 00000 O0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oooo · ~ ~oo~ o~ ~ o oo~oo ~ u · ..o . . o ............ ~. j~ ~ ...... o oo~ o o o ~ ~ m~oo o oo ~oooo oo ~ ~ ooooo oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~om~ ~m ~ o ~o=oo oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 O0 000~ ~ ~ ~ ~0~00 O0 ~ HU~ HHHH ~ HH H HH ~ HH mooo ~ U h ~UUU ~ ~Om Z ~D Z ~ MM ~ hhhhh H O0 O0 O0 O0 0~0~ 0000000 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 ~~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~0~0 0000 0000 0000 0~0~ 0000 0000 0000 0000 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ON O0 0 0 0 , · 0 0 ~0 OO O0 O© 000 000 0000000 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 00~00~ 0 ~ ~ 0 moo~moo o m o o ~ x ~0 ,M 0 I~ 0000 0000 0000 zzzz~ ~0 U U 0 0 0 0~0o 0,00 ~0~ 0~00 UU U ~ Z~ O~ O~ ~u ~ m O~ ~M > UUUUUUU 0000000 40000000 U H 0~ I Z Z o~ ~ . O~ u · > u .. ~4 HO .. I~ · f~ Z Z ~o ~ 3 U,-I r,, [~ o~oo~o~o~oo~o~oooooo~ ~ o~ooo~o~~~o~o~ 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 ,-I ,.-I ,-I 000 000 000 ~ ~ ~ · 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 000 (N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~00 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 O0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 000 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 000 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 000 ~ ~ o h ~ ~ 0 ~ u z ~ H ~ 0 ~ ~HH m~ ~UU ~ h Z U Z MZ ~ D o ~ DD 0 mm> uuu> ~ ~b~> m u m U ~ N 000 ~ 0 ~ 000 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 000 0000 0 ~ 0~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ 000 ~ 0 ~ ~0~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ 0000 0 ~ ~0~ ~ ~ ~ H mu ~ Zh ~ ZZ 0 O~ m H ~ .> ~ ~ ZQ ~ DD mUUU Zh h ~ ~U D ~ ~ : 0 0 D ~ ~ U U U U U U > ~ 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 0000 0000 0000 o o 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 ~ ~ · 0~ ~ · · O0 · ' ~ , O0 .. .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ooo ~ o ~ .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~'l 0 ~' O . · n ~ o u uu ~ o · ~ ~ ~ D ~ D D ~ ~ 0 H~O D DD0 ~U~O ~ ~ U U ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0~ ~ ~0 00000 0 0 ~00 0 ~ ~ 000 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0~ ~ ~0 00000 ~ 0 ~00 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ........ jj.. . j4jj ...... O~ U . > I 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 0 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 N~N~NN~N~N~NN~N~N~NNN h HHH mmmO ~ 0 0 ~O~N ~ ~ ~ 0000 ~ 0 0 ~0~ m ~ ~ 0000 · . . 0 000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000000000 NNNN~NN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ~~0~0~~0~~0~0 O0000~O~O000NO0000~OO~ O~N~N~O0~O~O~O~~ 0 0000000~0000~0000~0~0 U 000000000000000000000000 H 0 0000 0000 0000 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 I~ I~ ~O ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 ~ 0000 0 ~ ~000 Z Z ~0 0 ~ 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 ; ~ ...................................... j J J J . ~ ~ oo~oo~~oo~o~~~o0~mo0000 ~ ~ ~o~ooo0o00~0~00ooo~ooo00~00~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o 0 ~ 0~0~0~000000~00~0~000~0000~0~0~~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ~ ~ U Ox ~o UL) U ZZZ 000 ZH 0 UUUUUUUUUUUUUOUUUUUUOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU HHHHH~HH~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ~ ~00000000000000000000000000000000000000 ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ oooooo ~ ~ 0 O0 0 O0 000000 ~ ~ 0 O0 0 O0 000000 ~0 ~ · > o l~1 *,' oo U U ~ I 0 ~ oo ~ ~ oo o o o o oo o o o o oo o o o o oo t~ ~0 o~ o ~ ~ I~0 o o o o o o oo o o o o o o oo o o o o o o oo o oo o oo o oo ~ oooooo o o o oo o o o o o ~ o oo o oooooo o o o oo o o o o o o o oo ~ o oooooo o o o oo o o o o o o o oo o ~ ~ ~ ~o o~oo~o ~ o ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ o~ ~~ · o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ · ~ o ~ ~ ~ oo~ooo o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~o o o~ ~ ~ ~ o oo o~o~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o~ ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ D o mm o vv omoomo · ~ o 0 O0 o 0 0 ~ o 0 oo ~ ~M 0 ~ ZZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ h h h Z h h ~ O hO MM u El n, h ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ u ~ u ~ ~ ~ z 0 ~0 ~ ~ ~~0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~0 ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~0 U ~ o ~o~ o ooo o~oooo~ o ' ~ o o ~:~ · o o o o ~ --o o ooo ~ 0 ~0~ 0 000 ~0~ ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~0 ~ 000 ... ...... · . ... . . . . ~ U 0 ~ H~ h~ OO o. o~ ~ ~oo ~ H OOOO D ~ OOOO U ' ~ 0 O O ~ ~ ~ O O O OOOO O O O OOOO O O O OOOO I ~ ~ °°°° O OOOO O OOOO O OOOO ~O~ ~O~ O~O UHH~ OO OO OO 0 0 0 0 O0 O 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 0 O O O O OO O OOO O O O P OOO ~ 0000 o 0 o ONO~ 000o 0 0 0 0000 ~ 0000 0 0 0 0000 0 OOOO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4400 ~m~ o o ~ oo~M .... ~ ~ 0 0 O O OOOO O OOOO O OOOO 00~ O ~0 O ~0 0 ~00 z HHHH O0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 ~ ~ O0 0 ~ 0 O0 0 000 0 0 O0 0 0 0 O0 0 000 0 0 · ~ OO ~ O O ~ ~ O OOO O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ · ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ O O OO O ~ O · O NN ~ O~ U ~ 0 0 ~x ~ 2: o o v N o o D ~ o o O~ ~ . 0 a~ I,-I ~ 0 tn 0 ~o ~ 0 , o ~ 0 o 0 ITEM NO. 5b. DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Deny Claim for Damages Received from Helen Miller; Lori Ann Cashada, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF The amended sufficient claim from Helen Miller was received by the City Clerk on October 27, 1995 for alleged injuries from slipping and falling at the Ukiah Valley Conference Center occurring on May 12, 1995. The claim from Lori Ann Cashada was received by the City Clerk on November 6, 1995, for alleged damages from an arrest occurring August 6, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Deny Claim for Damages Received from Helen Miller; Lori Ann Cashada, and Refer to City Insurance Carrier REMIF ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Alternative action not advised by City Risk Manager. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No. N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: ~/~ Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Miller, nd Cashada Claims NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST ~ CITY OF UR'I&E[, C~ORNIA City of Uktah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiahr Californfa 95482 CLAIMANT'S NAME: CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: . --'- ii/=,-'code Work Ph0he' N~mbe~ ~Nu~ber-/Street and Po~t Office Bo'x C~fty State '-/n7 4 '--3-333 Home Phone Number NAME AND ADDRESS OP PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE .SENT (if different than above): ~ . . GENE~L DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCU~EN~E (Attach ~ddit~nal pages if more space is needed). ~ ~tt , - ~ ," - ", ..... ,~'~,~ '~,; Jfn';~qt~O~T l'l~<~j 1~1-~ /%-- -" ~.~' ~ lac N~BS, IF ~0~ OF ~ PUBLIO E~P~YEES CAUSXNG THE ZN~UAY OR LOSS: _.. · . NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES (optional): N~E ADDRESS TELEPHONE · ' A;q (~ / ~ "~ · · S,(.¢ '3 - C-'). 0'"~ s. ~.~q ~c (~,~z)Z . '~7 ,~. ~~ t~a- N~XES ~D ADDRESSES OF ~CTORS/HOSPITALS I~ERE TREATED: -NA/dE 10. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE LQSS, INJURYw OR DAMAGE~SUFFERED: 11 . TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: 12. THE BA$I~ OF COMPUTING THETOTALAHOUNT CLAiMeD I$ AS FOLLOWS: / ~j Damages incurred to date: . Expenses for medical/hospital care. $ Loss of earnings: $ ~.u ~ -- ' Special damages for: ~ ' 'General damages $ ~ ~ 000 [ ' Estimated prospective damages as far an known: \ .~. ,-~-~' Future expenses for reed'ica1 and hospital care: $ ,x~ C~ ,t~° \ Future loss of earnings: $ Other prospective special "' damages: $ Prospective general damages: $'-' The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented not later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrual of the cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any other causes of action shall be presented not later than one (1) year after accrual of the cause of action. { 0 SIGNATURE OF fL~.I~NT(S) Recef~edig~_~. in City Clerk's Office this ~/~y of , ,// , NOTE: This form of claim is for your convenience o~ly, and any ~ther type of form may be used if desired, so long as it satisfies the requirements of the Government Cod~. The use of this form is not intended in any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are in doubh regarding your legal rights or the interpretation of any law, we suggest ~hat you seek legal coun~eling of your choice. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Re: Claim Number: Date of Loss: Pursuant to Section 2695.2(C) of the California Code of Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5; I authorize PETERSEN LAW OFFICES, my attorneys, to handle my claim for damages under the above-captioned loss. This authorization shall be valid for only one year from the below date unless renewed or revoked by the undersigned. Any and all prior authorizations are hereby revoked by the undersigned as of the date of this authorization. Date- Name- Address- Telephone- Short Title: IMILLER v. CITY OF UKIAH I, the undersigned, declare and state: 1. I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the County of Mendocino, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the above-entitled cause. My business address is P.O. Box 1468, Ukiah, California 95482. 2. On October 26, 1995, I received for service the NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF UKIAH, CALIFORNIA, and served same by personal delivery on the date below stated, as follows: City Clerk City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: October 26, 1995 RACHELLE KUHL NOTICE OF CIAIM AGAINST 'rTM C .r!;Y. OF UmW, CAL Og aA Th£s claim must be presentedr-'-as· prescribed by Parts 3 and 4 o£ D£v£sion 3.6, o£ Title 1, o5 the ~ve~ent-~de' o~ tho State o~ ~l~o~a, by tho cla~nt or by a person acting on-h~s/her behal~. .- RETURN TO: City Clerk,s O££ioe City of' Ukiah" .... ','., 3 0 0 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, Cali:l[orn~a 9S482 1995 r~,Tv' r, ~'-... O CLAIMANT' S N]~ME: LOR I ANN CASHADA ! CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: 1886 ELM ST Number/Street and Post Office Box "UKIAH, CA. 95482 Cit.y. State Zip Code lo · · 707-463-2388 Home Phone Number Work Phone Number NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON TO WHOM NOTICES REGARDING THIS CLAIM SHOULD BE SENT (if' different 'than above): · · o 5 · · ,. ! DATE OF THE AC~IDE~.OR (~CCURRENCE: AUG 6, 1995 . % . * : .! , ,". , ..' .. PLACE OF THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: 1886 ELM ST, UKIAH, CA. GENERAL DESCRIPTION :OF"THE ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE (Attach additional pages if more space is needed): __ . -- -- · , -- ~ i r -- i - - ~ · . _. ..... NAMES, IF KNOWN, OF ANY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CAUSING THE INJURY OR LOSS; DEWY & DEGERSTRON NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF WITNESSES (optional): -NAME A ~/~/~R~/,g .... . ..... .,-jp~.. ~ ADD~ESS · R~ES ~D ADD ~ .......... "DOCTO~/~OS~IT~S_~E~E T~TED: · -~, t.'~." k:;,~" .~) ',~.. , B. TELEPHONE · 10. GENERAL DEscRTpTIoN.~.OF T~E ~0Ss, TNJURy, OR DAMAGE SUFFERED: 11. 12. TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED: _ ~ THE BASIS OF COMPUTING THE TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED IS AS FOLLOWS: Damages incurred to date: ~- g~ .... Expenses for medical/hospital care: $ ~~,~3~ Loss of earnings: $ Special-damages.,~or=? ~. , ..~ .. General damages Estimated prospective damages as far as known: · Future expenses for medical and hospital care: Future. loss of earn~ng~:~' Other prospective special damages: _. Prospective. genaral :damages: , $ The claim shall be signed by the claimant or by some person on his/her behalf. A claim relating to a cause.of action for death or for injury to the person or to personal'property or growing crops shall be presented not.later than six (6) calendar months or 182 days after the accrualof the. cause of action, whichever is longer. Claims relating to any'-other"causes of action shall be presented not later than ~ne (~) Y~ar.after accrual of the cause of action. DATED: //_ ,'A.~. ?~'~., ¥~ ~,-: ~ , ,,',~ · , ,,;~/.~ '? "~,'~ , i~, ,', '~' i'.S~IGNATURE -OF CLAIMANT (S) ' - ~,.~. . . . , .. , . o Received in City-Clerk's-Office--this ~ day of - , _ . ? ~.'~-'.'~ .,.'~ ,~, S~NAT~ ... NOTE~ This fo~ of cla~.i~ for-your 'convenience only, and any other type of fo~ may be used If desired, so loDg. as it satisfies the re~ir~ents of the Gover~ent Code.. The '~se of3[h'is fo~is"not intended In any way to advise you of your legal rights or to interpret any law. If you are In doubt regarding your legal rights or the interpre~ation ~f any law, we suggest that you seek legal counseling of your choice. . ._ ~: 3/1~ i . NOV 6, 1995 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF UKIAH 300 SEMINARY AVE UKIAH, CA. 95482 RE: LORI ANN CASHADA #6. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE. ON AUG 6, 1995 I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM MY DAUGHTER STATING THAT THIS 14 YEAR OLD GIRL IS THREATENING HER AT THE PARK POOL, I HEARD THE GIRL WITH MY OWN EARS ON THE PHONE STATING SHE WAS GOING TO SLIT MY DAUGHTERS THROAT, SO I WENT UP THERE TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. WHEN I GOT UP THERE I TOLD THE GIRL TO GET OUT OF THE POOL SHE SAID NO I ASKED HER AGAIN AND SHE SAID NO. THE PARK POOL ATTENDANT CAME OVER TO ME AND ASKED ME WHAT WAS GOING ON, I TOLD HIM SHE WAS THREATENING MY DAUGHTER AND THEN HE ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO FILE A COMPLAINT I SAID YES, WE WENT IN THE OFFICE AND WROTE DOWN ALL OF THE WITNESSES THAT HEARD HER WITH HER THREATS AND THEN HE ASK IF WE SHOULD CALL THE POLICE BECAUSE WE DID NOT THINK IT WOULD STOP. THE POLICE WERE CALLED THEY CAME UP AND TALKED TO THE YOUNG GIRL AND THEN THE POLICE DECIDED THE GIRLS COULD SWIM IN DIFFERENT POOL. I DECIDED TO TAKE MY DAUGHTER HOME AT THAT TIME. WHEN WE WERE LEAVING THE PARK THE GIRL WAS LEAVING ALSO AND SHE GAVE US THE FINGER, I PULLED OVER AND ~OT OUT TO GO AND TALK TO THE POOL ATTENDANT AGAIN, THE GIRL TOOK OFF RUNNING. I WENT HOME ABOUT TEN MINUTE LATER THE POLICE WERE AT MY DOOR ASKING ME WHAT WAS GOING ON, I TOLD THEM SHE GAVE ME THE FINGER AND I TOLD THE POOL ATTENDANT TO PUT IN HIS REPORT. I TOLD THE POLICE THAT THEY OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT DO THERE JOB, SO I WOULD TAKE THE MATTER IN MY OWN HANDS, THEY TOLD ME TO STEP OUT SIDE AND THEY ARRESTED ME WRONGFULLY AND I WANT MY $500.00 BAIL BACK. ALSO WHEN THEY ARRESTED ME THEY LEFT MY CHILDREN AT HOME ALONE, THEY DID NOT EVEN ASK WERE MY KIDS WERE AT THAT TIME KNOWING I HAVE KIDS. · · Receivea from: AD£ ~ESS ~ Telegrams, Travel and other actual, unus al expenses.) rding Fees, Notary Fe , Long Distance Calls, .. ¢ ,558 No State Was Collateral taken: (YES)(NO) If Yes: [] CASH [] REAL PROPERTY .E;]. OX Name and Address of Bail Bond Agency :.'-Ukiah, Caltf, 95482 By___._. ; (707) 462-1454 MEMORANDUM OF,BAIL. BOND FURNISHED (MUST BE COMPLETED) · , DEFE NDANT~.~~/~/j~_.,~, --' CASE NO. POSTED FOR , · .. I~TE EXEOUTED" REWRITE BOND NO. ":-.,': :;': anc' STAT,EMENT OF CHAR STATE EXECUTED POWER NO. X07- 1-00515147 BOND AMOUNT $_ ~""--~ ORIGINAL AMOUNT $ Received Copy of above receipt S~gnature MENDOCINO COUNTY"JAIL RECORDS SYSTEM BR IL F'RYMENT SL IF' Date : 8706/95 Time : 21: O0 Name : CASHADA, LORI ANN Master I~D# 58612 Court of Jurisdiction: MSH/U Judge : NELSON; HENRY K. ~ Appearance Date: 9/08/95 Time: 8:30 Booking # : 95-00?4369 Warrant #: OPEN * Amount : $5.,000. O0 * Type : CA * Received By: DALE., LAURA°~ Recpt #: 33188 , For fe it: , * F'osted By: JOHNSON, ~OSETTI BAIL BONDS * Comment: X07-1-00515147 * ITEM NO. 5c DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING 1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE, AMENDING DIVISION 6, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 1 AND 2, AND CHAPTER 6 OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED, RESPECTIVELY, FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND OUTDOOR BURNING, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED, FIRES At the November 1, 1995 meeting, City Council approved by a unanimous vote the attached Ordinance. No comments have been received from the public relative to this Ordinance and it is appropriate for Council to formally adopt the Ordinance at this time. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Ordinance Amending Division 6, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2, and Chapter 6 of the Ukiah Municipal Code, Entitled, Respectively, Fire Prevention Code and Outdoor Burning, and Amending Chapter 4, Entitled, Fires ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt Ordinance at this time. 2. Postpone adoption of Ordinance to a later date. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by: Roger A. Sprehn, Fire Marshal Acct. No.: (if budgeted) Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: 1. Ordinance R:4/CM ASROrd. 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AMENDING DIVISION 6, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLES 1 AND 2, AND CHAPTER 6 OF THE UKIAH MUNICIPAL CODE, ENTITLED, RESPECTIVELY, FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND OUTDOOR BURNING, AND AMENDING CHAPTER 4, ENTITLED, FIRES. THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Ukiah finds as follows: 1. The City of Ukiah experiences hot summers with temperatures often exceeding 100 F. and no rainfall typically from May through October. These hot, dry summer conditions create above average fire hazard conditions. 2. The City of Ukiah is geographically isolated from adequate sources of mutual aid in the event of large single story structure fires and multi-story structure fires. 3. The City of Ukiah is geographically and topographically diverse with structures located in both flat, predominantly urban settings and in steep, hillside settings in close proximity to densely wooded and grassy wildlands. The proximity of wildlands adds to the hazardous fire conditions that typically prevail from May through October. 4. The current, limited resources and the diversity of expensive fire fighting equipment that would be necessary to fight fires in geographically isolated areas with poor access, more concentrated urban settings and structures in excess of 30 feet tall in the hazardous summer conditions prevalent in Ukiah, make it reasonably necessary due to these local climatic, geologic and topographical condition to modify provisions of the 1994 Uniform Fire Code. The required amendments establish a self-inspection program for commercial occupancies, insure access along fire lanes, require automatic fire extinguishing systems in certain types of buildings, prohibit bulk plants, and regulate the storage of flammable liquids in above-ground tanks used to store flammable liquids. 94 u?c pg. i Accordingly, the City Council of the City of Ukiah does hereby ordain as follows: Section One: 1. UMC Section 5200 is amended to read as follows: Section 5200 - Adoption of Uniform Fire Code, 1994 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, including all Appendices, Standards and References, inclusive, as compiled and published by the International Fire Code Institute, International Conference of Building Officials and the Western Fire Chief's Association, Inc. Said Uniform Fire Code, three copies of which have been filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby referred to, and, except as to omission, amendments and additions, hereinafter noted, is hereby adopted and made a part hereof, as if fully set forth in this article. 2. Section 5202 is amended as follows: Section 5202 - Enforcement: (1) The Uniform Fire Code (UFC) herein adopted shall be enforced by the Chief of the Fire Department of the City of Ukiah who is hereby appointed to supervise the bureau of fire prevention and such regularly employed members of said Department as are appointed by the City Manager in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. (2) Section 103.3.1 is amended by adding subsection 103.3.1.3 thereto as follows: Section 103.3.1.3 - Self Inspection Program For the purpose of providing and maintaining functions necessary for the prevention of fire and for the protection of life and property from fire and panic, there is hereby established a self-inspection program assuring that certain B, F, M, & S 94 UFC pg. 2 occupancies within the City are inspected on an annual basis for fire safety. The Ukiah Fire Department shall deliver, by hand or by mail, "Self-Inspection Worksheet" and "Business and Emergency Record" forms as established from time to time by said department to certain B, F, M, & S occupancies within the City on an annual basis. The owner or manager of said occupancy or person in highest authority in said occupancy shall be allowed thirty (30) days from issue date, as noted on the Self-Inspection Worksheet, in which to conduct an inspection for fire safety, correct any deficiencies, complete said forms, and return completed forms to the Ukiah Fire Department as directed by the Fire Chief or his designee. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements to return said forms duly completed and to correct the deficiencies noted in said occupancies within thirty (30) days of the issuance of said forms shall be guilty of an infraction. (3) Except as expressly provided elsewhere in this Code, any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent, employee, tenant, owner or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of not more than One Thousand ($1,000) Dollars. 3. UMC Section 5211 is amended as follows: Section 5211 - Section 105.3 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 105.3- application for Permit. All applications for a permit required by this code shall be made to the bureau of fire prevention in such form and detail as it shall prescribe. Applications for permits shall be accompanied by such plans as required by the bureau. The City Council may establish fees by resolution for permit applications. 94 UFC pg. 3 4. UMC Section 5212 is amended by adding a definition of FIRE LANE thereto as follows: Section 207 - FIRE LANE is that portion of an access roadway reserved for emergency vehicles and the conduct of fire-fighting or rescue operations, or as designated by the Fire Department and posted in accordance with Section 22500.1, California Vehicle Code. 5. UMC Section 5213 is added as follows: Section 5213 - Section 902.2.4.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 902.2.4.1 - Obstruction and control of fire apparatus access. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under section 902.2.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. No owner, lessee of the land or proprietor, partner, officer, director, manager, or agent of any business or other activity carried on upon the land shall, after receiving notice thereof, permit or otherwise allow, and no person shall cause any activity, practice or condition to occur or exist, or continue to exist, upon said land which shall lessen, obstruct or impair the access required under this code. Entrances to roads, trails or other accessways which have been closed with gates and barriers in accordance with Section 902.2.4.2 shall not be obstructed by parked vehicles. 6. UMC Section 5214 is added as follows: Section 5214 - Section 901.4.2 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: 94 UFC pg. 4 Section 901.4.2 - Signs. When required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both. "NO PARKING" signs shall comply with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code. Where curbs exist adjacent to hydrants located along private accessways, the curbs shall be painted red or otherwise appropriately marked by the developer, owner, lessee or other person in charge of the premises to prohibit parking for a distance of fifteen (15) feet in either direction from any such hydrant. In such cases where curbs do not exist there shall be appropriate markings painted on the pavement, or signs erected, or both, fifteen (15) feet from any such hydrant. 7. UMC Section 5215 is amended as follows: Section 5215 - Section 1001.2 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 1001.2 - Definitions. For the purpose of this article, the following definitions shall apply: AREA SEPARATION WALL is an unpierced masonry or concrete wall, including a minimum 30 inch parapet, as approved by the Building and Fire Department. CENTRAL ALARM STATION is a publicly or privately operated alarm receiving center, which is constantly attended by appropriately trained staff. COST OF WORK shall be the estimated valuation of the work to be performed as determined by the Building Department having jurisdiction. EXISTING STRUCTURE is any building in existence or for which a building permit has been issued for the construction thereof, prior to the effective date of this code. STRUCTURE is any continuous building regardless of property lines. 94 UFC pg. 5 For definitions of ALARM CONTROL UNIT, ALARM INITIATING DEVICE, ALARM SIGNAL, ALARM-SIGNALING DEVICE, ALARM SYSTEM, ALARM ZONE, ANNUNCIATOR, AUTOMATIC FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEM, FACILITY, FIRE DEPARTMENT INLET CONNECTION, SMOKE DETECTOR and STANPIPE SYSTEM, see Article 2. 8. UMC Section 5216 is amended as follows: Section 5216- Section 1003.2.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 1003.2.1 - Where Required. An automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in section 1003.2. For special provisions on hazardous chemicals and magnesium, and calcium carbide, see Section 1001.9 and Articles 79, 80, 81. For all occupancies except Group R and Group U an automatic sprinkler system shall be installed as follows: (1) New structures which are in excess of the maximum allowable areas as indicated on Table 1003-A for the appropriate type of construction. (2) Existing structures to which an addition creates an area in excess of the maximum allowable area as indicated on Table 1003-A for the appropriate type of construction. (3) Existing structures with an area in excess of the maximum allowable area as indicated on Table 1003-A for the appropriate type of construction which are remodeled, added to or altered, except for ordinary maintenance and repair not involving structural alterations, when the cost of such work within any 36 month period 94 UFC pg. 6 exceeds $50,000. (4) New and remodeled structures over 30 feet in height or requiring a fire flow in excess of 2000 gallons per minute as determined by the ISO Guide to Determine Fire Flow 1974, or those structures which require a fire flow in excess of the capability of the available water supply. Table 1003-A Type of Construction Maximum Allowable Area (in square feet) Type F.R. 10,000 Type I F.R. 10,000 Type l l-HR 10,000 Type I N.R. 10,000 Type II l-HR 8,500 Type II N.R. 7,000 Type IV 4,000 Type V 1-HR 4,000 Type V N.R. 4,000 Types and fire ratings have the meaning indicated in Table 5-B of Appendix VI-D to the Uniform Fire Code. 9. UMC Section 5217 is amended as follows: Section 5217 - Section 1003.4 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended by adding subsection 1003.4.1 to read as follows: Section 1003.4.1 - Separation Walls. 94 UFC pg. 7 Structures which are larger than the maximum allowable area according to Table 1003-A for the appropriate type of construction, but which are divided into spaces that are less than the maximum allowable area by approved area separation walls, need not be equipped with approved automatic fire sprinkler systems when otherwise required by Section 1003.2.1 (1), (2), (3) or (4). 1 0 UMC Section 5221 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 5221: Section 7902.2.2.1 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended to read as follows: Section 7902.2.2.1 - Locations where aboveground tanks are prohibited. The storage of classes I and II flammable or combustible liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited, except as further provided in this section. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Tanks used for motor vehicle fuel-dispensing when enclosed within a flammable liquid storage vault constructed in accordance with the standards set by the Fire Chief. 2. Applications involving farms and construction projects as identified section 7904.2 of the Fire Code. 3. When the storage facility is located and constructed in accordance with the following requirements and standards: A. No such tank shall be used without first securing a Fire Department permit from the Fire Chief in accordance with the procedures provided in the Uniform Fire 94 UFC pg. 8 Code. B. Tanks shall be of an approved and listed type with minimum double wall construction, consisting of an interior shell compatible with the liquid being stored and a secondary containment shell with monitoring equipment to detect leakage. The outer shell shall be constructed of steel or other approved material. The space between the inner and outer shell shall be filled with an approved, non-combustible insulating material. The tank shall have a "two-hour" fire rating. Tanks shall be installed and maintained as recommended by the manufacturer and as required by the Fire Code. C. Tanks shall be of the horizontal type. Tank size is limited to 20,000 gallons aggregate and no single compartment of the tank shall be larger than 10,000 gallons. Each site shall be limited to 20,000 gallons total. D. Tank sites shall be prohibited in residential areas. Tank sites shall be accessible via an all-weather surfaced roadway, with minimum 20 foot width. Tanks shall be surrounded by not less than 150 foot clearance to any property line, building, public way, or any other feature determined by the Fire Chief to be a potential exposure to or from fire. E. The tank site shall be surrounded by security fencing (six feet high minimum) to restrict access to the tank area. Gates in the fence shall be locked except during transfer operations. Locks on gates shall provide for Fire Department access with a "Knox" brand key vault or control. Tank controls and openings shall be securely locked except during fuel transfer. Access to the tank area shall be limited to tank vehicles to on-load or off-load product and vehicles required for site maintenance. No fueling is permitted from the tank. F. The tank itself shall be mounted on a reinforced concrete slab 94 UFC pg. 9 engineered to support the full tank, extending beyond the exterior edges of the tank. The tank shall be sufficiently anchored to protect it from excessive movement during an earthquake or flood. G. The tank shall be surrounded by bollards. Bollards shall be (1) spaced at maximum four feet on center; (2) at least three feet high; (3) set in concrete to a depth equal to the height; (4) constructed of six inch diameter filled steel pipe; and (5) protected from corrosion. H. Fire extinguishers shall be located as required by the Fire Chief. I. An emergency shut-off switch shall be provided for tank pump(s) at a location approved by the Fire Chief. J. A fire hydrant capable of supplying 1000 gallons per minute shall be located between 200 and 400 feet from the containment area, adjacent to the access roadway. K. Approved Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) shall be supplied by the permittee to the Fire Department foam cache in the amount of 5 gallons foam for every 2000 gallons of storage capacity. L. A dike or berm shall surround the tank and tank vehicle transfer area. It shall be of sufficient size and depth to contain the total amount stored at the site. There shall be facilities to drain rain water from the containment area. No vegetation, combustible materials, drums or barrels are permitted within the containment area. M. Transfer hoses shall have check valves at both ends which prevent product flow unless hose is attached at both ends. UMC Section 5223 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 5223: Section 7902.2.2.1.1 is hereby added to the Uniform Fire Code 94 UFC pg. 10 to read as follows: Section 7902.2.2.1.1 - Existing Storage Locations. All existing storage for Class I and II flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks in the City shall meet all requirements of this ordinance and the code provisions adopted hereunder. Storage tanks that, in the opinion of the Fire Chief, pose an unreasonable risk or fire hazard and do not comply with said requirements shall be removed within one year of written notice from the Fire Department. UMC Section 5224 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 5224: Section 7904.4.1.1 is hereby added to the Uniform Fire Code to read as follows: Section 7904.4.1.1 - Location of Bulk Plants. No bulk plants shall be constructed within the City limits of the City of Ukiah, except if constructed in accordance with section 7902.2.2.1 of the Uniform Fire Code. 13. UMC section 5500 is amended to read as follows: Section 5500: - Repealer. Uniform Fire Code Section 1102.3 is repealed and the regulations of this chapter govern outdoor burning. Section 2: This Ordinance shall be published as required by law in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ukiah. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. INTRODUCED by title only on this 1st day of November, 1995 by the following roll call vote: 94 UFC pg. 11 AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FRED SCHNEITER, MAYOR ATTEST: CATHY MCKAY, CITY CLERK PASSED AND ADOPTED on this roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: day of ,1995 by the following ATTEST: CATHY MCKAY, CITY CLERK FRED SCHNEITER, MAYOR 94 UFC pg. 12 Item No. 5d Date: 11/15/95 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Award Bid for Steel Water Tank to Peabody Tec Tank for an Amount not to Exceed $21,815. REPORT: The water tank on Mendocino Place is old and in need of major repair. After an economic evaluation, it was determined that the cost of repairs would be close to it's replacement value. Therefore, staff recommended replacement of the old redwood tank with a new steel tank. Staff budgeted $28,000 for the replacement of this 20,000 gallon tank with a 20,000 gallon steel tank. Bids were requested and received on October 10, 1995. Only one bid was received at that time for approximately $36,000 from Superior Tank Company. Since this price was $8,000 over our engineering estimate and budgeted amoum, staff requested and Council acted to reject all bids. A new request for bids was submitted and bids received on November 7, 1995. Bids were received from Peabody Tec Tank and Superior Tank Company. The bid summary is attached. Columbian Tank Company submitted a bid, however it arrived 15 minutes after the bid opening time and was therefore not opened. The low bidder for the steel tank was Peabody Tec Tank in the amount of $21,815. In addition, the price is for a 33,000 gallon tank rather than the 20,000 gallon tank that was budgeted. This added capacity will meet the request by the Fire Department for additional water storage. Therefore, staff recommends that the bid for a steel water tank be awarded to the low bidder, Peabody Tec Tank for an amount not to exceed $21,815. The cost of this project will be paid for from the Water Department's operating budget in account 820-3850-690. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Award the bid for a steel water tank to Peabody Tec Tank for an amount not to exceed $21,815. Authorize expenditure from the Water Department's Operating Budget from account 820-3850-690. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Deny Award of Bid and Reject all Bids. Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment:l) Bid Summary APPROVE~~ I-- Z 0 0 I-- Z 0 0 0 0 0 · r_ E ~ ~ o ITEM NO. 5e. DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Authorize Continued Advertising for One Vacancy on Airport Commission This vacancy on the Airport Commission has existed since the resignation of Chuck Simon, which was accepted by Council on July 5, 1995. As authorized by Council on September 20, 1995, the City Clerk readvertised this vacancy with paid advertisements in the Ukiah Daily Journal which were published on October 8, 15 and 22, 1995. The recent deadline for applications was November 8, 1995 at Noon, and no applications were received. Continued advertising for Airport Commission applicants is advised for another 30 day period, with the matter to be brought back to Council on December 20, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize City Clerk to continue advertising for the one vacancy on Airport Commission in the Ukiah Daily Journal. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No. (if budgeted) 100-1945-651 Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by: Cathy McKay, City Clerk Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, Interim City Manager Attachments: Non~_,~ APPROVEDC("']~~ ~ J~mes Salyers Solid Waste Systems, P.O. Box 262? Petaluma, CA 94953 Inc. Certified Public Accountant 300 B $1rect, Suile 222. Santa Rosa~ CA 95401 (707.) 579-3414 July 9, 1993 i Dear Hr. Salye~st e Per your reqdest, I have Prepared a Summary of the rate Lncrease .needed to complete the funding of the 'commercial recycling and compost programs. ' Residential recycling Commer.cial recycling Composting program· Franchise & billing fees Program totals Approved Projections ..~T.~m~, $67,117' 11,3~2 69~897 148,366 · RATE INCREASE'REQUIRED, Revenue ba~e - year ended 12/31/92 Commercial service Res~dential service Funding reqired -'Rate Increase RequSred Funded 1-1-92 $67,'~17' Funding Required 5,676 $5,676 34,949 107,742 '\ 19,393 '$34,948 40,1624 , 7,;312 ....... ~47 '-.-. ..... ~m... ' '~ . · ' l':{.t~goyl'"' I , $776,1090 I 427,1684 . ~ $1,203,!774 .. ! $47,1935 ~ 4.0% Momb~:r, Am"crlcan lns~tul6 of,Certified Public ~ccounlants SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS, INC. SCHEDULE OF INCOME AND EXPENSES SOLID WASTE AND CURBSIDE RECYCLING FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1992 Schedule 1 Page'l of 2 Operating Revenues: Commercial ,service Residential service Recycling services Recycling sales Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Salaries Payroll taxes Franchise fees Billing fees Dump fees Management fees Other fees Collision damages Operating supplies Rent Equipment leasing Fuel, gas and oil Freight Repairs and maintenance Insurance expense Worker's compensation insurance Outside services ~ Legal and accounting Office expense Utilities and telephone Taxes and licenses Travel ~ Entertainment and promotion Employee welfare Dues and subscriptions Depreciation Bank charges Bad debts Advertising Other operating expenses Solid Wastes Curbside Disposal Recycli_ng $776,090 - 427,684 - - $127,136 - 37,444 Total $776,090 427,684 127,136 37,444 1,203;774 164,580 1,368,354 58,025 5,891 16,161 3,232 4,766 9,765 4,335 32,170 7,875 10,683 7,943 3,000 1,643 21,380 209,813 21,145 180,537 36,112 270,142 48,234 1,877 449 18,700 70,800 43,734 ~8, ~ 813 56,322 52,816 30,360 2,650 20,000 3,771 16,560 14,741 370 616 3,734 280 33,493 18 4,787 71 (162 267,838 27,036 196,698 39,344 270,142 53,000 1,877 449 18,700 70,800 53,499 33,148 32,170 64,197 63,499 38,3~3 2,650 23,000 3,771 16,560 16,384 370 616 3,734 280 54,873 18 4,787 71 (162) Total Operating Expenses Net Operating Income 1,170,783 186,869 32,991 (22,289) -16- 1,357,652 10,702 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS OF UKIAH, INC. DBA SOLID WASTE CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROPOSED EXPANSIONS MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING & COMMERCIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: 50 2 yard bins for cardboard 100 Toters for glass collection 500 Tubs 3 installed lifts for recycling truck TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES Depreciable life (years) ~Annual depreciation INCOME STATEMENT: Additional revenues Additional expenses: Setup. multi-family program Setup glass and cardboard Fuel Repairs and maintenance Administration Interest expense Depreciation Total additional expenses Net income (loss) $15,500 6,500 2,500 10,.000 $34,500 6 $5,750 $9,261 1,875 6,000 3,042 4,800 2,926 2,520 5,750 26,913 ($17,652) SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS OF UKIAH, INC. DBA SOLID WASTE CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROPOSED EXPANSIONS CURBSIDE YARD WASTE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES: Additional equipment needed Depreciable years Annual depreciation $30,000 - 6 $5,000 INCOME STATEMENT: Reduction in dump fees Additional expenses: Wages Payroll taxes Workmen's compensation insurance Employee health insurance Other employee benefits Fuel Oil Licenses - DMV Repairs and maintenance Interest expense Liability insurance Miscellaneous Administration Depreciation Total additional expenses Net income (loss) $14,820 24,000 2,116 4,106 3,480 3,600 5,850 1,200 1200 9,000 2,191 1,200 6OO 6,354 5,000 69,897 ($55,077) II II II # II II II II I! I! I! II II II II .-~ II ~ II .-~ " { II Il Il ,i, Il Il Il ~) Il Il Il ~ Il Il ¥) Il .i~ Il .i~ Il Il Il Il I! · I! I! II I! I! I! # II II ~ II II II II II II II · II II II II ¥~ II ~ II II I! I! I! I! · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 I%1 Jh .,~ 3 TO J . - ~~:..,,,.~-~.,~;: ,...:, ... . ,.,. . ..~,: Cu~tde Total Buyback Cu~b~ ide to~al ' ,'..8~3 .....:~". 5~e59 ' 1~71 17,53~ 14,6~ .... '~$el&"" '" T UD~ 11,350 I1,~0 0,00 0.28 0.~8 '~, r',0553~ '~.." ~81 '. ' 9,989 14,~7~ 1~.71 ~4.89 . .~ .. . ,.,.~.~., ~? · ."~.' .., ;:.:..~.~ .~,~ · .,:..,..' ~ . '~ ~ ' '" " '' ~' '' ' ' ' '..36141~ ''~ ~' ' "... ' ' ' ' 8~ 17e I1,67a ... ,364535t ~"i~. ~ '3~ ?~a ' 8,658 ia, 340 ~ ),35~ ' ' ' ' · ~.';~,36441'G ".'"? 13,089 11,184 16.78 39.14 55,9E. ..~a~ EE, . ":J"364436'/.,~';~["~/F . ' .., '. 13, 17~ 13, 17,~ ~, &a 65.85 65.65 ; Apr 16 i~~ ' , '.', ' f~,'i ~ ~ . , 1'3665!3 :):~.:....3,978 e, aaa 13,~a 29,89 46.41 . ,.:i ~,~x~.,'...~ ..,;...,% a~ · s, s~i ~, aa~ : ~49lt.'. ,.:~',.."'3~I1f 7, a45 !9,35~ I5.5a · . t.~17 '. '"" L/F la, 640 la, ~4a ' ~'l " ' . j'313397' ,~: 3~97 9,~93 la, 99~ 19.48 q5.47 64.~5 i ~4.~73 :..~:.':~.'. 4,716 I 1~ e~4 I S~ 7~ i 364979 ~':.:'~':LiF' . . ' 8,7a~ a, 7a~ "';313~15' .,:''" 484 18~79~ 18,~ 13.71 31 99 45,7~ Jun 1~ ' " "' ,:al' ' ' '" ii~4994 .,', 12,5~0 1a,53~ · ~4~8 .~,;~ 4e96~ I1,59~ IGt56g~ 12.42 ~8,98 41,40' Jun 36~915" .,'3,4a3 7~.9a7 i1,41~ a.:6 19.97 a8,53 , Jun 1~ ' ' , ~'.. ~.'~ ~ - ' 3L~,: ...... ~j.: 3s7S0 ' 8,750 18,580 1 '*~' .~ .' - . 3137~' .-.-. ;:, .,. ;3~ G~4 Gt 5f6 18~ t60 18. ~7 :,:~, 63 60.90 Jul ~4 , , , .' ,.. ,iii · .,..,, .777...,..,.. '-.' ... 3,.042 ' ~, I~3 ' 3,'641! " , 48711' ""'"" ,',...... 4~ 117:' 48837 '"' 3,~4~ ' 74~9~ '"' ~'''';' ~, 468' ' ;eis .". "'~a~3 '" 3, ~91' ~ '.j., ~..~8~9 ..k..' ~a~7 1~:, 831 · ' 9~ 996 1~813 7, 700 · 11f050 ia, 117 8~ 498 9~ 163 9, .10,751 7t 769 9,453 34, 7,397 7,038 7, g~ 646 9~74~ 7,602 a, 652 8,54~ 9,604 11,508 8,960 8, 7~ ~,I 11,680 10~ 870 18~ 14,280 a, 590 11,000 10, 150 11~ 090 17,310 13, 12, 17,640 17t 18,480 10~ 4~0 ll,a~O 13, I O, 720 7, 9a0 1~, 960 13,7a0 ~,740 ' :~"~ 7,860 13, 16, 12~ 46~ 13~ 1~ 7,220 15,600 6, 00 · a7.49 E. 1, 3. 88 9.07 16.50 38.50 i 5. "': ~, 00 55.45 25.96 60.59' 205.84 458.16 I 16. ~5' a'58.75 073. alS. 76 48e. ~76. a I 614.79 886~ 44 637.56 161,51 359.49 140.74 313. · ~4.76 faa. I7 271.93 148.65 ~, 00 259.70 126.08 138.23 ~07.67 65.0~ 144.73 173.17 169, 9 t 378. 1 ~. 20 0.00 4 03. 17a. 45 0. Oa . 356.40 208.69 464. 144.69 337.61 0. OB 340. 114. ~3 266.07 144, 0~ 336, 14 17~. 90 400, 50 134 qO ~13 60 130, 90 O. 08 ~i5. 144, 20 ~.~. 13:~. 30 3~8.70 137.99 ~,~l. 16~. a3 2a'3.07 91,65 71, ~0 55, 00 50. 7~ 55. 4~ 86.55 60.70 54. em 664. ee Apr' 18 Jul ~.4 Aug 1~ · Aug 1~ Aug 1~.' . Aug 12 · Aug. Ia H' Sep 13 5~p 13 88~.00. 8ep 13 ,. 696.0~. ' 5ep 13 454. oe 394;1o. 479.50 259,70 445,90 558.60 394.00' 556. ao .. 459.00 356.40 673.00..: 480.30'. 340.10 430.88 427.00' 480. ao 5?5.40 'Sep 13 "8ep 13 8ep 13 Oct 13 Oct 13 ~ OCt 13 O=~ 13 , .Oe~' 13 *Oc~ 13 ~ 0C~"13 Oc~ 13 Nov 13 Nov I3 Nov'13 Nov 13 Nov 13 No~ 13 Nov 13 Nnu 1~ Nov I , Jan 01 :Jan 01 Jan 01 Jan'Ol Jan 01 Jan 01 Jan 01 - Jan 01 448.00.... Jan 01 506.80' ' Nov 01 ~36.10 Dec'O'l 415. B0 .Dee 01 480.90 Ja~ 01 441.00 Jan 01 459. E0 ' Jan. O1 · 383..60 Dec 01, , a55.~0 'Oct 01 Mendocino Recycli~ng Center 1994 HDPE-Natural Plastic Buyback Tag # Weight Weight Curbside Total Box 1150 5400 7720 3760 3810 3260 701 4850 1732 564 974 916 1010 3810 1210 1067 1590 760 567 975 1060 3990 974 739 462 388 286 416 432 366 281 273 101'2 165 446 1001 678 586 60249 Buyback Paid 1.78 8.37 11.97 5.83 5.90 5.05 1.09 7.51 2.68 · 88 1.51 1.42 1.56 5.90 1.87 1.58 1.23 1.18 .88 1.52 1.64' 6.19 1.51 1.15 .84 .72 .60 .44 .51 .65 .67 .57 .43 .45 1.57 .26 .69 1.55 · 52 .91 364879 357 793 364851 1674 3726 364430 2393 5327 364884 1166 2594 364417 1181 2629 364552 1010 2250 364927 217 484 364~18 1504 3346 366515 537 1195 366546 175 390 364909 302 672 36651~ 284 632 366543 313 697 364417 1181 2629 364480 375 834 364487 316 704 366520 493 1097 34443 365023 176 ~ 391 364625 ~02 673 364954 ~29 731 · 364930 i237 2753 364952 282 692 313399 ~29 510 364971 168 372 313406 143 319 313414 121 ~67 313723 89 197 313501 102 226 31~522 129 287 313523 '134 298 313563 114 252 313738 87 194 313743 85 188 313977 314 698 313602 52 113 23 138 308 49 310 691 50 210 468 47 182 464 . Curbside Paid 3.97 18.63 26.63 12.97 13.15 11.25 1.93 16.74 5.98 1.94 3.36 3.16 3.49 13.15 4.18 3.52 1.96 3.36 3.66 13.76 ~' 36 2.55 1.86 1.59 1.34 .,99 1.13 1.43 1.49' 1.26 .98 .94 1.71 .57 1.54 3.45 1.17 2.02 Total Date Paid Paid 5.75 27.00 38.60 18.80 19.05 16.30 3.51 24.25 8.66 2.82 4.87 4.58 5.05 19.05 6.05 5.10 3.98 3.80 2.84 4.88 5.30 19.95 4.87 3.70 2.'70 2.31 1.94 1.43 1.64 2.16 1.83 1.41 1.37 5.06 .83 5.00 1.69 2.93 Mar 02 Mar 02 Mar 02 Mar 22 Mar 22 Apr 18 Mar 22 Apr 18 Apr 18 Apr 18 Apr 18 Apr 18 Mar 22 Apr 18 Apr 18 Apr 18 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 04 Jun 12 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 24 Aug 12 Au~ 12 Aug 12 295.~7. Mendocino ~ecy¢ling Centep 1994 ' Tin Cans .. Buyback · ; Tag # Weight 364420 ' 1605 3644~9 1923 364479 1980 366518 1215 366547 837 36491.9 672 288376 507 364930 1197 313399 908 364971 445 313416 292 364626 642 364630 768 364972 1356 364996. 362 313501 367 364999 1992 313528 1515 313977 1132 313772 1191 313743 306 313738 268 23 437 313563 410 313522 465 31 472 313602 186 50 869 49 997 365029 605 314016 1659 .$ Curbside Total Buyback Cu~bside. Total ~ Date ,. Weight Box Paid Paid Paid '~ Paid 3745 5350' 4.01 9.37 13.38 4487 6410 4.81 11.22 16.03 4620 6600 4.95 11.56 16.50 2835 4050. 3.04 7.10 10.13 'Ap~ 18 1953 2790 2.09 4.89 6.98 , App'18 1568 2240 1.68 3.92 5.60 .App 18 1183 1690 1.27 2.96 4.23 App 18 1993 3990 2.99 6.99 9.98 Jun 04 2118 3026 2.27 5.29 7.56 Jun 04 1037 1482 1.10 .2.61 3.71 Ju~ 04 68~ 974 .73 1.71, 2.44 Jun 04 1498 2140 1.60 3.75 5.35 "-. 'Jun 04 1792 2560 1.92 4.,48 6.40 Jun 04 3164 4520 3,38 7,92 11,30. 'Jun 04 1086 1448 .gt a. 71 3.62 Jun la 747 1067 .80 1.74 a. 67 'Jun 857 la24 .92 2.14 3.06 ' Jul 24 4648 6640 4.98 11.62. t6.60 Jun 3535 5050 3.79 8.8~ 12.63 Jun 2642 '~.:~774 2.83 6.61 9.44 .Jul 24 ~779 d, 3970 ... 2.97 6.96 9.93 714 1020 , .76 1.79 2.55 'Jul 24 627 895 .67 1.57 2.24 Jul 24 1019 1456 1.09 2.55 3.64 Jul 24- 956 1366 1.03 2.39 ~ 3.42 Jul 24 1085 L550 1.17 2.71 3.88 Jul 24 1101 1574 1.17 2.76 ~.93 'Jul 24 4~2 618 .46 1.09 1.55 Jul 24 ~028 2897 ~.17 5.07 , 7.24 Aug 2328 3325 2.48 5.83 8.31 Aug 1411 2016 1.51 3.53 5.04 Aug 3871 5530 4.15 9.67 13.82 ,.Aug 12 ~OL]D WASTE SYSTEHS, INC. CARDBOARD RECYCLING DELIVERY DATE 1-3-94 1-19-94 1-24-94 2-2-94 2-10-94 2-16-94 2 - 28- 94 3-2-94 3-4-94 3-8-94 3-9-94 3-10-94 3-14-94 3-21-94 3-22-94 3-30-94 4-5-94 4-7-94 4-12-94 4-14-94 4-18-94 4-25 -94 4-26-94 4-28-94 5-9-94 5-11-94 5-15-94 5-16-94 5 - 25 - 94 5-26-94 5-31-94 6-3-94 6-9-94 6-10-94 6-13-94 6-15-94 6-18-94 6-21-94 6-27-94 7-1-94 7-1-94 7-11-94 7-7-94 7-14-94 7-18-94 7-18-94 TAG WILLITS & SWS REWARD # LAKE COU. PROGRAMS PROGRAMS SWS 41206 7700 16650 1850 63.5% 41666 40020 0.0% 41822 25820 0.0% 42068 26500 0.0% 42308 24240 0.9% 42471 14910 0.0~ 42785 27440 0.0~ 183457 3000 0.0% 42932 10700 0.0~ 183759 18800 0.0% 43061 0 0.0% 43099 0 0.0% 43169 27100 0.0% 43344 24450 0.0~ 43364 3000 0.0% 185011 22003 5030 559 18.2% 43?'/3 16920 2403 267 12.3% 43883 3000 6554 728 63.7% 13350 19520 11196 1244 35.0% 44039 12840 0.0~ 44122 18320 0.0% 44322 20200 0.0~ 186533 3000 16630 18~8 77.4% 186740 35~62 3940 90.0% 187256 41500 0.0~ 44761 3000 22328 2481 80.3% 44937 17540 0.0% 187633 4500 26321 2925 78.0% 188228 27740 6270 697 18.1% 45209 7740 819 91 9.5% 188587 14600 21798 2422 56.2% 188813 13560 17640 1960 53.2% 189097 12200 3002 334 19.3% 189258 3000 4208 468 54.8% 189356 17100 17478 1942 47.9% 189562 3000 26172 2908 81.6% 45821 12720 0.0% 189925 13700 22223 2469 57.9% 190259 10960 16074 1786 55.8% 46198 15660 15727 1748 47.5% 190561 6440 18666 2074 68.7% 191070 10700 188(>4 2096 59.6% 190875 24620 5724 636 18.5% 191324 9460 13734 1526 55.6% 191496 17200 0.0% 191495 8660 21956 2440 66.4% PRICE PER LB $0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.02?5 0.02?5 0.02?5 0.02?5 0.0340 0.03~0 0.0340 0.0340 0.0340 0.0340 0.0340 0.0340 0.0340 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 0.0465 O. 0465 0.0450 0.0450 0.0450 0.0450 0.0450 0.0525 0.0525 0.0~00 O. 0~00 O. 0600 0.0650 0.0650 0.0650 0.0700 0.0700 0.0800 0.0800 0.0950 0.0800 0.0950 0.0950 0.0950 TOTAL FREIGHT S325.00 325.00 325.00 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 SUS REVENUE $395.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.02 111.74 304.76 520.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 7'?3.30 1,648.98 0.00 1,004.76 0.00 1,184.45 282.15 43.00 1,144.40 1,058.40 180.12 252.48 1,136.07 1,701.18 0.00 1,555.61 1,125.18 1,258.16 1,493.28 1,792.08 457.92 1,304.73 0.00 2,085.82 SWS FREIGHT $206.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.32 35.88 186.45 102.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 226.48 263.25 0.00 234.85 0.00 228.15 52.8~ 27.69 164.24 155.60 56.52 160.36 139.99 238.63 0.00 169.31 163.14 138.83 200.88 174.28 54.04 162.51 0.00 194.28 NET $188.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 117.70 118.31 418.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 5~6.82 1,385.75 0.00 769.91 0.00 956.30 229.31 15.31 980.16 902.80 123.60 92.12 996.08 1,462.55 0.00 1,386.30 962.04 1,119.33 1,292.40 1,617.80 403.88 1,142.22 0.00 1,891.54 SOLID gASTE SYSTEHS, INC. CARDBOARD RECYCLING 1994 DELIVERY TAG g]LLITS & sgs REGARD sgs DATE # LAKE COU. PROGRAMS PROGRAMS ~ 7-22-94 191857 15760 11286 1254 39.9~ 7-25-94 191945 10700 21096 2..~44 61.1~ 8-2-94 192481 358/,0 0.0~ 8-7-94 192810 27200 0.05 8-9-94 192944 6920 8862 985 52.9~ 8-15-94 193346 ~80 4014 446 12.Z~ 8-17-94 193485 4500 ~5056 ~7~ ~.5~ 8-19-94 193704 16000 113~2 1~58 39.6~ 8-~-9~ 1938~ ZZ~O ~60 ~0 ~4.8~ 8-~9-94 194~07 ~19~0 1~780 1~0 35.4~ 9-~-9~ 194535 27~60 5058 562 15.3~ 9-6-94 19~706 9~00 1~50 1950 61.1~ 9-7-94 19870 ~0 17132 1348 59.~ 9-1~-94 1~090 ~0 0.0~ 9-15-94 195334 10260 0.0~ 9-16-9~ 195~4~ ~00 18305 ZO~ 65.8~ 9-17-94 195521 ~700 1~609 1401 67.4~ 9-~3-9~ 19591~ 2~40 ~04 856 74.~ 9-~-9~ 196~69 ~0780 11538 1~8~ 34.3~ 10-3-94 19~ 21440 1~0 1180 31.~ 10-6-94 196~0 6000 ~613 7513 ~.~ 10-10-94 19~ 15500 15~6 1~4 47.5~ 10-10-94 19~93 1~528 139~ ~.0~ 10-14-94 197187 20240 1~6 1~ 33.6~ 10-17-94 19~85 10~0 0.~ 10-18-94 19~97 4500 ~6960 2~6 10-~4-94 197~5 3~300 0.0~ 10-~4-9~ 19~01 11313 1~57 90.0~ 10-~7-9~ 19~08 3000 25398 7822 81.4~ 11-1-94 198157 ~020 6516 ~ ~0.8~ 11-1-94 198138 ~0 760 90.0~ 11-5-9~ 19~33 ~40 0.0~ 11-7-9~ 19~ 3000 9789 10~ 70.5~ 11-10-94 19~98 6000 13~7 1~71 63.~ 11-11-94 198~7 ~0 ~83 387 37.6~ 11-14-9~ 19~92 103~0 2~603 ~512 63.8~ 11-17-94 1~95 ~00 26971 ~7 ~.0~ 11-18-94 1~1~ ~00 1657~ 1~2 65.~ 11-~8-94 1~6 38~0 0.0~ 11-29-9~ 1~691 ~6533 ~9~8 90.0~ 11-30-94 1~4 31536 3504 90.0~ 1~-3-94 1~65 21360 0.0~ 1~-9-9~ 100~90 31540 0.0~ 1~-13-9~ 100527 9~0 ~0 9~ 8.~ 1~-13-9~ 100529 3~48 3606 90.0~ 1~-16-94 100709 16100 0.0~ PRICE PER LB 0.0950 O.O95O 0.0925 0.0925 0.0925 0.0925 0.0800 O. 0800 O. 0800 0.0700 0.0700 O. 0700 0.0575 0.0575 0.0575 0.0575 0.0575 0.0525 0.0525 0.0550 0.0550 0.0550 0.0550 0.0550 O.055O O.O55O 0.0550 0.0550 0.0550 O. 0600 O. 0600 O. 0600 O. 0600 0.0600 0.0600 O. 0600 O. 0600 O. 0600 0.0600 0.0600 O. 0600 0.0750 0.0750 0.0750 0.0750 0.0750 TOTAL FREIGHT 292.50 292.50 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 292.50 sgs Skis SldS REVENUE FREIGHT NET 1,072.17 2,004.12 0.00 0.00 819.74 371.30 2,004.48 905.76 604.80 894.60 354.06 1,228.50 697.59 0.00 0.00 1,052.54 ?25.02 404.46 605.75 584.10 1,243.72 858.33 689.04 595.98 0.00 1,482.80 0.00 622.22 1,396.89 390.96 410.40 0.00 587.34 ?94.22 208.98 1,356.18 1,618.26 0.00 1,591.98 1,892.16 0.00 0.00 62.25 2,433.60 0.00 116.65 955.52 180.74 1,823.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.78 647.96 39.72 331.58 251.80 1,752.68 128.75 777.01 80.66 524.14 114.93 779.67 49.69 304.37 198.74 1,029.76 174.64 522.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 192.33 860.21 197.12 527.90 72.69 331.77 100.44 505.31 103.8~ 480.26 236.12 1,007.60 154.44 703.89 292.50 396.54 109.10 486.88 0.00 0.00 254.30 1,228.50 0.00 0.00 292.50 329.72 264.39 1,132.50 60.97 329.99 263.25 147.15 0.00 0.00 206.34 381.00 186.97 607.25 95.48 113.50 186.47 1,169.71 219.34 1,398.92 192.26 802.18 0.00 0.00 263.25 1,328.73 263.25 1,628.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.89 38.36 263.25 2,170.35 0.00 0.00 SOLZD WASTE SYSTEHS, INC. CARDBOARD RECYCLING DELIVERY TAG WILLITS & SWS REWARD DATE # LAKE COU. PROGRAHS PROGRAMS 12-20-94 100924 58~0 19956 2218 12-26-94 101182 2110~ 12-28-94 101327 22940 14~72 1608 1358267 927463 103051 sws PRICE TOTAL SWS SWS $WS PER LB FREIGHT REVENUE FREIGHT NET 71.2'/, 0.0750 292.50 1,496.70 208.37 1,288.33 0.0~ 0.0750 292.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.1~ 0.0750 292.50 1,085.40 108.48 976.92 28,535.00 59,126.48 10,109.97 49,016.51 I/1/94I ~47.~0 211/94t $50.00 311194 3/15/94 4/I/94 . ~5/1/94~ s115/g4 6/1194 .... $62.oo $55.00 $65.00 $70.00 ..... $so.oo $105.00 ...... t _ __ ~3/I/94 4/1/94 5/!/94 5/25/9_4 . j 6/1/94 t I 6/13/94, D/O $40.00 $S5.00 $68.00 , $93.00 $90.00 S~os.oo. $12o.0o $130.00 6/15/941 $120.00 6/28/..~94! $135.00 7/1/9415-i$0,00 _ 7/20/g4i S180.00 8/1/94j ~.185.00 8129/94 9/7/94 10/1/94 1111194 1211194 1/1/95 2/1/95 411/95 4/24/95 5/I/95! $140.00 $100.00 $110.00 $120.00 $140.00 $165.00 $165.00 ,' $190.00 $195. Oo $215.00 ..._$:225.00 $215.00 6t20/94]. $14o.oT 7/11941 $160.00 8/I/94t $180.00 8/10/94,1, ~.160.00 8/22/94{ _S 130.00 I/I/9~ $175.00 :::' ,,--.. SOLID WASTE UKIAH UI{ ! fll I I) 1 VfTflfl I VDJ VD5 REVENUE BASE: 1994 REVENUE: COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING TOTAL REVENUE BASE SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. RATE INCREASE REQUIRED DECEMBER 1, 1995 $865,080 515,083 180,943 ~m----------~___ $1,561,106 CPI INCREASE Before After Fees Fees March 95 Ail U.S. Cities Index March 94 Ail U.S. Cities Index 2.9% 75% 2.1% 2.6% 151.4 147.2 UNDERFUNDED PRIOR YEAR RATE INCREASES ANNUAL UNDERFUNDING ADD TO RATE BASE Underfunded 9-1-93 Rate Increase Monthly Underfunding $3,722 Annual Underfunding $44,664 Underfunded 10-19-94 Rate Increase Monthly Underfunding $1,747 Annual Underfunding $20,964 ANNUAL UNDERFUNDING - ADD TO RATE BASE 2.9% 3.5% 1.3% 1.6% 4.2% 5.1% SURCHARGE TO RECOUP UNDERFUNDING TO 12/1/95 Underfunded 9-1-93 Rate Increase from 9-1-93 to 12-1-95 $100,494 Underfunded 10-19-94 Rate Increase from 11-1-94 to 12-1-95 22,711 TOTAL UNDERFUNDING $123,205 Surcharge Period (12/1/95 to 6/30/98 - next rate review) MONTHLY UNDERFUNDING ANNUAL UNDERFUNDING (SURCHARGE) 31 months $3,974 $47,688 3.1% 3.8% TOTAL RATE INCREASE REQUIRED 9.4% 11.5% SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. RATE INCREASE REQUIRED DECEMBER 1, 1995 SUMMARY OF ABOVE RATE INCREASE RATES PRIOR INCREASES UNDERFUNDED ROUNDED CURRENT CPI TO RATE SURCHARGE FEES NEW NEW RATES INC BASE INCREASE RATE RATE i CAN $10.80 $0.23 1.5 YARD $73.50 $1.57 2.0 YARD $98.00 $2.10 $0.45 $0.33 $0.22 $12.03 $12.05 $3.09 $2.28 $1.52 $81.96 $81.95 $4.12 $3.04 $2.03 $109.29 $109.30 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. RATE INCREASE REQUIRED DECEMBER 1, 1995 PROJECTED RATE OF RETURN - RATE BASE ONLY (EXCLUDES SURCHARGE): 12/31/94 NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES RATE INCREASE PROPOSED FOR 12/1/95 IMPLEMENTATION RATE BASE INCREASE (BEFORE FEES) 6.3% RATE BASE $ INCREASE PROJECTED RATE BASE NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES - 1996 $2,557 98,974 $101,531 PROJECTED 1996 REVENUE BASE CURRENT REVENUE BASE TOTAL PROJECTED RATE INCREASE PROJECTED 1996 REVENUE BASE $1,561,106 11.5% $1,740,945 % RATE BASE RATE OF RETURN ON REVENUE 5.8% PROJECTED RATE OF RETURN - INCLUDES SURCHARGE: 12/31/94 NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES RATE INCREASE PROPOSED FOR 12/1/95 IMPLEMENTATION TOTAL RATE INCREASE - INCLUDE SURCHARGE (BEFORE FEES) TOTAL $ RATE INCREASE PROJECTED TOTAL NET INCOME BEFORE TAXES - 1996 $2,557 9.4% 147,368 $149,925 % TOTAL RATE OF RETURN ON REVENUE 8.6% DELOITE TOUCHE STUDY OF REFUSE COLLECTION PROFIT % (SEE ATTACHED) OPERATING RATIOS % AVERAGE 91.0% PROFIT RATIOS % AVERAGE 9.0% II II II II II II II II II · II II II II II II II O~ II II II II II II II II II II I~ II II II ~ II II II I~ II f~ II · II ~ II II II ,,~ II ~ II II II ~1 II · II II II II ~ II ~0 II II II .-~ II 0 II · II II II II -.~ II II II II · II t~ II I! II ~ II II II C~ II II · II II II II ~ II II II II II II m ~ ' m m I11 -,I ~ I11 II I%) II II II II Ii II II · II II II · II II II II II II ~ II ~ II ~ II II II II II M II II II II II II · II II ~ II II " II II II II II II II II II II II II II II · II II 0 II II II II II II II II ~ N '~ I-- m 0 O) U) --I ~0 ITl ~" 0 G*) AGENDA SUMMARY ITEM NO.' DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1995 REPORT SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE; REVISION TO GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE AGREEMENT; AND BUDGET AMENDMENT This Summary Report provides background information for the public hearing on the proposed 8.21% garbage and recycling service rate increase. The individual Components of the rate adjustment are as follows: (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Hold Public Hearing and adopt the Resolution adopting the revised schedule of fees and rates for garbage and recycling collection service. 2. Authorize City Manager and City Attorney to revise the contract with Solid Wastes Systems to clarify that the hauler shall receive a net 75 % of CPI adjustment. 3. Increase General Fund Franchise Fee Revenue Budget by $9,700, and authorize transfer of $9,700 (revenue generated by the increase in franchise fees collected) from the General Fund to Solid Waste Disposal Site Fund to offset a portion of the processing costs for yardwaste collected from the Curbside Program. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Amend and approve revised resolution/contractual agreement. 2. Amend and approve revised resolution/agreement increasing rates by 9.25 % and not make General Fund transfer of $9,700 to Solid Waste Disposal Site. Appropriation Requested: N/A Requested by: Jim Salyers, Salyers, Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. Prepared by: Rick H. Kennedy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Sue A. Goodrick, Public Works Administrator Gordon Elton, Director of Finance Coordinated with: Attachments: 1. 2. 3. . Candace Horsley, City Manager Resolution for Adoption City Manager's Report, dated November 3, 1995 Garbage and Recycling Rates for each service type based on 9.25% increase. Fund Adjustment Schedules APPROVED-'~~' ~, A R:~'-ANmLL:U, Candace Horsley, City M~"~er AGARBAGE Consideration of Resolution Adopting Revised Schedule of Fees and Rates for Garbage and Recycling Collection Service; Revision to Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Agreement; and Budget Amendment November 15, 1995 Page 2 2.60 % contracted automatic annual rate increase equal to a net 75 % of the CPI increase, for the period March 1994 to March 1995, after deduction for billing and franchise fees. 1.60 % recovery of funds lost in prior year because of franchise and billing fee deduction on gross revenue due to CPI adjustment. 2.61% CPI adjustment compensation for period July - December 1995, (contractually due July 1) 1.40 % Yardwaste Processing Fee. This proposed increase reflects a portion of the funds necessary for processing yardwaste collected from the curbside program. The remainder of the funds necessary to offset the processing costs of yardwaste collected from the curbside program ($9,700) is proposed to be taken from the revenue generated by the increase in franchise fees to be collected as a result of the recommended increases (2.60%, 1.60%, and 2.61%). This would be accomplished by transferring $9,700 from the General Fund to the Solid Waste Disposal Site Fund. The attached City Manager's Report provides detail on each of these components. The proposed 8.21% rate increase will be applied directly on all residential and commercial accounts. If a transfer from the General Fund in the amount of $9,700 is not approved, the yardwaste processing fee would equate to a 2.44% increase, resulting in a total rate increase on all residential and commercial accounts of 9.25 %. COMPARISON OF OTHER RATE STRUCTURES A garbage and recycling collection rate comparison was conducted for surrounding areas within Mendocino County. All rates reviewed are considerably higher than Ukiah's recommended rates. Refer to Attachment 5 of the City Manager's Report for the documentation of this analysis. REVISION TO GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION CONTRACT The franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. does not specifically address the issue of whether CPI or gate fee increases should include an offset for the increased franchise/billing fees the hauler assumes. Staff recommends a revision be made to the Franchise Agreement to clarify this issue. Staff believes Solid Wastes Systems is entitled to a net increase of 75 % of the change in the CPI after the billing and franchise fees. This is discussed in detail on page 2 of the City Manager's Report. Consideration of Resolution Adopting Revised Schedule of Fees and Rates for Garbage and Recycling Collection Service; Revision to Garbage and Recycling Collection Service Agreement; and Budget Amendment November 15, 1995 Page 3 EFFECTIVE DATE AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that an 8.21% rate adjustment be made effective for all bills issued on or after December 1, 1995, to fulfil the City's obligation in its garbage and recycling collection agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager and City Attorney to revise the wording of the current Garbage and Recycling Collection Agreement with Solid Wastes Systems to reflect that the hauler will receive a net increase of 75 % of the change in the CPI after the billing and franchise fees are deducted from the increase in gross revenue. Staff also recommends authorization to transfer $9,700 (revenue generated by the increase in franchise fees collected) from the General Fund to the Solid Waste Disposal Site Fund to offset a portion of the processing costs for yardwaste collected from the Curbside Program. R: 1 ~a~NDFILL:KK AGARBAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE WHEREAS, the City Council, under terms of its franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., must adjust garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that Solid Wastes Systems is entitled to receive a net annual increase of the 75% change in CPI after billing and franchise fees are deducted; and WHEREAS, the increase in the Consumer Price Index from March 1994 to March 1995 was 2.9%, creating a base increase in garbage rates of 2.1% to which is added a 0.5% increase to cover the increased franchise and billing charges Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. will incur with the increase in gross revenue, for an increase of 2.6%; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that Solid Wastes Systems, at the last CPI rate adjustment, did not receive a net 75% of the change in the CPI due to the deduction of the franchise and billing fee, and agrees that a 1.6% increase is necessary to compensate Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. for related franchise and billing fees from last year's CPI increase; and WHEREAS, the Refuse and Recycling Collection contract further stipulates that prior to July 1, 1995, the City Council shall conduct a rate hearing to determine what, if any adjustment should be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates in the third or subsequent years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the contractors operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the CPI adjustment to garbage and recycling rates was approved with an effective date December 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, a 2.61% increase to the garbage and recycling rates is necessary to fulfil the City's contractual obligation to compensate Solid Wastes Systems from the period July 1 to the approved effective date of December 1; and WHEREAS, yardwaste processing costs have increased from $3.12 to $3.75 per cubic yard, and residential and commercial curbside yardwaste collection have not been charged processing fees in the past, but have been subsidized by landfill fees; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined it necessary to increase the garbage and recycling collection rates by 1.40% to include the cost for processing the yardwaste collected from the curbside /// 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 program; and WHEREAS, the 1.40% does not reflect the total funds necessary for processing the yardwaste collected from the curbside program; and WHEREAS, the remainder of the funds necessary to offset the processing costs of yardwaste collected from the curbside program shall be taken from the revenued generated from the increase in franchise fees that will be collected as a result of the recommended increases, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed the proposed rates and made her recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City did duly notice a public hearing and make available the City Manager's report and recommendation for public inspection, all in accordance with the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, and did consider in a public hearing the proposed rates, the recommendation of its City Manager, and all public testimony at its regular meeting of November 15, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the rate structure set forth below and made a part of this resolution. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 9.2 23 24 25 26~ 27 28 RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY RATES SERVICE CURB SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans PACK-OUT 1-10 gal can 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans MONTHLY RATE $ 3.O8 6.49 15.80 24.13 32.46 11.69 24.35 36.79 54.11 4.76 8.17 19.80 31.38 43.28 14.28 29.65 45.94 63.30 REMOTE AREA SERVICE (small truck (Billy Goat) 1-10 gal can 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans *BGR - small truck (Billy Goat) run, for remote areas. run used for remote areas) 11.69 21.91 45.02 68.06 91.33 MISCELLANEOUS 1-105 gal toter MONTHLY RATE $46.64 Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb rate may apply to certain residential customers even if they receive the pack-out service. COMMERCIAL MONTHLY RATES Commercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above. The rate for one yard commercial service, (one yard bin pick-up one time per week) shall be $67.00. All other commercial monthly rates are $53.00 per yard per week. EXAMPLES OF NEW COMMERCIAL RATE: 1 yard bin - picked up 1 time per week = 1 yard at $67.00 = $67.00 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards at $53.00 = $424 per month /// !11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OTHER SERVICE RATES DROP BOXES Special 3-Day Rental 3 yard box per dump TOTAL RATE $ 94.00 Weekly - 7-Day Rental 10 yard box per dump 15 yard box per dump 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump $ 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. Compactors MONTHLY RATE 6 yard compactor $236.00 12 yard compactor 355.00 25 yard compactor 578.00 Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal Appliances Tires (up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route) $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge $3.10 each Tires (5 or more automobile or motorcycle sized tires, special trip) Large truck sized tires (special trip) Furniture and Other Items (special trip) Locking bin $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge $20.00 (one-time setup charge) Special service rates may be established based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and labor cost. Such rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by City Council. /// III III III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 19. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 9.2 23 24 25 26 9.7 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedule adopted by this Resolution shall be effective for all bills issued on or after December 1, 1995. All prior rate schedules in conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. All other contract conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES' NOES. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk B:DRF~I:kk GARBAGE3.FEE November 3, 1995 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON ADJUSTMENT OF RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE Back_~round The City's franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. states that an adjustment will be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on 75% of the change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistic, Consumer Price Index (CPI), U.S. Cities Average, March to March. In addition, the agreement states that prior to "commencing on July 1, 1995, the City Council shall conduct a rate hearing to determine what, if any, adjustment should be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates in the third or subsequent years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the Contractor's operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council". On August 4, 1995, Staff received Solid Wastes Systems' audit for the years ending December 31, 1993 and 1994. On September 14, 1995, the City Manager received a rate adjustment request from Solid Wastes Systems in the amount of 6.28% to be effective November 1, 1995 (Attachment 1). On October 4, 1995,. Staff brought Solid Wastes Systems' request for a rate adjustment to City Council for the purpose of identifying specific concerns that Council may have on their operation. Council requested additional information pertaining to related party transactions, vehicle lease purchases and the status of the new recycling truck which was to have been purchased through the last garbage and recycling collection rate increase. At Council's direction, Staff requested additional information from Solid Wastes Systems to clarify these issues (Attachment 2). On October 20, 1995, Staff met with Solid Wastes Systems to address both staff's and City Council's concerns. Items needing clarification were: . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. New Recycling Truck and Vehicle Lease Purchases Related Party Transactions Effect on Rates Due to Taylor Drive Purchase Reward Leasing Large increase in personnel from 1993-94 Additional information on Financial transaction between related parties Solid Wastes personnel presented written documentation and explanation (Attachment 3) which adequately addressed staff's concerns and inquiries. It was Staff's opinion that a rate adjustment to the garbage and recycling collection service was necessary to meet the City's contractual obligations to its hauler, Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. The garbage and recycling collection rates were last adjusted in December, 1994. Franchise & Billin,q Fee The Franchise Agreement states that Solid Wastes Systems shall pay to the City 15% (Franchise payment) and 3% (Collection billing) of its annual .(:lross revenue from its garbage and recycling collection operation. If an adjustment is made to the garbage and recycling collection service fees to reflect an increased tipping fee and/or CPI adjustment, Solid Wastes Systems' gross revenues would increase, causing the amount of franchise/billing fees to increase. This results in a reduction of the anticipated recovery amount to Solid Wastes Systems (i.e., a percentage of the recovery amount is returned to the City in the form of Franchise/Billing Fees). Franchise/Billing Fees collected by the City are placed in the General Fund, 3% of which is transferred to the Utility Billing Account. The Franchise Agreement does not specifically address the issue of whether CPI or gate fee increases should include an offset for the increased franchise/billing fees the hauler will assume. Staff recommends a revision be made to the Franchise Agreement to clarify this issue. Staff suggests adding wording which allows for increases to include an offset for the increased franchise/billing fees the hauler will assume. As such, Solid Wastes will receive a net increase of 75% of the change in the CPI after the billing and franchise fees. At present, Solid Wastes receives 75% of the change in the CPI less 18% franchise/billing fees. The proposed percentage rate adjustments identified below include an offset for the increased franchise/billing fees. Under Fundinq- 1.6% As previously discussed, Solid Wastes Systems has not received 75% of the change in the CPI as agreed due to the deduction of 18% franchise/billing fee from the increase. Therefore, Solid Wastes has requested a 1.6% increase to recover related franchise fees and billing charges from last year's CPI increase. In reviewing the last four years of financial information (Attachment 4), Solid Wastes Systems has incurred losses (mainly in the recycling operation). Staff believes Solid Wastes Systems has incurred this loss due to the fact that past rate adjustments have not included an offset for the franchise/billing fees which are collected from Solid Wastes increased gross revenue. Consumer Price Index Rate Adjustment- 2.6% The Refuse and Recycling Collection contract between the City and Solid Wastes Systems includes a method for determining and adjusting garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI increased 2.9% during March 1994 to March 1995, resulting in the present need to increase collection rates by 2.6% (.5% adjustment has been included to cover the increased franchise and billing charges related to the increased revenue resulting in the CPI increase). Recovery of CPI Adjustment for period July I - December 1, 1995 - 2.61% The franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems states that a public hearing and any associated adjustment will be made commencing on July 1, 1995 every three years. However, due to a delay in the receipt of the audit (due March 15, received August 4) and the need for a more in depth investigation of the audit and Solid Wastes operation, the public hearing has been delayed six months. As such, Solid Wastes Systems has requested a 2.61% increase to recover the amount lost for the period July 1 - December 1, 1995. This increase is a temporary surcharge which would end June 30, 1996. At that point, lost revenues would have been recovered and the temporary surcharge would be discontinued, resulting in a decrease in garbage and collection rates. However, on July 1, 1996 a new CPI rate adjustment would be due which could offset any decrease in rates. In the future, Solid Wastes has agreed to submit their audits prior to the end of the fiscal year to allow ample time to evaluate any adjustment so it is implemented by July 1. Recovery of Processing Cost for Yardwaste Collected Beginning July 1, 1995, the contract for removal/processing of yardwaste from the Landfill increased from $3.12 per cubic yard to $3.75 per cubic yard. Approximately 85% of all yardwaste received at the Landfill is City generated, and 56% of the City generated amount is not charged a gate fee (yardwaste brought to the landfill by Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. via the City's yardwaste collection program). In the past, the additional revenues generated over the processing cost ($3.75 tipping fee with a $3.12 processing cost, or $.63 per paid cubic yard) tended to offset (or subsidize) the processing costs for yardwaste not charged a gate fee (City Yardwaste Collection Program). 3 Based on 1994 Yardwaste Diversion Records, the unpaid portion of yardwaste generated within the City equates to an average of 56%, or 6,190 cubic yards. To recover the processing fees of $3.75 per cubic yard for the unpaid yardage of 6,190 cubic yards, approximately $23,215 per year (or $1,935/month) in additional revenue must be generated. It is Staff's opinion that with the increase in processing costs, recycling collection service fees should include the cost for processing the yardwaste, or an alternative method established to recoup the lost processing fees. As part of the City's commitment to recycling, staff recommends transferring $9,700 from the General Fund (which represents the increase in the franchise fees collected from Solid Wastes Systems) to the Disposal Site Fund to offset the yardwaste processing expense. Staff recommends an additional 1.4% increase to the garbage and recycling collection rates be charged for the remaining processing cost of yardwaste. A 1.4% increase to all residential and commercial customers would generate approximately $13,000. If the $9,700 is not transferred from the General Fund, a 2.44% increase will be necessary to generate the $23,215 to fund the yardwaste processing cost. COMPARISON OF OTHER RATE STRUCTURES A garbage rate comparison was conducted for surrounding areas within Mendocino County. All rates reviewed were higher than Ukiah's recommended rates. Refer to Attachment 5. EFFECTIVE DATE AND RATE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends an amendment be made to the Franchise Agreement which states the hauler will receive a net increase of 75% of the change in the CPI after the billing and franchise fees are deducted. Staff recommends that an 8.21% increase be made to all Residential and Commercial garbage and recycling collection rates. Attachment 6 identifies the garbage and recycling rate calculations for each service type. This increase includes: * 2.60% * 1.60% * 2.61% * 1.40% CPI adjustment recovery for funds lost due to franchise/billing fee for increase delay (July-December) yardwaste processing expense The proposed rate adjustment has been determined to be an essential and equitable way of asking all customers to share in meeting the City's contractual obligation with our hauler and dealing with the issues of escalated solid waste and recycling costs. Staff recommends the adjustment to the Garbage and Recycling Collection Rates be effective December 1, 1995. Attachment 7 and 8 identifies the current and proposed revision to the City Council Resolution which establishes the recommended garbage collection and recycling rates. Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. 9~0 Waugh Lane Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-8621 · Candace Horsley, Acting City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, California 95482 g/14/g5 Dear Candace: This letter is a request from Solid Waste Systems, Inc. for a rate Increase as allowed for in our collection franchise agreement with the City of Ukiah. I have enclosed copies of computations that I received from our accountant, John Warren. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Jim Ratto from John outlining a shortfall Solid Waste Systems experienced from the rate increase in 1994. We are requesting 2.6% to cover the increase in the C.P.I., 1.6% ( these percentages include the amounts necessary to co'.~3r the related franchise fees and billing charges ) to cover the shortfall from the 1994 r~-te adjustt~:ent, and 1.4% to recover the amount that will be lost to us because the adjustment will most likely be effective November I rather than July 1. We are requesting an increase in our collection rates of 6.28%, to be effective 11/1/1995. If you would like to meet to discuss this prior to taking our request before the City Council, please give me a call at (916) 949-0486. Sincerely, Warren CPA ! .: James Rd%to · Solid WaSte Systems ... 'No. : 7~75793414 Sep. 88 1995 OI:21PM Pr~l John Wan'e_.n.n Certified Public Aecountant 300 B Street, Suite 224 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 C/07) ~79-3414 P o Box 2 62 7 . ' .... "-.-..' ~'~"~'~'- . . .... ,. , ~. ~,.- . · Petaluma,, CA 94953 Dea, r Jim: " ......... '"' "' , i "~ ,'.S- '- ~'..' ..... ' . · I have made the-attached computation of .rate i~crea~e required based on the Solid Waste Systems, 'Zno. audit .rep$'rt for 1994. ' -, ! have not audited or reviewed the data upon which this computation is ba~ed and. therefore,'-do not express...nn...opinion or any other form of assurance on it. - .'. i': '~'~:;~-'.:~,~---.~.~,.~-,..,-'-~- ,.. ' Santa Rosa, California August 22,, 1995 SO~ID WAS~ 8~:l~t ',:10 ~' 1995 #arch 95 All U.S. Cities Index *'March 94 'All U.S. Cities Zlldex * -,- 151.4 .147.2 Se~. 12 1995 B3:31PI'1 PEll $865,080 515,083 180,943 $1,561,106 Before Aft;m: Fees Fees 75% 2.1% 2.6% 1.3% 1.6% (xo~T~s '7-2. ~ 12-1) · ~Or~ RATE INcegAs]c X~Ss~D Faox 7-1' ~O 1X-1) · X:O}~HS ~ IUg:C~VER F/:I:UgT 4 MO~ X/SS]g). .... ' ., .. i<~.'*/'. ....... f 4.2% O.~St 4 1.40% B mm Im Imlll imm il, iigi, ! .. 6,38% 0.52% 8 4.21 ~ NO. : .~ep. 12 1E~J~ B3:32F~ 8U~dt¥ OF ABOVE RATE " FF.F,S RATES .. FRANCHXBB & BIL~ING ~S ~BT ZNC ROUNDED NBW $11.50 $?8.2.0 $~.o4.2.5 , F~OH : Jo~n ~arren CPR ~ames ~atto Solid Waste 1417 HO Donald Ave. Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Dear Jim: Sep. 88 1995 01[22PM P03 October 5, 1994 I am in 'receipt of the rate lncre_a~!~Otioe from the City of Ukiah. The components of'the rate inceaee ar~?~,~.fOl~l'owa: , ' .~ ;.:'~,.:~, .~, .~ -~ '"r~i'~:~.~'.. .... , ..... - ' ' "" ';~;-~ef°re Increase Inc~eaee ' ,~.~:.-' .~,-~;;':~,~Fees After Fees ~-- ' z, ',Tipping fee ino=enee from $43. to ' $63 per ton : '.~ 2. 'c recovery o~ increaae~ t n ~"'"' ' : · ~ ....~. . ?,...:.~ ~:~-~ ,~. ~ ~,~,~.:~.. , 4..'. CPI ' · ..' .,~:;:~.,~; x--- 1.gt 2.3~ '. .: Actual rate ~ '' ..... ncreaee proposed '"'". [', . - , ' ,, · ........... , , .~ ~ . . . .._ .t . . -~ . . . - . v' ~ "-. ""~'"~~ ....... ~ : ' ' - .~" ~ ,t'- ~. - ' Actual net increase realized a~ter Actual increaee required befor~ ,eric . "'... ..................... . Re~ ired ~o cover fees on defioit:'~2'  . · , ~, .~ ;-?.-~ .~.~r~. ,~1.. ~ . ' '. 0. ~ % A dit~onal rate ' ' .... ' "'~'""' ..... - ......... increase required to'achieve amoun~ required ~.6% t " ": · ' "?' ........ ':'"";'~ i ''~" ..... ' ' . ' ~. :t.. ' ".-.~~~_~ ~," .. ........ .,,.-:, ..~, .... ;. ~,,~[. ' -,.-~, . aoh~tevtng the [8.5% "---.',' .'~:: ,." ': .... .: ~ .... ....-~- I - ~', .-~: j ..' . · - . . ~...' . ?:,;~ .....  '' ' ~t. ' ..... ~.:... . ' n ~ther worde, your,.net~.c~I, inor~aee.~,,W~li~be.l.~t earned less z.6% , un~er~unded city fees e~Uala'0;~':~Th~mou, J~n $ terms · horted ia ~20- ~4. ',~&'~:---'~;~.~: . .:~ ..... ~:c, ~'~; ,'~ -~'~ yoo are bez~g ,.~., ,. ,~~..~ .... ~... , - ~ · ~% ~. ' . ' ' "~.~, .' I ~ '~, ROM : JoHn ,Warren CPA · "~-~' " '- Stop. EI~ 1995 0!:23PM P04 Also, there.~as no provision in the rate tnorease for the amount you , , .. , In addition, there t~ no provision ~ O~vo~/ng the ~14,353 de~ioi~ An the' existing recycling program. ""~" . ...... ~dt~regardtnq the t~o 1team .fi6tLbelAq 'covered you are being aborted V.~ truly yo.r,, ' ,. John Warren '.. ., · .. / , i 300 SEIVlIN~I~YAVE., UKIAH, CA 95482-5400 · ADMIN. 707/463-6200 · PUBLIC SAFETY 463-624216274 · FAX # 707/463-6204 October 6, 1995 James R. Salyers Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 60 3151 Taylor Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Dear Jim, As you are aware, the City's franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. (USW) states that "prior to the third year, commencing on July 1, 1995, the City Council shall conduct a rate hearing to determine what, if any, adjustment should be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates in the third or subsequent years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the contractor's operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council". At last night's City Council meeting, City Staff presented USW's request for a rate adjustment of 6.28% to be effective November 1, 1995, with the intention of seeking Council's direction on areas they felt needed additional review prior to or at the Public Hearing. The City's interpretation of the purpose for the third year review is to determine if the automatic rate adjustment to USW based on 75% of the change in the CPI (March to March) is equitable and justifiable. It was felt that a true understanding of USW's rate of return could not be determined without additional information because of the complexity of the various related party transactions. As such, the City Council directed staff to obtain additional information from USW. Your assistance in clarifying the issues identified below is appreciated. I have attached a copy of Staff's Agenda Summary Report for your reference. '~v'e Are Here To Serve" 1. New Recycling Truck and Vehicle Lease Purchases . A. B. C. As of this date, USW has placed a container truck in service, with the anticipated arrival of the recycling truck within a few weeks. The rate increase last November projected funding for the purchase of these two vehicles. We have been told that the delay in receiving the recycling truck was partially due to lack of funds received. During the September 22 meeting with Bruce and John, it was explained that equipment is purchased by Northbay Inc. and leased to USW on an operating lease basis. This statement and the statement that sufficient funds were not received to purchase the truck seem to be at odds. Please clarify and expand on what was or is happening with the truck purchases or leases. It is our understanding that Mr Ratto's normal policy/procedure for equipment acquisition is that a separate company purchases the equipment and then leases it back to USW. If the container truck was charged to USW as a vehicle operating lease, how much will be charged in 1995 for both the container and recycling trucks? Shouldn't the annual lease payment for both units have been covered by the November 1994 rate increase? If the increase was sufficient to cover the annual lease payment for the upcoming year, why was the recycling vehicle not delivered? Related Party Transactions A. B. C, D. E, Management fees paid to North Bay, Inc. It is understood that the services of three management personnel are provided through this contract at a cost of $4,000 per month. How is this determined? How many estimated "management" hours spent per month? Is fee developed based on an average time? Operating Facilities leased from ReWard Leasing. What does $35,400 buy (specifically)? Is this fair market value (and how determined)? Additional Facilities leased from Phillip Ward. What does $35,400 buy (specifically)? Is this fair market value (and how determined)? Recycling Sales. City Council had a specific interest in understanding how the recycling sales were determined. ReWard Leasing purchases the recyclables from USW at a specific price. ReWard Leasing combines those recyclables purchased with Mendocino Recycling recyclables and sells to available market. What type of return is received on the recyclables compared to the price they are bought for from USW? Bookkeeping Services. How is cost/time determined or allocated? , . . F. Mendocino Recycling. How are operational costs associated with the buy-back center, as well as volumes and associated revenue received kept separated from the City's collection program (operational costs, volumes and revenues)? What effect will the purchase of Taylor Drive have on office and/or equipment lease expenses? The audit indicates that ReWard Leasing is charged for employees used from USW. How many USW employees are shared with ReWard Leasing? How many hours are actually spent by USW employees on ReWard Leasing activities? Where does the payment to USW show up? Council has also requested the following: - flow chart depicting the inter-relationship between the various related party transactions. - explanation on the large increase in recycling personnel expenses from 1993 to 1994. - any additional information regarding financial transactions between the various related parties. Due to Council's request for further information, staff will be unable to complete the evaluation and conduct a public hearing by your requested effective date of November 1, 1995. However, if you are able to respond to the questions outlined in this letter by Wednesday, October 11, 1995, Staff would be able to present that information at the October 18 City Council meeting and possibly set a public hearing date of November 15, 1995 (allowing Staff time to prepare a City Managers Report and publish the proposed rates). If USW is unable to respond by October 11, a December date or "special Meeting date" shall need to be set as agreed upon by the City Council. The City agrees that Solid Wastes Systems Inc.'s stockholders have a right to an equitable rate of return, however, in turn the City should also have the opportunity of examining that rate of return. Please be assured that this request in no way reflects any negative City attitude towards USW's performance or working relationship with staff. Looking forward to your timely response. !" ~) i rC~cio~rn!iel~uY~l i c W~~ ~~E n g in eer Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. 940 Waugh Lane Ukiah, California 95482 (707) 462-8621 iMr. Rick Kennedy City of Ukiah, Dir. of iPublic Works / City iEngineer 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, Calif. 95482-5400 10/9/95 Dear Mr. Kennedy: I have received your letter dated October 6, 1995. I'm a bit surprised by the level of investigation that is being pursued regarding our request for a rate adjustment of 6.28%. In the past the CitY of Ukiah and Ukiah Solid Waste ( USW ) have worked together in a spirit of cooperation. Maybe the fact that there is a new Finance Director, new Public Works Director, and the search is underway for a new City Manager has created some confusion and uneasiness and may have something to do with the apparent change in our relationship. Just prior to our arrival in Ukiah the City had finally forced Phil Ward to begin curbside recycling, since that time we have reached a 40% diversion level through the various recycling programs and services now available in Ukiah. Since Jim Ratto bought Ukiah Solid Waste we have worked closely with City staff to create a recycling system in Ukiah that would be the envy of most other municipalities. Although the new curbside recycling truck has yet to be put into service because the last rate increase left us short of what we requested, we did expand the materials collected at the curb to include everything that City staff has requested. I have discussed with various staff many times in the past the need to consolidate our Gobi Street operation and our Waugh Lane facility. Waugh iLane was already too small before the addition of all the new recycling programs. The Gobi Street yard is in a residential area and USW, as well as the City, has received numerous complaints about our operations there. The Taylor Road location was chosen to consolidate ouT' operations and to expand our recyclable materials processing capabilities. In a short response to the question "What effect will the purchase of Taylor Drive have on office and/or equipment lease expenses?" - Our costs will increase by the difference between the monthly payments tbr the Waugh/Gobi sites and the new Taylor site. If you remember I took Chuck Rough, and you on a tour of the site quite awhile ago. We all agreed the site would be ideal. The items that have been brought up and questioned in our independent audit are not new this year. They have been part of our financial statement each year since we acquired Ukiah Solid Waste from Phil Ward. There is nothing unusual or clandestine about the manner in which we conduct this or any other of our businesses. In 1990 Phil Ward took approximately $64,000 out of the company to pay himself for his management. We take $4,000 per month as a management fee and it is being questioned as if it is inappropriate. I am having John Warren, our CP. A., prepare the information in response to your letter. If there is a solid waste committee made up of staff and council members I am requesting that we have an initial meeting to discuss the information that was asked [br, as well as our rate adjustment request, prior to taking this to the full City Council.. If there is no such committee it would be nice if one could be formed so that this, and other solid waste issues, can have the wrinkles ironed out before they become confrontations in future Council meetings. Sincerely, · S alye s ('/ olid Waste "~ cc: Ukiah City Council Acting City iManager John Warren Certified Public Accountant Rick Kennedy Director Of Public Works/City Engineer City Of Ukiah 300 Seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA 95482-5400 300 B Street, Suite 224 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 October 20, 1(79097~579-3414 Dear Rick: We are in receipt of your letter dated October 6, 1995 and Mr. Salyers has asked me to prepare a response. Item 1. New recycling truck and vehicle lease purchases. A recap of the pertinent facts in this case may be helpful. We worked with the City staff in August and September of 1994 in developing a rate increase request which included the leasing of two vehicles - one for curbside recycling and one for commercial. The monthly lease payments provided for totaled $2,730. During 1994, the commercial truck was delivered and the Company began paying on a $784 per month lease. The recycling truck was not delivered, and the Company has not paid that lease payment. Please be clear, the Company IS NOT PAYING FOR THE RECYCLING TRUCK! Bruce and I did not state at the meeting that sufficient funds were not received to purchase the vehicle. We stated that my client purchased the vehicle but had decided not to deliver it until he received sufficient money to operate it. The Company was supposed to receive $2,730 to fund the proposed leases. Actual funds received are accounted for as follows: 1. Rate increase as proposed 2.5% yielding annually 2. Company shorted 1.6% as already discussed costing 3. Annual cost of new commercial vehicle lease Net annual amount City provided to fund Recy vehicle Net monthly amount City provided to fund Recy vehicle $32,760 (20,959) (9,408) $2,393 $199 AS can be clearly seen, $199 per month is not sufficient to provide for the recycling vehicle. As soon as the money promised by the City is delivered, the vehicle will be delivered. Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants We are not attempting to place blame. The former City Manager made a decision to short my client. My client informed him around October 6, 1994 that he was aware of the shortage and wanted him to amend the staff approved submission to the City Council before the October 19, 1994 Public Hearing. He failed to do so, and my client felt that left him no alternative but to withhold delivery of the recycling vehicle. He actually did purchase the vehicle and had it ready for delivery. He waffled on his intent to withhold it and was about to deliver it but the floods interfered. After the flood he renewed his intent to withhold it. Item 2. Related Party Transactions: A. Management fees Management fees of $4,000 per month. In 1990, the former owner, Mr. Phil Ward was paid a salary including bonuses of $64,500. The Company also paid payroll taxes of $3,924 associated with the Ward salary. In addition, health insurance was provided at a cost of $4,000. Therefore, a total of $72,424 in compensation and related benefits was provided for Mr. Ward. In negotiations with City Staff, my client proposed that the Company save money by paying him and his management team a flat fee of $4,000 for management services. They would not be included in payroll. City Staff was elated at the prospect of receiving the services of such a competent management team to replace the former management for 45% less cost to the Company. In addition, the management services have expanded considerably because of substantial expansions in the recycling programs including setting up curbside yard waste and Multi-family and Commercial recycling programs. In 1990, total salaries and wages were $347,253. Excluding Phil Ward's salary of $64,500, total salaries and wages were $282,753. In 1990, only $13,828 of recycling wages were paid meaning total non-recycling, non-management salaries and wages were $268,925. In 1991, total salaries and wages were $268,263 and non-recycling, non-management salaries and wages were $184,337. As you can clearly see, my client has reduced total salaries from $347,253 to $268,263 or by $78,990. Total non-recycling, non-management salaries and wages have decreased from $268,925 to $184,337 or by $84,588. Even adding the management fee of $48,000 to total 1994 salaries and wages of $268,263, the resulting total of $316,263 is $30,990 less than total 1991 wages. In effect, my client has added the employees needed to run 2 new major recycling programs and saved the Company $30,990 in total wages.! B. Operating facilities This is for ~he lease of 940 Waugh Lane. The Company operated out of this facility until 1995. The site is approximately 37,000 square feet and there is one 4,800 square foot combination office/shop building and one 800 square foot open work bay/storage area. The property cost $300,000 in January of 1991 and is subject to a mortgage which had a balance of $157,826 with monthly payments of $1,905. Net of the mortgage, my client invested $142,174 and was receiving $2,950 less $1,905 = $1,045. That gave my client an annual yield on his investment of 8.017%. C. Additional facilities This is a lease with Mr. Ward for the land at 971 Gobbi Street which is approximately 2 acres (I have not independently verified the size) with an assessed value of $180,405 for property taxes. The Company uses the facility to park recycling vehicles, store recyclables before shipment to market, store empty bins and debris boxes, and the storage of fuel. Mr. Ward leased it to the Company for $450 per month before he sold the business. He insisted that since he would no longer own the Company, he receive fair market value for the rental of the property. The lease terminates in 1995. My client did not independently verify the fair rental value of the property. He did calculate that the property was probably currently worth $250,000 which is reasonably within the range of the property tax value considering proposition 13. He calculated the fair rental value as $2,500 per month based on 1% of fair market value. However, the bottom line is that Mr. Ward is no longer a related party and paying the rent did not enrich my client in any way. In addition, the Company had to have the property in order to operate until a more appropriate facility could be located and purchased. Before my client took over, the Company was paying Mr. Ward $3,200 for Waugh Lane and $450 for Gobbi for a total of $3,650 per month. In 1994, the monthly payments were $5,900. The net increase is $2,250 per month. Since my client's return on investment is only 8% (see above), and the fair rental value of Gobbi is $2,500, total rental expense does not seem unreasonable. D. Recycling sales Reward Leasing receives no profit on it sales of recyclables for the Company. Reward combines its materials with the Company's, bales the cardboard, then the commodities are picked up by the broker and shipped to market. Reward receives the total payment, then pays the Company for its share by crediting the inter-company receivable/payable account for the full amount. Interest is accrued on the balance Reward owes the Company. Neither Reward nor the Company pay for the shipment of materials. My client determined that the Company would receive more revenue net of shipping costs in the long run by selling the materials at a lower price but having the firm that buys the recyclables pick them up at the Gobbi yard and bear the cost of shipping. Revenue Shipping costs Net revenue 1991 $31,131 18,167 $12,964 1992 $37,444 32,170 $5,274 1993 $28,373 $28,373 1994 $20,633 $20,633 Average Net Revenue - 1991 and 1992 Average Net Revenue - 1993 and 1994 % Increase $9,119 $24,503 169% As you can see, it looks like he was right! It should be noted, that even those materials which have no or a very low market value must be picked up by the firm purchasing the recyclables. Certainly they are incurring a loss on those materials. E. Bookkeeping Services Creekwood Investments provides service of processing all accounts payable invoices, paying the bills, providing a complete payroll service including payroll tax returns, deposits etc., and providing monthly computerized accounts payable and payroll reports which integrate with the Company's general ledger for just $500 per month. The Company used to employ a full-time employee to provide those services. On balance, the Company is saving at least $1,000 per month (including fringe benefits) by operating this way. F. Mendocino Recycling The recycling truck contained a separate bin for each commodity. When the truck enters the yard, each bin is removed by forklift and weighed. Weights are recorded on a sheet of paper. At the end of each day, the weights per commodity are totaled and a "Curbside Daily Reports" form (see attached) is completed. The source of materials record is maintained even when commodities are combined for shipment. Company staff keeps records that show what part of each shipment is from the curbside program. Records showing the amount Reward owes the Company per shipment are maintained. Employee time cards are maintained. Ail wages are paid by Solid Waste Systems. At the end of the year, employee wages and associated payroll taxes, comp insurance and employee benefits associated with Mendocino Recycling are calculated and the amount due to the Company is credited to the intercompany receivable/payable account. It is really rather simple since most employees have only one task which is easily identifiable as either Mendocino Recycling or Solid Waste Systems. Ail other operational costs are paid directly by Mendocino Recycling for the buyback center and all their other operations. Item 3. Taylor Drive Purchase: The purchase of Taylor Drive will have no impact on equipment lease expense. The impact on office lease expense will have to be discussed with Mr. Ratto. However, total expense is likely to decrease. Item 4. Reward Leasing Employee Reimbursement Six employees are shared with Reward Leasing. I don't have available total hours, but % of total pay is indicated on the attached schedule. The payment shows up in the intercompany receivable/payable account which bears interest. Item 5. Flow Chart - I have no idea what they have in mind. Since only 3 related parties are involved, I have no idea of what is needed. Increase in Recycling Wages - Let's compare 1991 to 1994. Recycling wages in 1991 were $54,738. In 1994, additional wages were paid for the Commercial and Multi-family route in the amount of $18,831. Additional participation in yard waste resulted in an additional $5,192 paid. Adding $54,738 plus the two additions equals $78,761 which is close to the $83,113 paid in 1994. Also, please read Item 2A above. AMOUNT LOST FROM CITY UNDERFUNDING 9-1-93 INCREASE Mr. Ratto asked me to review the 9-1-93 rate increase to see if the Company had been shorted on this increase as well as the 10-19-94 rate increase. My review shows that the Company was shorted by 3.71%. The attached analysis shows the total impact through 12/1/95 of the underfunded amount. The total underfunding amounts to $100,494. Fom 1120 Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Check if a - A Consolidated return e Personal holding co. C Personal service corp. (as defined in Temp. Regs. sec. 1.441-4T~--~ - see Instructions) I G Check applicable boxes: U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return =or calendar year 1990 or tax year beginning ,1990, ending ,19 Aec · Instructions are separate' page 1 for Paperwork Use IRS SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS OF UKIAH, INC. label. Other- wise. P O BOX 2627 please ' ' print or type. PETALUMA. CA 94953 (1) I I Initial return (2)I1Finalreturn (3) I X IChan~o in address $ OMB No. 1545-0123 1990 D Employer Identification no. 94-1732053 E Date incorporated 11-24-70 F Total assets (See Specific Instructions) 536 320. I 8 9 10 11 D d U C t I 0 n S e e I n r u c t o n T 3O a :11 la Gross receipts or sales __ .......................... 1 [ 068 ~..3..6.8.. b Less returns and allowances C Bal · 2 Cost of goods sold (Schedule A, line 7) ..................................... 3 Gross profit (line lc less line 2) .......................................... 4 Dividends (Schedule C, line 19) ......................................... 5 Interest ...................................................... Gross rents .................................................... Gross royalties .................................................. Capital gain net income (attach Schedule D (Form 1120)) ............................ Net gain or (loss) from Form 4797, Part II, line 18 (attach Form 4797) ...................... Other income (see Instructions - attach schedule) ................................ Total Income - Add lines 3 throuc~h 10 .................................... · 12 Compensation of officers (Schedule E, line 4) .................................. 138 Salades and wages ...... _~_ _5_~_ ~. _7._5_3.._ b Less jobs credit .................. c Balance ..... · 14 Repairs ...................................................... 15 Bad debts .................................................... 16 Rents ...................................................... 17 Taxes ...................................................... 18 Interest ...................................................... 19 Contributions (see Instructions for 10% limitation) ............................... 20 Depreciation (attach Form 4562) ......................... 12ol 83,458. 21 Less depreciation claimed on Schedule A and elsewhere on return ........ I 1218 22 Depletion ..................................................... 23 Advertising .................................................... 24 Pension, profit-sharing, etc., plans ........................................ 25 Employee benefit programs ........................................... 26 Other deductions (attach schedule) ....................................... 27 Total deductions - Add lines 12 through 26 .................................. · 28 Taxable income before net operating loss deduction and special deductions (line 11 less line 27) ........ 29 Less% a Net operating loss deduction (see Instructions) ............. I 29a I b Special deductions (Schedule C, line 20) ................ I 29b I Taxable Income - Line 28 less line 29c ..................................... Total tax (Schedule J, line 10) .......................................... 328 3,000. 32b 32c Payments: 81969 overpayment credited to 1990 b 1990 estimated tax payments ...... C Less 1990 refund applied for on Form 4466.. e Tax deposited with Form 7004 .......................... f Credit from regulated investment companies (attach Form 2439) ......... g Credit for Federal tax on fuels (attach Form 4136). See Instructions ....... 3,000 33 Enter any penalty for underpayment of estimated tax - Check · L_..J if Form 2220 is attached ........ 34 Tax due - If the total of lines 31 and 33 is larger than line 32h, enter amount owed ............... 35 Overpayment - If line 32h is larger than the total of lines 31 and 33, enter amount overpaid .......... 36 Enter amount of line 35 you want: Credited to 1991 estimated tax I~ I Refunded · I Please Sign Here Paid Preparer's Use Only 368. 368. 15r283. lr201. 28~213. 065. 94~500. 252~753. 60,432. 2,305. 43,800. 44r660. 22r298. lr425. 83r458. 3r999. 461r 687. 1,071r 317. 41,748. 41r748. 6r262. 3r000. 3,523. 0. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. Declaration of preparer (other than taxpayer) is based on all information of which preparer has any knowledge. I~ Signature of officer Date Preparer's I~ IDate { Check if self- I signature employed Firm's name k -J-9-~- -~- -~- - --~- - -~ [ - -?-'- -~,.'- -~.-* .......................... (or yours.~f · 300 B STREET, SUITE 222 No. self-employed)· ...................................................... and address SANTA ROSA r CA ZIP code · Copyright form software only Center Piece Software Preparer's social security no. 308-58-3920 95401 Form 1120 (1990) Form1120(1990) SOLID WASTES SYSTEMS OF UKIAHr INC. 94-1732053 Pa~e2 Ii Cost of Goods Sold (see Instructions for line 2, page 1.) 1 Inventory at beginning of year ............................................ 2 Purchases 3 Cost of labor. 4a Additional section 263A costs (see Instructions - attach schedule) .......................... b Other costs (attach schedule) ............................................ 5 Total - Add lines I through 4b ........................................... 6 Inventory at end of year ............................................... 7 Cost of goods sold - Une 5 less line 6. Enter here and on line 2, page I ..................... 8a Check all methods used for valuing closing inventory: (I) [~ Cost (11) r'~ Lower of cost or market as described in Regulations section 1.471-4 (see Instructions) (111)U Writedown of "subnormal" goods as described in Regulations section 1.471-2(c) (see Instructions) (Iv) Other (Specify method used and attach explanation.) I~ b Check if the LIFO inventory method was adopted this tax year for any g~3~)~.; ~i~ ;~l~e'd~ ~t;l;l~ 'F~3;i;1-~0')'.- ~ '.' ~ '.- .' '~-.- ~'.' ~-.' ~-.'.''[~ .... c If the LIFO inventory method was used for this tax year, enter percentage (or amounts) of I I closing inventory computed under LIFO ....................................... I 8c I d Do the rules of section 263A (with respect to properly produced or acquired for resale) apply to the corporation? ....... L_.JYes [~JNo · Was there any change in determining quantities, cost, or valuations between opening and closing inventory? If '%'es", attach explanation ~]Yes J-'~No Ii ~h~d~l~ ~ I Dividends and Special Deductions (See Instructions) (a) Dividends (c) Special deductions: ..................... (b)% received (a) x (b) 1 Dividends from less-than-20%-owned domestic corporations that are subject to the 70% deduction (other than debt-financed stock) ............ 7 0 2 Dividends from 20%-or-more-owned domestic corporations that are subject to the 80% deduction (other than debt-financed stock) ................ 8 0 3 Dividends on debt-financed stock of domestic and foreign corporations (section 246A) see Instructions 4 Dividends on certain preferred stock of less-than-20%-owned public utilities .... 4 1 o 17 6 5 Dividends on certain preferred stock of 20%-or-more-owned public utilities ..... ~ 7. 0 5 9 6 Dividends from less-than-20%-owned foreign corporations and certain FSCs that are subject to the 70% deduction ........................... 7 0 7 Dividends from 20%-or-more-owned foreign corporations and certain FSCs that are subject to the 80% deduction ........................... 8 0 8 Dividends from wholly owned foreign su bsidiaries subject to the 100% deduction (section 245 (b)), , 1 0 0 9 Total - Add lines 1 through 8. See Instructions for limitation ............. iiiiiiiii ii ii!iiii!i iiiiii iiili iiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiiii ! i iiii iii 10 Dividends from domestic corporations received by a small business investment company operating under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 ........ 1 0 0 11 Dividends from certain FSCs that are subject to the 100% deduction (section 245 (cX1)) ...... 1 0 0 12 Dividends from affiliated group mere bern subject to the 100% deduction (section 243 (aX3)) ..... 1 0 0 13 Other dividends from foreign corporations not included on lines 3, 6, 7,80rll . . . 14 Income from controlled foreign corporations under subpart F (attach Forms 5471) .... 15 Foreign dividend gross-up (section 78) ........................ 16 lC-DISC and former DISC dividends not included on lines 1, 2, or 3 (section 246(d)) . . 17 Other dividends ................................... 18 Deduction for dividends paid on certain preferred stock of public utilities (see instructions) 19 Total dividends- Add lines I through 17. Enter here and on line 4, page 1 .... 20 Total deductions - Add lines 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18. Enter here and on line 29b, pa~e 1 ................. Compensation of Officers (See Instructions for line 12, page 1.) Complete Schedule E only if total receipts (line la, plus lines 4 through 10, of page 1, Form 1120) are $500,000 or more. (a) Name of Officer 1 PHIL W. WARD W. MC CARTY JAMIE WILLIAMS 2 Total compensation of officers 3 Less: Compensation of officers claimed on Sched~ 4 compensation of officers deducted on line 12, page 1 .................................. (c) Percent of Percent of corporation (b) Social security number time devoted to ~n~-~ ~n.~ (f) Amount of compensation business (d) Common (e) Preferred 555-46-0351 100 % 59.82 % % 64~250. 568-64-7724 !100 % % % 30,250. 555-94-7816 10 %~4.18 % % % % % % % % .................................... 94~500. ~dule A and elsewhere on return .................... 94r500. Copyright form software only Center Piece Software Form 1120 (1990) SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 RATE INCREASE COMPARISON OF RATE INCREASE REQUIRED TO RATE INCREASE RECEIVED REVENUE BASE: RATE PAYER REVENUE PER 12/31/92 AUDIT REPORT 1,203,774 Required Required Increase Amounts Before After Approved Fees Fees Actual Increase Received Automatic CPI Adjustment See Staff $ Computation MSWMA Surcharge - landfill Landfill Gate Fee Increase AB 939 State Mandated Recycling Surcharge Curbside Recycling Program Subsidy From Gate Fees to be Passed Thru to Ratepayers Approved Net Expenses for Curbside Yard Waste Program Additions Approved Net Expenses for Multi-Family & Commercial Recycling Additions Total AB 939 Surcharge $27,754 52,930 84,176 127,136 5,676 34,948 167,760 2.31% 4.40% 6.99% 13.94% 27.64% 2.82% 5.37% 8.52% 17.00% 33.71% 2.00% 5.00% 8.00% 15.00% 30.00% Required Rate Increase Actual Increase Received % Deficit From 9-1-93 Rate Increase Revenue Base - Before 9-1-93 Rate Increase Annual $ deficit from underfunding 33.71% 30.00% 3.71% 1,203,774 $44,660 SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. SEPTEMBER 1, 1993 RATE INCREASE COMPARISON OF RATE INCREASE REQUIRED TO RATE INCREASE RECEIVED Monthly $ Deficit From Underfunding Months (9/1/93 to 12/1/95) Total $ SWS Lost From Underfunding of 9-1-93 Rate Increase % Deficit From 10-19-94 Rate Increase Revenue Base - Before 10-19-94 Rate Increase Annual $ deficit from underfunding Monthly $ Deficit From Underfunding Months (11/1/94 to 12/1/95) Total $ SWS Lost From Underfunding of 10-19-94 Rate Increase Total $ Lost From Underfunding - 9/1/93 to 12/1/95 $3,722 27 $100,494 1.6% 1,309,941 $20,959 $1,747 13 $22,711 $123,205 " 0 0 0 ~,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '~1' 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 C~ ~'~ 0 0 c3 o o c3 oc~ '~m O0 0') ('W') m I,,0 m m m 0 0 0 u'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ILl r~ SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL INFORMATION Operating Revenues: Commercial service Residential service Recycling services Recycling sales Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Salades Payroll taxes Franchise fees Billing fees Dump fees Management fees Other fees Recyclables Collision damage Operating supplies Rent Equipment leasing Fuel, gas and oil Freight Repairs and maintenance Insurance expense Workers' comp. ins. Outside services Legal and accounting Office expense Utilities and telephone Taxes and licenses Travel Entertainment & Promotion Donations Employee welfare Dues & subscriptions Depreciation Bank charges Bad debts Advertising Other operating expense Total Operating Expense Net Operating Income: Non-Operating Revenue (Expnese): Interest income Interest expense Penalties Other non-operating income (loss) Total Non-Operating Revenue (Expense) Net Income before Taxes Provision for Income Tax Net Income Calendar year 1991 Solid Wastes Curbside Disposal Recycling Total 782,620 448,771 66,720 31,131 782,620 448,771 66,720 31,131 1,231,391 97,851 1,329,242 202,533 54,453 256,986 22,952 5,395 28,347 184,991 10,008 194,999 36,347 2,002 38,949 256,976 256,976 16,000 16,000 1,016 1,016 1,688 1,688 26,225 26,225 71,500 71,500 23,208 23,208 30,607. 4,372 34,979 18,167 18,167 53,838 7,692 61,530 36,736 4,730 41,466 27,631 7,651 35,282 3,024 3,024 25,075 1,500 26,575 4,353 4,353 14,499 14,499 14,504 1,573 16,077 3,757 3,757 260 260 50 50 13,018 13,018 210 210 45,102 22,397 67,499 54 54 4,489 4,489 1,278 1,278 442 442 1,122,963 139,940 1,262,903 108,428 (42,089~) 66,339 10,694 10,694 (8,581) (13,526) (22,107) (180) (180) (2,121) (2,121) (188) (13,526) (13,714) 108,240 (55,615) 52,625 (37,167) (37,167; 71,073 (55,615) 15,458 Calendar year 1992 Solid Wastes Curbside Disposal Recycling Total 776,090 427,684 127,136 37,444 776,090 427,684 127,136 37,4~ 1,203,774 164,580 1,368,354 1,1 209,813 58,025 267,838 21,145 5,891 27,036 180,537 16,161 196,698 36,112 3,232 39,344 270,142 270,142 48,234 4,766 53,000 1,877 1,877 449 449 18,700 18,700 70,800 70,800 43,734 9,765 53,499 28,813 4,335 33,148 32,170 32,170 56,322 7,875 64,197 52,816 10,683 63,499 30,360 7,943 38,303 2,650 2,650 20,000 3,000 23,000 3,771 3,771 16,560 16,560 14,741 1,643 16,384 370 370 616 616 3,734 3,734 280 280 33,493 21,380 54,873 18 18 4,787 4,787 71 71 (162) 70,783 186,869 1,357,652 32,991 (2~_,289;) 10,702 12,645 12,645 (5) (5,146) (5,151) (4,153) 737 737 9,:~74 (5,146) 4,078 42,215 (27,435) 14,780 (7,420) 34,795 (27,435) 7,360 SOLWASTE.XLS 9/20/95 Page 1 Sheet1 Operating Revenues: Commercial service Residential se:vice Recycling services Recycling sales Total Operating Revenues Operating Expenses: Salades Payroll taxes Franchise fees Billing fees Dump fees Management fees Other fees Recyclables Collisi(,n damage Operating supplies Rent Equipment leasing Fuel, gas and oil Freight Repairs and maintenance Insurance expense Workers' comp. ins. Outside services Le0al and accounting Office expense Utilities and telephone Taxes and licenses !Travel Entertainment & Promotion Donations Employee welfare Dues & subscriptions Depreciation Bank charges Bad debts AdVertising Other operating expense Total Operating Expense Net Operating Income: Non-Operating Revenue (Expnese): Interest income Interest expense Penalties Other non-operating income (loss) Total Non-Operating Revenue (Expense) Net Income before Taxes Provision for Income Tax Net Income SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL INFORMATION Calendar year 1993 Solid Wastes Curbside Disposal Recycling Total 771,343 395,327 143,271 28,373 771,343 395,327 143,271 28,373 1,166,670 171,644 1,338,314 210,556 47,306 257,862 20,457 4,943 25,400 169,273 19,552 188,825 35,037 3,910 38,947 319,213 319,213 43,234 4,766 48,000 980 980 1,212 3,047 4,259 4,726 4,726 19,238 19,238 70,800 70,800 43,734 12,644 56,378 31,893 10,835 42,728 52,081 27,756 79,837 50,844 18,161 69,005 22,838 5,874 28,712 4,800 4,800 35,000 3,000 38,000 2,822 2,822 14,915 14,915 9,343 1,540 10,883 65 65 26,456 372 30,756 2,740 1,881 835 22,280 26,456 372 53,036 2,740 1,881 835 1,226,101 185,614 1,411,715 (59,431) (13,970) (73,401t 11,622 11,622 (84) (383) (467) (846) (846) 14,610 14,610 25,302 (383) 24,919 (34,129) (14,353) (48,482) 13,069 5,601 18,670 (21,060~) (8,752) (29,812; Calendar year 1994 Solid Wastes Curbside Disposal Recycling Total 865,080 515,083 180,943 20,633 865,080 515,083 180,943 20,633 1,380,163 201,576 1,581,739 184,337 83,926 268,263 17,714 8,620 26,334 203,667 27,141 230,808 41,430 5,428 46,858 469,043 469,043 48,000 48,000 653 653 5,992 3,567 9,559 2,613 2,613 22,434 22,434 70,800 70,800 44,589 16,576 61,165 30,561 14,476 45,037 36,481 26,340 62,821 50,212 25,853 76,065 18,269 8,316 26,585 4,562 4,562 28,708 28,708 2,981 2,981 14,452 14,452 4,855 3,215 8,070 21,538 21,538 394 394 29,166 22,423 51,589 1,691 1,691 838 838 1,332 1,332 1,357,312 245,881 1,603,193 22,851 20,122 20,122 (184) (184) 4,073 4,073 24,011 - 24,011 46,862 (44,305) 2,557 (800) 17,675 16,875 46,062 (26,630) 19,432 SOLWASTE.XLS 9/20/95 Page 2 Sheet1 1991 Solid Waste Systems, Inc. Total Revenue and Expense by Year 1992 199;3 1994 Calendar Year B Total Operating Revenues · Total Operating Expense OPERATING EXPENSES BY CATEGORY ~ E .-q CATEGORY 0 SOLWASTE.XLS 9/20/95 Page 3 Sheet2 SOLID WASTES DISPOSAL OPERATING EXPENSES BY CATEGORY CATEGORY · 1992 131993 E! 19941 120,000 20,000 CURBSIDE RECYCLING OPERATING EXPENSES BY CATEGORY CATEGORY la· 1991 · 1992 131993 ,,El 1994 SOLWASTE.XLS 9/20/95 Page 4 Graphs & Data ATTACHMENT 5 CITY OF UKIAH GARBAGE RATE COMPARISON NOVEMBER, 1995 CURRENT RECOMMENDED WILLITS COUNTY FT. COUNTY RATES RATES RATES RATES (1) BRAGG RATES O) RATES (2) RESIDENTIAL 8.21% 9.25% 10 Gallon $2.85 $3.08 $3.11 $ 6.90 $11.90 $11.65 $15.75 20 Gallon can-curb $6.00 $6.49 $6.56 $13.90 17.10 $14.50 $18.90 1 30 Gallon can-curb $10.80 $11.69 $11.80 $15.90 $18.95 $17.45 $21.15 2 Cans 22.50 24.35 24.58 31.40 24.45 34.90 42.30 3 Cans 34.00 36.79 37.15 29.95 52.35 63.45 1 30 Gallon can-pack out $13.20 $14.28 $14.42 $17.90 $ 2 Cans 27.40 29.65 29.93 36.40 22.15 3 Cans 42.45 45.94 46.38 $39.60 COMMERCIAL I YARD 1 time week $62.00 $ 67.00 $ 68.00 $ 88.00 $121.70 $100.75 $104.60 2 times week 98.00 106.00 108.00 156.00 143.55 186.80 1-1/2 YARDS 1 time week $ 73.50 $ 79.50 $ 81.00 $ 98.00 $152.15 $135.15 $140.45 2 times week 147.00 159.00 162.00 176.00 222.45 212.55 259.50 2 YARDS 1 time week $ 98.00 $106.00 $108.00 $115.00 $190.80 $174.35 $181.15 2 times week 196.00 212.00 216.00 210.00 261.15 284.25 340.15 3 times week 294.00 318.00 324.00 315.00 369.10 512.50 INDUSTRIAL 20 Yard Drop Boxes $300.00 $82.05 Plus tipping fee (5) 30-38 Yard Drop Boxes $75.00 Plus $81.00 Plus tipping $82.00 $500.00 $88.35 Plus $254.65 $281.80 tipping fee (4) fee (4) Plus tipping fee Plus $70.50 Plus tipping (5) per ton $70.50 per fee (4) ton 40 Yard Drop Boxes $94.70 Plus tipping fee (5) 12 Yard Compactor 328.00 355.00 350.00 NOTES: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) R:I~PW GARBAGE Empire Waste Management - Urban Area surrounding Ukiah Fort Bragg Disposal Fort Bragg Disposal - Area surrounding Fort Bragg Tipping Fee - 12.65 Per Cubic Yard Tipping Fee - Varies depending on Disposal Site used. RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Attachment $ GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1995 Current Rate Custome Monthly Monthly Code Volume Count Rate Revenue RESIDENTIAL Cost of 2.6% CPI Increase Total Cost of Cost of Cost of Cost from 1.6% 1.40% 2.61% 8.21% nderfunde Green wast Delayed Combined Fees Disposition Increase Increases Curb Service GA1 1-10gal 357 $ 2.85 $ 1,017.45 $ 26.45 $ 16.28 $ 14.24 $ 26.56 $ 83.53 GA10 1-20gal 297 6.00 1,782.00 46.33 28.51 24.95 46.51 146.30 GA2 1-30gal 2531 GAll 2-20gal 20 GA12 3-20gal 1 GA3 2-30gal 475 GA13 4-20gal 1 GA4 3-30gal 19 GA8 4-30gal 0 10.80 27,334.80 710.70 437.36 382.69 713.44 2,244.19 14.60 292.00 7.59 4.67 4.09 7.62 23.97 22.30 22.30 0.58 0.36 0.31 0.58 1.83 22.50 10,687.50 277.88 171.00 149.63 278.94 877.45 30.00 30.00 0.78 0.48 0.42 0.78 2.46 34.00 646.00 16.80 10.34 9.04 16.86 53.04 50.00 ...... Pack-out Service GA20 1-10gal 7 GA14 1-20gal 21 GA5 1-30gal 194 GA15 2-20gal 0 GA6 2-30gal 29 GA16 3-20gal 0 GA17 4-20gal 0 GA7 3-30gal 0 GA9 4-30gal 0 $ 4.40 $ 30.80 $ 0.80 $ 0.49 $ 0.43 $ 0.80 $ 2.52 7.55 158.55 4.12 2.54 2.22 4.14 13.02 13.20 2,560.80 66.58 40.97 35.85 66.84 210.24 18.30 - 27.40 794.60 20.66 12.71 11.12 20.74 65.23 29.00 ...... 40.00 ...... 42.45 ...... 58.50 ...... Remote Area Service (BGR - small truck service) GA74 1-10gal 1 $ 10.80 $ 10.80 $ 0.28 $ 0.17 $ 0.15 $ 0.28 $ 0.88 GA70 1-30gal 30 20.25 607.50 15.80 9.72 8.51 15.86 49.89 GA71 2-30gal 6 41.60 249.60 6.49 3.99 3.49 6.51 20.48 GA72 3-30gal 0 62.90 - - GA73 4-30gal 0 84.40 .... Miscellaneous Service GA30 -105ga 57 $ 43.10 $ 2,456.70 $ 63.87 $ 39.31 $ 34.39 $ 64.12 $ 201.69 TOTAL 4046 $ 48,681.40 $1,265.71 $ 778.90 $ 681.53 $1,270.58 $ 3,996.72 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 1 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Attachment 6 GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1995 Current Rate Custome Monthly Code Volume Count Rate Commercial customers by use code 1 106 2 53 3 17 4 6 5 5 6 0 7 1 8 2 10 1 11 0 12 1 13 0 14 3 15 3 16 0 17 1 18 0 19 1 23 1 32 1 100 101 28 102 128 103 72 106 0 107 1 108 2 109 1 111 1 112 1 113 0 114 1 115 1 117 1 118 2 119 1 120 1 202 42 203 41 204 0 205 4 206 1 207 0 215 1 217 1 218 0 221 0 224 1 10.80 22.50 34.00 50.00 60.80 72.50 84.00 100.00 122.50 100.00 58.50 134.00 6.00 2.85 14.60 27.40 42.45 71.70 45.00 102.00 62.00 73.50 98.00 120.50 147.00 294.00 318.50 490.00 588.00 245.00 84.40 72.80 169.05 196.00 136.20 269.50 147.00 196.00 294.00 392.00 588.00 784.00 588.00 245.00 269.50 1,323.00 980.00 Monthly Revenue $ 1,144.80 1,192.50 578.00 300.00 304.00 - 84.00 200.00 122.50 58.50 18.00 8.55 - 27.40 . 71.70 45.00 102.00 . 1,736.00 9,408.00 7,056.00 . 147.00 588.00 318.50 490.00 588.00 - 84.40 72.80 169.05 392.00 136.20 269.50 6,174.00 8,036.00 - 1,568.00 588.00 . 588.00 245.00 . 980.00 Cost of Cost of Cost of 2.6% 1.6% 1.40% CPI nderfunde Green wast Increase Fees Disposition $ 29.76 31.01 15.03 7.80 7.90 . 2.18 5.20 3.19 . 1.52 . O.47 0.22 . 0.71 1.86 1.17 2.65 45.14 244.61 183.46 3.82 15.29 8.28 12.74 15.29 . 2.19 1.89 4.40 10.19 3.54 7.01 160.52 208.94 40.77 15.29 15.29 6.37 - 25.48 Cost of 2.61% Delayed Increase GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 2 $ 18.32 $ 16.03 19.08 16.70 9.25 8.09 4.80 4.20 4.86 4.26 - . 1.34 1.18 2.19 3.20 2.80 5.22 1.96 1.72 3.20 - . . 0.94 0.82 1.53 - . . 0.29 0.25 0.47 0.14 0.12 0.22 . 0.44 0.38 0.72 -- . 1.15 1.00 1.87 0.72 0.63 1.17 1.63 1.43 2.66 - . 27.78 24.30 45.31 150.53 131.71 245.55 112.90 98.78 184.16 - . . 2.35 2.06 3.84 9.41 8.23 15.35 5.10 4.46 8.31 7.84 6.86 12.79 9.41 8.23 15.35 -- . 1.35 1.18 2.20 1.16 1.02 1.90 2.70 2.37 4.41 6.27 5.49 10.23 2.18 1.91 3.55 4.31 3.77 7.03 98.78 86.44 161.14 128.58 112.50 209.74 . . . 25.09 21.95 40.92 9.41 8.23 15.35 - . . 9.41 8.23 15.35 3.92 3.43 6.39 - . -- 15.68 13.72 25.58 Total Cost from 8.21% Combined Increases 29.88 31.12 15.09 7.83 7.93 93.99 97.91 47.46 24.63 24.95 . 6.89 16.42 10.07 . 4.81 . 1.48 0.70 2.25 . 5.88 3.69 8.37 . 142.53 772.40 579.30 . 12.07 48.28 26.15 40.23 48.28 . 6.92 5.97 13.88 32.18 11.18 22.12 506.88 659.76 128.73 48.28 48.28 20.11 . . 80.46 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Attachment 6 GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1995 Current Rate Custome Monthly Code Volume Count Rate 225 1 784.00 302 1 220.50 303 28 294.00 304 1 784.00 305 1 441.00 306 0 514.50 307 3 588.00 308 0 1,127.00 402 1 294.00 403 10 392.00 407 1 784.00 410 1 588.00 411 0 441.00 502 1 367.50 503 1 490.00 504 2 735.00 505 1 1,715.00 523 1 980.00 602 2 441.00 603 6 588.00 604 0 735.00 605 1 44i.00 606 1 1,176.00 607 1 1,372.00 608 2 1,764.00 615 1 2,352.00 616 0 931.00 901 1 882.00 902 0 1,764.00 903 0 1,617.00 904 0 1,470.00 905 1 1,323.00 906 1 2,058.00 950 45 43.10 960 7 86.20 970 1 53.90 980 0 1,029.00 990 0 895.00 995 1 699.00 Cost of 2.6% Monthly CPI Revenue Increase 784.00 20.38 220.50 5.73 8,232.00 214.03 784.00 20.38 441.00 11.47 - . 1,764.00 45.86 - . 294.00 7.64 3,920.00 101.92 784.00 20.38 588.00 15.29 . - 367.50 9.56 490.00 12.74 1,470.00 38.22 1,715.00 44.59 980.00 25.48 882.00 22.93 3,528.00 91.73 - 441.00 11.47 1,176.00 30.58 1,372.00 35.67 3,528.00 91.73 2,352.00 61.1 5 - . 882.00 22.93 . . - . 1,323.00 34.40 2,058.00 53.51 1,939.50 50.43 603.40 15.69 53.90 1.40 . - . 699.00 18.17 Cost of Cost of Cost of 1.6% 1.40% 2.61% nderfunde Green wast Delayed Fees Disposition Increase 12.54 10.98 20.46 3.53 3.09 5.76 131.71 115.25 214.86 12.54 10.98 20.46 7.06 6.17 11.51 - _ . 28.22 24.70 46.04 -- _ 4.70 4.12 7.67 62.72 54.88 102.31 12.54 10.98 20.46 9.41 8.23 15.35 - . . 5.88 5.15 9.59 7.84 6.86 12.79 23.52 20.58 38.37 27.44 24.01 44.76 15.68 13.72 25.58 14.11 12.35 23.02 56.45 49.39 92.08 - . . 7.06 6.17 11.51 18.82 16.46 30.69 21.95 19.21 35.81 56.45 49.39 92.08 37.63 32.93 61.39 - . 14.11 12.35 23.02 - . - . . - _ . 21.17 18.52 34.53 32.93 28.81 53.71 31.03 27.15 50.62 9.65 8.45 15.75 0.86 0.75 1.41 - . . - . 11.18 9.79 18.24 TOTAL 659 IMONTHLY GRAND TOTAL 4705 ITA5 Months without increase 7 Months with increase NNUAL OTAL $ 87,563.20 $ 2,276.64 $136,244.601[$3,542.35 $ 681,223 $ 1,032,012 $ 1,713,235 $ 24,796 Total Cost from 8.21% Combined Increases 64.36 18.11 675.85 64.36 36.21 144.82 . 24.13 321.83 64.36 48.28 . 30.18 40.23 120.69 140.80 80.46 72.41 289.65 36.21 96.55 112.64 289.65 193.10 . 72.41 . . . 108.62 168.96 159.23 49.54 4.42 . . 57.38 $1,401.01 $1,225.90 $2,285.38 $ 7,188.93 $2,179.91 $1,907.43 $3,555.96 $11,185.65 Totalrevenueincreasefor7 months $ 15,259 $ 13,352 $ 24,892 $ 78,300 These calculations exclude the cost for drop boxes - rate code 100 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 3 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Current 8.21% Rate Custome Monthly New Code Volume Count Rate Rate RESIDENTIAL Curb Service GA1 1-10gal 357 $ 2.85 $ 3.08 GA10 1-20gal 297 6.00 6.49 GA2 1-30gal 2531 10.80 11.69 GAll 2-20gal 20 14.60 15.80 GA12 3-20gal 1 22.30 24.13 GA3 2-30gal 475 22.50 24.35 GA13 4-20gal 1 30.00 32.46 GA4 3-30gal 19 34.00 36.79 GA8 4-30gal 0 50.00 54.11 Pack-out Service GA20 1-10gal 7 $ 4.40 $ 4.76 GA14 1-20gal 21 7.55 8.17 GA5 1-30gal 194 13.20 14.28 GA15 2-20gal 0 18.30 19.80 GA6 2-30gal 29 27.40 29.65 GA16 3-20gal 0 29.00 31.38 GA17 4-20gal 0 40.00 43.28 GA7 3-30gal 0 42.45 45.94 GA9 4-30gal 0 58.50 63.30 Remote Area Service GA74 1-10gal 1 $ 10.80 $ 11.69 GA70 1-30gal 30 20.25 21.91 GA71 2-30gal 6 41.60 45.02 GA72 3-30gal 0 62.90 68.06 GA73 4-30gal 0 84.40 91.33 Miscellaneous Service GA30 -105ga 57 $ 43.10 $ 46.64 Attachment 6 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 4 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Current 8.21% Rate Monthly New .Code Rate .Rate Attachment 6 COMMERCIAL Commercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above. 1-1yd $ 62.00 $ 67.00 All other sizes: Rate peryard perweek $ 49.00 $ 53.00 Examples of New Commercial Rate: I yard bin - picked up I time per week = I yard @ $67 = $67 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards (~ $53 = $424 per month DROP BOXES Special 3-day rental 3 yard box per dump $' 87.00 $ 94.00 Weekly - 7-day rental 10 yard box per dump 15 yard box per dump 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump $ 75.00 $ 81.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 81.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 81.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 81.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 81.00 Plus tipping fee Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. Compactors 6 yard compactor 12 yard compactor 25 yard compactor $218.00 $ 236.00 $ 328.00 $ 355.00 $534.00 $ 578.00 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 5 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Current 8.21% Rate Custome Monthly New Code Count Rate Rate Commercial customers by use code 1 106 $ 10.80 $ 11.69 2 53 22.50 24.35 3 17 34.00 36.79 4 6 50.00 54.11 5 5 60.80 65.79 6 0 72.50 78.45 7 1 84.00 90.90 8 2 100.00 108.21 10 1 122.50 132.56 11 0 100.00 108.21 12 1 58.50 63.30 13 0 134.00 145.00 14 3 6.00 6.49 15 3 2.85 3.08 16 0 14.60 15.80 17 1 27.40 29.65 18 0 42.45 45.94 19 1 71.70 77.59 23 1 45.00 48.69 32 1 102.00 110.37 100 . 101 28 62.00 67.09 102 128 73.50 79.53 103 72 98.00 106.05 106 0 120.50 130.39 107 1 147.00 159.07 108 2 294.00 318.14 109 1 318.50 344.65 111 1 490.00 530.23 112 1 588.00 636.27 113 0 245.00 265.11 114 1 84.40 91.33 115 1 72.80 78.78 117 1 169.05 182.93 118 2 196.00 212.09 119 1 136.20 147.38 120 1 269.50 291.63 202 42 147.00 159.07 203 41 196.00 212.09 204 0 294.00 318.14 205 4 392.00 424.18 206 1 588.00 636.27 207 0 784.00 848.37 215 1 588.00 636.27 217 1 245.00 265.11 218 0 269.50 291.63 221 0 1,323.00 1,431.62 224 1 980.00 1,060.46 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 6 Attachment 6 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Current 8.21% Rate Custome Monthly New Code Count Rate Rate 225 1 784.00 848.37 302 1 220.50 238.60 303 28 294.00 318.14 304 1 784.00 848.37 305 1 441.00 477.21 306 0 514.50 556.74 307 3 588.00 636.27 308 0 1,127.00 1,219.53 402 1 294.00 318.14 403 10 392.00 424.18 407 1 784.00 848.37 410 1 588.00 636.27 411 0 441.00 477.21 502 1 367.50 397.67 503 1 490.00 530.23 504 2 735.00 795.34 505 1 1,71 5.00 1,855.80 523 1 980.00 1,060.46 602 2 441.00 477.21 603 6 588.00 636.27 604 0 735.00 795.34 605 1 441.00 477.21 606 1 1,176.00 1,272.55 607 1 1,372.00 1,484.64 608 2 1,764.00 1,908.82 615 1 2,352.00 2,545.10 616 0 931.00 1,007.44 901 1 882.00 954.41 902 0 1,764.00 1,908.82 903 0 1,617.00 1,749.76 904 0 1,470.00 1,590.69 905 1 1,323.00 1,431.62 906 1 2,058.00 2,226.96 950 45 43.10 46.64 960 7 86.20 93.28 970 1 53.90 58.33 980 0 1,029.00 1,113.48 990 0 895.00 968.48 995 1 699.00 756.39 Attachment 6 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 7 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Garbage customers by rate code as of 9/20/95 Current Rate Custome Monthly Code Volume Count Rate RESIDENTIAL Curb Service FYI Total Cost per Gallons Gallon GA1 1-10gal 357 $ 2.85 GA10 1-20gal 297 6.00 GA2 1-30gal 2531 10.80 GAll 2-20gal 20 14.60 GA12 3-20gal 1 22.30 GA3 2-30gal 475 22.50 GA13 4-20gal 1 30.00 GA4 3-30gal 19 34.00 GA8 4-30gal 0 50.00 10 $ 0.308 2O $ O.325 3O $ O.39O 4O $ O.395 6O $ O.4O2 6O $ O.4O6 8O $ O.4O6 9O $ O.409 120 $ 0.451 Pack-out Service GA20 1-10gal 7 $ 4.40 GA14 1-20gal 21 7.55 GA5 1-30gal 194 13.20 GA15 2-20gal 0 18.30 GA6 2-30gal 29 27.40 GA16 3-20gal 0 29.00 GA17 4-20gal 0 40.00 GA7 3-30gal 0 42.45 GA9 4-30gal 0 58.50 10 $ 0.476 20 $ 0.409 3O $ 0.476 40 $ 0.495 60 $ 0.494 6O $ O.523 8O $ 0.541 90 $ 0.510 120 $ 0.528 Remote Area Service GA74 1-10gal 1 $ 10.80 GA70 1-30gal 30 20.25 GA71 2-30gal 6 41.60 GA72 3-30gal 0 62.90 GA73 4-30gal 0 84.40 10 $ 1.169 30 $ 0.730 60 $ 0.750 90 $ 0.756 120 $ 0.761 Miscellaneous Service GA30 -105ga 57 $ 43.10 105 $ 0.444] Attachment 6 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 8 Sheet1 1 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15, 16 18 19 21 25 RESOLUTION NO. 95-34 RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CITY OF UKIAll ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE WHEREAS, the City Council, under terms of its franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., must adjust garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index, and WHEREAS, the increase in the Consumer Price Index from March 1993 to March 1994 was 2.5%, resulting in a 1.9% increase in garbage rates, and WHEREAS, the Refuse and Recycling Collection contract further stipulates that the City shall add to the garbage rate any amounts necessary to fully compensate Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., for any increase in the gate fee charged to them for disposing of refuse at the City-owned landfill, and WHEREAS, on August 3, 1994, the City Council authorized an increase of the Ukiah Solid Wastes Disposal Site gate tees to offset substantial increases in the cost of operation and maintenance due to increased State and Federal mandates, increased set aside reserves for closure and postclosure maintenance and initiating pre-closure preparatory projects to alleviate additional excessive costs at the time the landfill closes, equating to a 13.8% increase in rates, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Franchise Agreement, the City has been unable to collect the increased tipping tee for the period August 6, 1994 through October 1, 1994, from Solid Wastes Systems Inc., until the garbage rate adjustment is established to fully compensate them for the increase in the gate'fee, and WHEREAS, the uncollected tipping tees in the amount of $46,986 need t° be recovered to meet landfill budgetary requirements, and WHEREAS, 70% of ali refuse from the City is generated by commercial customers and 30% 1 2 4 5 ? 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 1// 19 20 21 22 2~ 25 26 27 generated by residential customers, equating to 3.7% increase for commercial customers and a 2.8% increase for residential customers in rates to cover the uncollected tipping fees from August 6, 1994 through October 1, 1994, and WHEREAS, the City of Ukiah has incurred increased costs as a result of improved recycling and waste diversion programs. These costs alone require a 2.5% increase in rates, and WHEREAS, additional expenses generated by State and Federal mandated regulations and programs has forced the City Council to determine that the City's recycling and waste diversion programs can no longer be subsidized by the City's Solid Wastes Disposal Site, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed the proposed rates and made his recommendation, and WHEREAS, the City did duly notice a pulic hearing and make available the City Manager's report and recommendation for public inspection, all in accordance with the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, and did consider in a public hearing the proposed rates, the recommendation of its City Manager and all public testimony at its regular meeting of December 21, 1994. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby: 1. Finds that an increase of rates is necessary to (a) offset rising costs of operation, (b) offset new landfill tipping fees, and (c) offset the expense of the AB939 State mandated recycling and waste diversion programs. 2. Adopts the rate structure set forth below and made a part of this resolution. 1 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 18 19 25 27 CITY OF UKIAH RESIDENTIAl., MONTHLY RATES SERVICE CURB SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans PACK-OUT 1-10 gal can 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans MONTHLY RATE $ 2.85 6.00 14.60 22.30 30.00 10.80 22.50 34.00 50.00 4.40 7.55 18.30 29.00 40.00 13.20 27.40 42.45 58.50 REMOTE AREA SERVICE* 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans *BGR - small truck (Billy Goat) run, tbr remote areas. 20.25 41.60 62.90 84.40 MISCELLANEOUS 1-105 gal toter MONTHLY RATE $43.10 Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb rate may apply to certain residential customers even if they receive the pack-out service. CITY OF UKIAH COMMERCIAL MONTtlLY RATES Comlnercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above. The rate for one yard commercial service, (one yard bin pick-up one time per week) shall be $62.00. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALL OTIIER COMMERCIAL MONTHLY RATES ARE $49.00/YARD/WEEK EXAMPLES OF NEW COMMERCIAL RATE: I yard bin- picked up I time per week = I yard = $62 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards = $392 per month OTHER SERVICE RATES DROP BOXES Special 3-Day Rental 3 yard box per dump TOTAL RATE $ 87.00 Weekly ' 7-Day Rental 10 yard box per dump 15 yard box per dump 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump $ 75.00 plus tipping fee 75.00 plus tipping fee 75.00 plus tipping fee 75.00 plus tipping fee 75.00 plus tipping fee Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. Compactors MONTHLY RATE 6 yard compactor $218.00 12 yard compactor 328.00 25 yard compactor 534.00 Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal Appliances $15.00 plus current disposal charge Tires (up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route) $3.10 each Tires (5 or more automobile- or motorcycle sized tires, special trip) $15.00 plus current disposal charge Large truck sized tires (special trip) $15.00 plus current disposal charge Furniture and Other Items (special trip) $15.00 plus current disposal charge Locking bin $20.00 (one-time setup charge) Special service rates may be established-based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and labor cost. Such rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by City Council. 1 6 ? 9 10 11 15 16 18 19 9O 26 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedules adopted by this Res°lution shall'be effective as of January 1, 1995. Ali prior rate schedules in conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. All other contract conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of December , 1994 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger and Mayor Schneiter NOES: COLu~cilmember Shoemaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None · Fred B:RESI GARBAGE2.FEE ATTACHMENT 8 I 1 5 6 ? 9 10 11 12 1:3 li 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 25 :26 27 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING REVISED SCHEDULE OF FEES AND RATES FOR GARBAGE AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICE WHEREAS, the City Council, under terms of its franchise agreement with Solid Wastes Systems, Inc., must adjust garbage and recycling collection fees and charges using an automatic annual rate adjustment based on a 75% change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Consumer Price Index; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined that Solid Wastes Systems is entitled to receive a net annual increase of the 75% change in CPI after billing and franchise fees are deducted; and WHEREAS, the increase in the Consumer Price Index from March 1994 to March 1995 was 2.9%, creating a base increase in garbage rates of 2.1% to which is added a 0.5% increase to cover the increased franchise and billing charges Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. will incur with the increase in gross revenue, for an increase of 2.6%; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that Solid Wastes Systems, at the last CPI rate adjustment, did not receive a net 75% of the change in the CPI due to the deduction of the franchise and billing fee, and agrees that a 1.6% increase is necessary to compensate Solid Wastes Systems, Inc. for related tYanchise and billing fees from last year's CPI increase; and WHEREAS, the Refuse and Recycling Collection contract further stipulates that prior to July 1, 1995, the City Council shall conduct a rate hearing to determine what, if any adjustment should be made to the garbage and recycling collection rates in the third or subsequent years, taking into consideration the annual audits of the contractors operations and all other factors deemed relevant by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the CPI adjustment to garbage and recycling rates was approved with an effective date December 1, 1995; and WHEREAS, a 2.61% increase to the garbage and recycling rates is necessary to fulfil the City's contractual obligation to compensate Solid Wastes Systems from the period July 1 to the approved effective date of December 1; and WHEREAS, yardwaste processing costs have increased from $3.12 to $3.75 per cubic yard, and residential and commercial curbside yardwaste collection have not been charged processing fees in the past, but have been subsidized by landfill fees; and WHEREAS, City Council has determined it necessary to increase the garbage and recycling collection rates by 1.40% to include the cost for processing the yardwaste collected from the curbside III 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 25 26 27 28 III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III program; and WHEREAS, the 1.40% does not reflect the total funds necessary for processing the yardwaste collected from the curbside program; and WHEREAS, the remainder of the funds necessary to offset the processing costs of yardwaste collected from the curbside program shall be taken from the revenued generated from the increase in franchise fees that will be collected as a result of the recommended increases, and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed the proposed rates and made her recommendation; and WHEREAS, the City did duly notice a public hearing and make available the City Manager's report and recommendation for public inspection, all in accordance with the requirements of the Ukiah City Code, and did consider in a public hearing the proposed rates, the recommendation of its City Manager, and all public testimony at its regular meeting of November 15, 1995. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the rate structure set forth below and made a part of this resolution. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY RATES SERVICE CURB SERVICE Minimum (10 gal can) 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans PACK-OUT 1-10 gal can 1-20 gal can 2-20 gal cans 3-20 gal cans 4-20 gal cans 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans MONTHLY RATE $ 3.08 6.49 15.80 24.13 32.46 11.69 24.35 36.79 54.11 4.76 8.17 19.80 31.38 43.28 14.28 29.65 45.94 63.30 REMOTE AREA SERVICE (small truck (Billy Goat) 1-10 gal can 1-30 gal can 2-30 gal cans 3-30 gal cans 4-30 gal cans *BGR - small truck (Billy Goat) run, for remote areas. run used for remote areas) 11.69 21.91 45.02 68.06 91.33 MISCELLANEOUS 1-105 gal toter MONTHLY RATE $46.64 Upon proof of physical handicap, the curb rate may apply to certain residential customers even if they receive the pack-out service. COMMERCIAL MONTHLY RATES Commercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above. The rate for one yard commercial service, (one yard bin pick-up one time per week) shall be $67.00. All other commercial monthly rates are $53.00 per yard per week. EXAMPLES OF NEW COMMERCIAL RATE: 1 yard bin - picked up 1 time per week = 1 yard at $67.00 = $67.00 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week = 8 yards at $53.00 = $424 per month /// III 1 5 ? lO 20 21 27 OTIIER SERVICE RATES DROP BOXES Special 3-Day Rental 3 yard box per dump TOTAL RATE $ 94.00 Weekly - 7-Day Rental 10 yard box per dump 15 yard box per dump 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump $ 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee 81.00 plus tipping fee Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. Compactors MONTHLY RATE 6 yard compactor $236.00 12 yard compactor 355.00 25 yard compactor 578.00 Special Services - Call-in pickup and disposal Appliances $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge Tires (up to 4 automobile or motorcycle sized tires on regular garbage collection route) $3.10 each Tires (5 or more automobile or motorcycle sized tires, special trip) $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge Large truck sized tires (special trip) $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge Furniture and Other Items (special trip) $15.00 for special trip plus current disposal charge Locking bin $20.00 (one-time setup charge) Special service rates may be established based on the current disposal charge plus equipment and labor cost. Such rates shall be approved by the City Manager with ratification by City Council. /// III III /// 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the rate schedule adopted by this Resolution shall be effective for all bills issued on or after December 1, 1995. All prior rate schedules in conflict herewith are repealed upon the effective date of the new schedule. All other contract conditions for service remain unaltered and in full effect. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 1995 by the following roll call vote: AYES' NOES' ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Fred Schneiter, Mayor Cathy McKay, City Clerk B:I~RESI :kk GARBAGE3.FEE RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION I Current 9.25% Rate Custome Monthly New Code Count Rate Rat_._~e RESIDENTIAL Curb Service GA1 1-10gal 357 $ 2.85 $ 3.11 GA10 1-20gal 297 6.00 6.56 GA2 1-30gal 2531 10.80 11.80 GAll 2-20gal 20 14.60 15.95 GA12 3-20gal I 22.30 24.36 GA3 2-30gal 475 22.50 24.58 GA13 4-20gal 1 30.00 32.78 GA4 3-30gal 19 34.00 37.15 GA8 4-30gal 0 50.00 54.63 Pack-out Service GA20 1-10gal 7 $ 4.40 $ 4.81 GA14 1-20gal 21 7.55 8.25 GA5 1-30gal 194 13.20 14.42 GA15 2-20gal 0 18.30 19.99 GA6 2-30gal 29 27.40 29.93 GA16 3-20gal 0 29.00 31.68 GA17 4-20gal 0 40.00 43.70 GA7 3-30gal 0 42.45 46.38 GA9 4-30gal 0 58.50 63.91 Remote Area Service GA74 1-10gal 1 $ 10.80 $ 11.80 GA70 1-30gal 30 20.25 22.12 GA71 2-30gal 6 41.60 45.45 GA72 3-30gal 0 62.90 68.72 GA73 4-30gal 0 84.40 92.21 Miscellaneous Service GA30 -105ga 57 $ 43.10 $ 47.09 Attachment 3 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 1 Sheet1 RATE INCREASE REQUESTED BY SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS, INC. Attachment 3 GARBAGE RATE CALCULATION 1 Current 9.25% Rate Monthly New Code Rate Rate COMMERCIAL Commercial can or totter service shall be charged at residential rates shown above. 1-1yd $ 62.00 $ 68.00 All other sizes: Rate per yard perweek $ 49.00 $ 54.00 Examples of New Commercial Rate: I yard bin - picked up 1 time per week = I yard @ $67 = $67 per month 2 yard bin - picked up 4 times per week -- 8 yards (~ $53 = $424 per month DROP BOXES Special 3-day rental 3 yard box per dump $ 87.00 $ 95.00 Weekly - 7-day rental 10 yard box per dump 15 yard box per dump 20 yard box per dump 30 yard box per dump 40 yard box per dump $ 75.00 $ 82.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 82.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 82.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 82.00 Plus tipping fee $ 75.00 $ 82.00 Plus tipping fee Additional $10.00 fee for retaining drop box more than 7 days. Compactors 6 yard compactor $ 218.00 $ 238.00 12 yard compactor $ 328.00 $ 358.00 25 yard compactor $ 534.00 $ 583.00 GARATE95.XLS 11/8/95 Page 2 Sheet1 GENERAL FUND #100 IBud.qeted amounts: Beginning fund balance 7/1/95 Revenue budgeted Expenses budgeted Budgeted ending fund balance 6/30/96 $ 330,669 $ 5,720,423 $(5,993,240) $ 57,852 Adjustments made durinq the fiscal year: Date Approved 9/20/95 Funding for Mendocino County Library 9/20/95 Employee recognizion/Christmas party 9/20/95 Transfer from General Fund Reserve 9/20/95 Transfer from General Fund Reserve 9/20/95 Legal council for Clean Water Act claim 9/20/95 Legal council/litigation costs- investments 9/20/95 Transfer from General Fund Reserve 9/20/95 Transfer from General Fund Reserve P11/15/95 Transfer to Solid Waste Disposal - Yardwaste disposal Pll/15/95 Franchise fee revenue- Solid Waste Systems Account No. 100.1945.690.003 $ (22,955) 100.1001.690.003 $ (2,450) 100.281.115 $ 22,955 100.281.115 $ 2,450 100.1401.250.000 $ (20,000) 100.1401.250.000 $ (270,000) lOO.281.115 $ 20,oo0 100.281.115 $ 270,000 100.283.660 $ (9,700) 100.0300.330.001 $ 9,700 Revised ending fund balance 6/30/96 $ 57,852 RESERVES.XLS 11/9/95 Page 1 Fund 100 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL - FUND #660 Budgeted amounts: Beginning fund balance 7/1/95 Budgeted revenue Expenditures budgeted from fund Transfers budgeted (net) Budgeted ending fund balance 6/30/96 $ (79,883) $1,7O2,57O $(1,852,452) $ (26,865) $ (256,630)i Adjustments made durinq the fiscal year: Date Approved 10/4/95 Landfill EIR consultant contract 10/4/95 Transfer from Fund 661 11/15/95 Transfer from General Fund #100 Account No. 660.7301.250 660.283.661 660.281.100 $ (30,000 $ 30,000 $ 9,700 Revised ending fund balance 6~30~96 $ (246,930) RESERVES.XLS 11/9/95 Page 1 Fund 660 Meeting the Waste Reduction Challenge Report to Mgndocino County on diversion of solid waste from disposal Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority November, 'i 995 Contents Recycling Hits a Plateau Why Recycle More? Where We Stand Today Recommendations Hauler Action Local Government Action Cost Allocation Appendices 2 3 4 10 A. Hauler Services, Residential Spreadsheet B. Hauler Services, Commercial Spreadsheet C. Jurisdictions: Disposal Sites Speadsheet D. Jurisdictions: Community Leadership Spreadsheet E. Interview List F. News from Elsewhere This report was prepared by Mike Sweeney, Karen Gridley, Nancy Roca and Marie Fostiak for the Mendocino So/id Waste Management Authority. Printed on recycled paper Recycling Hits a Plateau After quick increases in 1990-93, recycling has hit a plateau in Mendocino County. Few new recycling opportunities or programs have been added since that time. This was somewhat predictable. In 1990-93, the easier steps were taken. To make further progress, more demanding steps must be taken by the local governments, waste haulers, and the public. The tonnage of solid waste sent to landfills in Mendocino County has stabilized after declining in 1990-91. Recycling volumes continue to increase, but this has only counterbalanced the tendency of solid waste disposal to rise due to population growth. A new level of commitment is necessary to achieve actual reductions in solid waste disposal. Estimated disposal tonnage 1991 year ended 1992 1993 1994 1995 April 30, 1991 [pro/ected from first g months] Unincorpor- ated County 28,717 24,819 24,976 . .23,368 25,895 City of Ukiah 11,811' .11,874 11,797 !.1,999' .12,588 City of Fort Br agg 7,576 5,158 5,744 5,460 5,857 City of Willits 4,312 3,622 ,' 3,6J 5 3,7'69 3,797 TOTAL 52,416 45,473 46,132 44,596 , 48,137 Note: As reported by disposal site operators. PAGE 1 Recycling tonnage reported by principal haulers 1~91 I~ 199'2 1993 1994 Solid Wastes of Willits 330 625 1,478 2,250 Solid Waste ..... Systems 5141 8051 3,993 4,585 (Ukiah) Fort Bragg Disposal n/a 1,796 2,670 2,776 , Empire Waste Management n/a 846 1,320 1,242 ,, Pacific Coast Disposal 0 154 205 450 TOTAL 4,226 9,666 11,303 Note: 1. Yard waste tonnage not included for 1991 & 1992. 2. Recycling by haulers is only a portion of total recycling. Other recycling is done by disposal sites, independent buy-back centers, Smurfitt Recycling Company, large stores & offices, and others. Why Recycle More? With the ongoing switch to waste export, the disposal of non-recyclable solid waste becomes an economic drain on the community. Dollars that are spent on long-haul transport of solid waste and dumping at a distant landfill, are dollars that leave Mendocino County and don't return. The local economy is depressed to the extent that these costs are incurred. Recycling, on the other hand, can be an economic boon. Commodities like recycled newspaper, cardboard, plastic bottles, glass bottles, aluminum cans, and scrap metal earn substantial revenue at the wholesale market. This revenue should return to the local economy in the form of local employment in recycling collection and processing, reduced charges for waste disposal, and/or direct payment to the public. Simply put, this means that the more we recycle, the more prosperous we will be as a community. PAGE 2 There are also important environmental considerations. Recycling is a way to recover resources that would otherwise have to be extracted from the natural environment by mining or logging. Mendocino County has a duty to do its part in the larger worldwide effort to conserve resources and energy. Finally, there is the legal requirement. AB 939 mandates that all jurisdictions achieve 50% waste diversion by the year 2000. We are still far from that goal. AB 939 also mandates that each jurisdiction adopt a Source Reduction & Recycling Element that sets forth programs to achieve 50% waste diversion. Our local jurisdictions adopted such plans in 1994, but they have been only partly implemented. Where We Stand Today MSWMA has done a survey of recycling policies & performance of the four local government jurisdictions and the six local waste haulers. This information is attached in Appendices A through D. It includes: · Hauler residential service · Hauler commercial service · Disposal site recycling programs · Local jurisdictions' activities There have been important accomplishments by the haulers and the jurisdictions which deserve praise. Five years ago, almost all solid waste was sent to landfills in Mendocino County. Today, we have the foundation of a comprehensive recycling system with the participation at some level by most households and businesses. To find out where improvements can be made, MSWMA met with the haulers and local government staff [a list of persons interviewed appears in Appendix E]. MSWMA staff studied the recycling programs first-hand and gathered information about more intensive recycling programs elsewhere in California and the nation. PAGE 3 Recommendations · Hauler Action I . bin Eliminate charges for commercial recycling service (except nominal rental). One of the biggest obstacles to expansion of recycling in the commercial sector is high monthly charges for commercial recycling service in some areas. By contrast, curbside recycling service for households is provided at no extra charge, with a subsidy included in the garbage collection rates. To encourage recycling, the same policy should be followed in the commercial sector, by making commercial recycling service free to commercial customers except for a nominal dumpster or toter rental charge of about $5 per month. The value of the recycled commodities collected will help offset the cost of the service. ICky of Ukiah already follows this policy], When the value of recyclables reaches and maintains high levels, payment should be made to commercial customers to reflect this value. 2. Provide either toters or specialized multi-compartment 'dumpsters for recycling at all multi-family complexes.- The lack of an appropriate recycling .system for apartments and mobile home parks is the biggest hole in Mendocino County's recycling performance. Years of experience have shown that merely giving the apartments a bunch of the small residential curbside bins is not a workable solution. Well-marked 90- \ gallon toters, or divided dumpsters with special recycling tops, are used successf, ully in many local jurisdictions around the nation. 3. Provide roll-off box customers with recycling by creating separate compartments in the roll-off box or else providing supplementary recycling dumpsters. PAGE 4 Roll-off box customers tend to order one huge box for construction, demolition or clean-up work. But there' are many recyclable materials in the waste generated from these activities, particularly wood, concrete, metal, cardboard, and yard waste. There has been very little recycling activity by this sector. The haulers should "sell" recycling to roll-off box customers at the time of the order, and provide a suitable recycling system. Roll-off boxes can have removable sections inserted in them to create compartments for different materials. Or, several smaller bins can be provided instead of one' big box. 4. Provide a large incentive for households to reduce to 10 gallon service. Both Ukiah and Willits provide a big rate reduction from 30 gallon service to 10 gallon. On other routes, the difference is very small [see rate data in appendix]. A large reduction is an important incentive for households to achieve greater waste diversion. 5. Collect additional types of recyclables through all programs. local processing to help sort them out. Provide If a recycling market exists for an item, convenient opportunities should be provided to the public to recycle it. In addition to the usual cans, bottles, newspaper, and cardboard, the San Jose curbside recycling pickup includes the following materials: milk & juice caRons, plastic bags, textiles, StyrOfoam, small scrap metal items, plastic bottles and all kinds of mixed paper. If they can do it in San Jose, why not here? One advantage in San Jose and elsewhere is the availability of sorting lines which receive commingled recyclables, or "clean material recovery facilities(MRFs)". If local haulers want to continue to be the exclusive recycling agents of the local jurisdictions, they need to develop the processing capabilities to handle more recyclables and handle them in a coSt- effective manner. This may involve cooperation among the six hauling companies. 6. Conduct meaningful promotion of recycling to all new customers at the time of the ordering of new service, including roll-off box customers. PAGE 5 Residential customers should be routinely issued curbside collection bins and advised that full use of them will probably mean they can get by with smaller garbage service. Business customers should be asked what recyclables they generate and offered appropriate recycling service. This should also include customers who call up for one-time service, like roll-off boxes. Written materials describing recycling opportunities and costs of different levels of trash service Should be provided to all new customers. 7. Curbside recycling bins, commercial recycling bins, and downsized commercial trash bins should be readily available without waiting periods. Promotion of recycling to households and businesses is difficult if the hauler can't immediately supply the recycling bin needed. Similarly, a business can't reduce trash service to a smaller dumpster if the smaller size isn't available. This has been a persistent problem in some areas. 8. Provide the most efficient equipment and containers for collecting recyclables. Inefficient collection equipment means poor service and ultimately, higher costs. For example, a hauling company can't create a widespread recycling program with 90-gallon toters without the appropriate equipment to empty them. Usually this involves a specialized lifting arm. In the case of rural collection routes, it will probably be cost-effective to switch to co-collection trucks that handle both trash and recyclables. 90-gallon wheeled plastic toters are needed in many commercial recycling applications. In some instances, they need to be Iockable to prevent theft or contamination. 9. Use garbage bills as a tool to promote waste'diversion by (1) clearly itemizing charges to show size of service and (2) including statements Urging more recycling. Virtually all households and businesses can reduce their garbage bills by more waste diversion. As garbage rates continue to rise, this option must be PAGE 6 continually put before the public .at the most strategic time--when the bill is being paid. 10. Corrective notices should be attached to trash and recycling containers to instruct the public in proper procedures. The public will more likely follow rules for setting out recyclables at the curb or at businesses if the rules are communicated in a clear and timely manner. Haulers need to have checklists with adhesive backs that can be attached to recycled containers. After a warning, improperly sOrted recyclables should not be picked up. 11. Pay drop-off customers for high-value materials. When the market price of items like cor'rugated cardboard, office paper, and newspaper reaches a sufficiently high level, as it did in 1995, buy-back should be offered to customers who bring these materials to the hauler, just as payment is presently given for certain beverage containers. Each hauler should maintain a buy-back operation for this purpose. Materials like office paper should be marketed for their highest value, and not mixed With lower-grade papers which bring less than half the price from end-users. 12. Promote recycling with signs on hauler's trucks. Garbage collection trucks are highly visible and provide a good public awareness opportunity that is used by many cities. 13. Haulers should routinely provide MSWMA and the concerned local jurisdiction with complete data on recycling volumes collected by the program, and also with any changes in recycling programs. This data collection is essential for the local governments to track progress in the achievement of waste diversion objectives.. Updates on materials collected and costs is important to success of MSWMA public information efforts. PAGE 7 · Local Government Action 14. Require recycling by local jurisdiction's own employees while at work. A mandatory recycling policy for the local governments themselves will save government funds that would otherwise be wasted for trash disposal of readily- recyclable materials like office paper, cardboard, cans, bottles, plastic bottles, scrap metal and yard waste. Recycling bins are needed at all locations that have trash bins. Department managers need to have responsibility for implementing waste diversion in changing circumstances, for example in construction projects, remodeling or moving. This policy will provide support to the many government employees who already recycle, and also provide leadership to the rest of the community. 15. Institute waste prevention policies within local government operations. The basic source reduction measures such as avoidance of throw-aways, double-sided copying and printing, greater efficiency of use of paper, and procurement of 'recycled content paper need to be adopted. The experience of Pacific Bell is noteworthy--by switching to two-Sided bills, the company saved 1,010 tons of paper a year and saved $11.5 million. 16. Require recycling as a condition of permits for special events. Local governments issue permits for meetings, festivals, parades and other special events of all types, that together account for considerable waste generation. These permits should require that convenient and well-marked recycling be provided for readily-recyclable materials like cans, bottles, mixed paper and cardboard. A "How-To" pamphlet can be provided by MSWMA to accompany the permit. PAGE 8 17. Promote recycling at time of issuance of building permits. 18. Builders generate large amounts of recyclable wood, cardboard, scrap metal and gYpsum board, most of which is being iandfilled. MSWMA has provided literature in the past to be distributed with building permits, describing recycling opportunties. This can be done in the future if the local jurisdictions will distribute it with all building permits. Actively promote recycling at disposal site gate. The job description of gate attendants at disposal sites should include actNe promotion of recycling to all self-haul customers. Each customer should be asked, "Is there anything you can recycle?" and it should be pointed out that money can be saved by recycling instead of disposal. Loads should be examined, as time allows, to point out recyclables in the load. Penalty rates should apply to non-recycled self-haul loads, or loads should be rejected until recyclables are removed. 19. Add additional items for recycling at disposal sites. There are readily-available markets for gypsum board, matresses, foam padding, polystyrene and office paper, which aren't accepted for recycling at some disposal sites. Disposal site operators should offer recycling for as many items as possible. Buy-back recycling should be offered for California Redemption containers if possible, as is being done at the Covelo transfer station by its new operator, Solid Wastes of Willits. 20. Provide effective, well-designed recycling containers on Sidewalks and at parks. Such recycling containers should be well-marked, have reduced-size openings for recyclables only, and be placed wherever needed. Existing "garbage-only" containers can be retrofitted to provide a separate recycling space, as has been done in Berkeley. Willits and Fort Bragg use a wooden street-side unit for trash and recyclables. Its effectiveness should be evaluated. Grant funds for these PAGE 9 purposes can be obtained from the state Department of Conservation. MSWMA can assist in procurement of these funds. 21. Building permit officials shOuld carefully review all plans and ensure that adequate space is provided for collection of recyclables. Due'to a state mandate, all jurisdictions have adopted an ordinance on recycling space or have automatically become subject to the state's mOdel ordinance. But these ordinances are a dead letter unless the building permit officials enforce them and work cooperatively with the applicants and haulers to make sure that the future shape of the communities is friendly to recycling. "Recycling facilities" should be listed on all plan-check documents. 22. Ban yard waste from disposal. The jurisdictions adopted this goal in their AB 939 Source Reduction & Recycling Plans. Alternatives now in existence for yard waste include drop-off recycling, curbside recycling, backyard composting, and, in unincorporated areas in some seasons, burning. A ban on yard waste disposal can be enforced by hauler drivers using corrective notices, first as a warning, then as a failure-to-pick-up advisory. Cost Allocation Some of the recommended actions by haulers involve additional costs. We recommend that these costs be allocated as follows: 1. Offset costs with value of recyclables collected The market value of recyclables has increased considerably since recycling programs were started in 1989-93, and the recycling industry expects a generally higher level of'prices to endure. Since the recycling programs which were started in 1989-93 usually involved an explicit subsidy from garbage rates PAGE 10 based on the Iow market prices of that time, there is a credit due to the jurisdictions based on the improvement of market prices since then. 2. Require haulers to absorb costs through increased efficiency All haulers in Mendocino County are presently given the exclusive right to collect on their route. All routes are profitable. The jurisdictions can require additional services as a condition of holding the contract, giving haulers the incentive to restore higher profits by increasing efficiency. 3. Increase garbage rates As a last resort, if justified, garbage rates can be increased to subsidize increased recycling services. Virtually any waste generator can decrease total garbage disposal costs by ta. king advantage of recycling opportunities, if they are free. This lessens the burden of higher garbage rates, which actually serve the dual purpose of creating an incentive for more recycling. · PAGE 11 © I I t !I"IF'~ r I I I 0 0 ,r-'"- 0 0 ~ ,17' ~ o I..1_ ~ u,... ~ 0 0 0 i-.-Z m 0 Special thanks to those who made time available for our interviews. M.F.,N.R. and K.G. Percentage of Customers Using 10 Gallon, 20 Gallon, 30 Gallon and Larger Containers 10 gal ~20 gal 30 gal Greater Ukiah Solid Waste % of customers using Ft. Bragg Disposal % of customers using Ft. Bragg Disposal (o.ts~rts) % of customers using Total Customers: 5010 Total Customers: 1258 Total Customers: 1614 Solid Waste of Willits % of customers using SWW Brooktrails, Little Lake Valley % of customers using SWW, Covelo % of customers using Total Customers: 1579 Total Customers: 1451 Total Customers: 60 SWW, Laytonville % of customers using Total Customers: 360 SWW, Leggett % of customers using Total Customers: 86 Empire Waste Management % of customers using Total Customers: ?? November 1995 ii ~ i ii! !! ::: ::* i :.': :,': :k': :::::~ ~J · : ....... : :: ~ .... : .... ~ ...... ¢~D :": ' · ............. I.~J ~ ;J :: J ..... :' ...... ~:' ":: '" ~ ~.'~,l ::::::: :::::: ::: .:::.: ~:::::: ::: :::::: ::::::~ ::: ::: : ::: ::: i ~:::: ::::::: ::: ::: ::~: i:.:: i::i:~, :i! !~} l::~i imi ::!i ::::i !!i ~ i~r i!! ~7i!~ ::i:. i i~ !!:: ::¢ 0 .----I ii:: :ii-" .::.: :.:::: !:.::i .i.:::: :.::i :i: i ::]~:. :.:: : ' ::.:. :::i ::i:: : J J ::: :~:i ,:::i::: :i:i:] ! I:::: k:~: ::: :::: ~:::::: ~:%: ::: ::::: ::~: :::: : ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::: ::: !::::: hE: % :~i~!. ~ :.~::~:; !~i~!~:: ?i~ .::iii~ :.!:.i:. i~i :.!ii:: J !:.iill ili!i~ ;;i:. iii; ~ ii,ii i;i i!~i ~i!::i: ::!~i ii~! f:: ::::::i li::i ::i ::iii ii:: i::i ::i: iii i::ii i::~ ::ii i ::ii ::~ i::i ::::ii :~: :~:E:] ; H: ~:~: :: ':: ::: : ::~ :::~ '::: ;~:~:; ~1 ::] ::~E ::: ......... ~-~ ....... ~-~-~.~-.~ ....... ~_~ ....... ~ ~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ [~ ~ ~ ::: :::: ~:: :;: ~ ::: :::: ~ :: ::: :: :: : z : ::: ~ ~ ::::: :::: z ~ ~ : ~ h: ~ ::: J .;::: ::: 1 ~ ~ : ::::: :.::: :::: ::::: ~:.:.: :.: ::::::: ::::: :::::: :::: : ::: :::::: :::::: :::::: : ~ ::::: :::: ,.::::: ::: ~: 0 ~ ~ ~::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ....... : .......... T~;E"~:E~ .......... t .......... t .......... j .......... ~ .......... t .......... ~'"~ .......... ~:~"'~ ..................... f ~ .... / .... :: ::: '] ~::: ::: H~ '::~ :: E~ ~E~ J :::~: ::E: :~:: ::: ~ J ~H~ EEE~ ::: ::: ~ ~ x ~ ~ :: : E ~::: ::: ::: ::: : ?: : :: : ::: ::: ~:: ::: :-~ : ::: :: : : ~::: :: : : :: ::: ::: :: ::: .:: : : ~ ::: :: :::: :::: ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ' ' ~ o ..... o , . ~ .. .... . .......... m ~ :::: ::: ~ : :~:1 ~ '::: ::: ::: :::: :::: : ~ :: ::;::: : ::::::: :::::: : : ' ~ o :::: :: ~:::::: ::::: : ~ ~ :: ::: ~ ~ ~:: ::.: ::: ~ :: ::: . : .:: ~ .:::: ::: : ::.:.: .:-: ~::: :::: i ~ ~ ! ~ ::::~ :-~::::~ ~ ~:: :: ~ ~:: ~J:':::: o ~ ~:'~ ~::~ :::~ ~ ~ o ~:~ o~ :~:~: : ............ ~ J ~ :: :::: ~ ::::: :::::: ~ ~::: ::: ::: ::: , : ::::: : ~ ::::. ::::: : :: :: ~ : : ::: ~: ~ :: ::: ~: ~ :.:.:. :.::: ~ ~::: .:.::: :.:.: ::.:. :::~ ~ :.:. ::::: ~ ::: ::::::: : ..:.::. : : · ~ :.:.:: .:.:~ .:.:.:.: ::.:.:: ~: ..... ~...i ............................ ~.. ~-..~ .......... ~;~...~ ........... ~..-~:: .......... ~....~::~ .......... J;L..~JL .......... ~ ...................... ~ ~ J~! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: ~:~ o ~ ~ ~ ~; ~:: :: ~ ~ ::1 ~ ~ ~ o o o ~'~ ............... '~ ............... ~ ......... ;"T ~ ~---~ ...... ;-'-~:.~--'~ ................ ; ......... ; .............. ~ :::: ::::: ::: :::: ~:::: :::::: :: : :J :::: ::::: :::: :::: ~::::: :::: ~ . : ::::: ::::: ~::: :::: ::: ::: ::~: ::: ::¢ ::: :::: :::: : :: ::: ::: j::: ::: J · ::: :: .:s; ::: j - ::::: :::: . :: :::: . ::: ~::: ::: ::::: :: :: :: ::: ~ ::: ::: ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: ::: ~ ::: ::: ..... ~ < . ~ . . ~ I 1 - ~ ~I ~ ..... ~ · ...>.j ., .. ~.. ....... ..... ...+ .. . < .... . ~  ~ :-:.:.. ~ : ::: ~ '::::: .. :: :. ::::: :::: ~ ~ ::: :::: : .... :: ~ o ~ ~ o o ~ : :~:; :~ ~ ::: :: ~ E:::: :;: ~ ::: ::: ~ :::::: : ~ :::: ::: ~ ::::: ::: ~ o ~ o o .:.: I I I:~:~:~; ~:~ 1::::: ;:1 ~.:: :::1 I:::~:, :,1 i:. : , ~J: I ~'. ' ' ~ i ~ ~,il : '"' : Z Z ~ CO ® ® CD .....A 0 CD CZ) CZ) I'~ --,- z z ~ z 0 0 ~ 0 z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Commercial Container Downsizing Options and Costs in Urban Areas in Rural Areas 30 gallon container $18.91~i $16 75 $17.90 30 gallon container 20 $20.95 $19.65 Ukiah 0 Solid Empire Fort SWW Waste Wasle Bragg Willits Empire POn SWW PCD Point Waste Bragg WillitsGualfla nrena 50 40 30 20 10 0 105 gallon toter 105 gallon toter $43.10 30 20 15 Ukiah ' ' 0 L_ Solid Empire POn Wasle Waste Bragg SWW Empire Port SWW PCD Point Willits Wasle Bragg WillitsGualala Arena 1 cubic yard 60/ $62.00 0 Solid Empire Foll Wa.sicWasle Bragg ~llils cubic yard 150~- $]3o 120/- $,o4.6o~ 6O Empire Port SWW PCD Point Waste Bragg WillitsGualala Arena 1.5 cubic yard 200~ $174.35 ' ' 150L ,oo; | $73.50 Solid Empire Fort SWW Waslc Waste Bragg WJllils 1.5 cubic yard 200~ SlY/ $182 150~- ~m..~ SlS0 Empire Port SWW PCD Point Waste Bragg WillitsGualala A~ena 2 cubic yards 250/- 2ool- ~9~ ~ 100 $98.00 ~ .. &flid Empire Forl SWW Wa..~lc WaslC Bragg Willils 2 cubic yards 300/- 250~ $255 100~ Empire Fort' SWW PCD Point Waste Bragg WillitsGualala Arena October 1 O, 1995 Traders Taking in the Trash New Marketplace for Recyclables By David Dishneau , AP Chicago - Forget junk bonds. Now they're trad- ing junk. A national mar- ketplace for buyingand selling recyclable trash opened Tuesday at the Chicago Board of Trade.The first transac- tion: WeyerhaeuserCo. bought 100 tons of old newspapersfrom Oswego County, N.Y. The venture promises to boost recycling by setting quality standardsand publicizing prices for used paper,plastics and glass. It can help smalltowns with curbside collection pro-grams find big buyers of reusablematerials. "This is the biggest shot in the armfor recy- cling in this country since municipal recycling ef- forts began inthe 1970s," said Mark Lichenstein, Os- wego County's trash man- ager andpresident of the National Recycling Coali- tion, which includes both buyersand sellers of recyclables. Eventually, the Board of Trade maylaunch fu- tures and options contractsfor recyclables, turning old beer bottlesand milk jugs into investment vehicles. The computerized system already has60 subscribers who paid $1,000 each foraccess to its electronic bulletin board. Users can offer or bid for materialsor just check the prices at which recy-clables are trading. "With these transac- tions, Americawill take its recycling efforts from the current state, which are really like havinga na- tional yard sale, to an electronic mar-ket place for recycled goods", said DavidGardiner, an admin- istrator at the EPA. Currently, big compa- nies buy most oftheir re- cyclable materials from brokersand commercial trash collectors.But smalllocal governments are often at the mercy oflocal dealers because they lack knowledge of the value of their materi- als elsewhere. In Washington State recently, cor- rugatedcardboard was selling for $200 a ton in Seattle, but just $35 in Spokane. Weyerhaeuser, based in Tacoma, Wash- ington and Oswego County made the first transaction and shipped the paper to Italy. "Recycling is an in- vestment and whenever you can hook the supplier up to the end user, you minimize the risk in- volved'', said a Weyerhaeuser spokes- man. This exchange can cut costs for both sides by eliminating intermediar- ies. "We could coopera- tively market recyclables with other small commu- nities,'' he said. "The more quantity you have, the more market leverage you have, and therefore, bet- ter prices." "Our present policies are disjointed. A solution that looks only at what we throw away, not what we use and how we use it, will ultimately amount to just sorting garbage. Instead of focussing on waste, we need an approach which considers how our use of materials affects energy use, waste management, transportation, land use and economic development. If designed correctly an efficient materials policy will greatly reduce the velocity with which materials hurtle through our economy to emerge out the other end as garbage." The Ecology of Commerce Paul Hawken Special thanks to those who made time available for our interviews. M.F., N. R. and K. G. Percentage of Customers Using 10 Gallon, 20 Gallon, 30 Gallon and Larger Containers 10 gal ~20 gal 30 gal Greater Ukiah Solid Waste % of customers using Ft. Bragg Disposal % of customers using Ft. Bragg Disposal (o.t~kim % of customers using Total Customers: 5010 Total Customers: 1258 Total Customers: 1614 Solid Waste of Willits % of customers using SWW Brooktralls, Little Lake Valley % of customers using SWW, Covelo % of customers using Total Customers: 1579 Total Customers: 1451 Total Customers: 60 SWW, Laytonville % of customers using Total Customers: 360 SWW, Leggett % of customers using Total Customers: 86 Empire Waste Management % of customers using Total Customers: ?? November 1995 Commercial Container Downsizing Options and Costs in Urban Areas 2O · 15 in Rural Areas lO 30 gallon container 30 gallon container s29.56 518.95 $17.90 516.75 $17.90 Ukiah Empire Fort SWW PCD Point Solid Empire Fort SWW Waste Waste Btagg Willits Waste Bragg WillilsGualala Arena 105 gallon toter $43.1o 25 20 15 1 0' 105 gallon toter Ukiah '' EmpU'e For~ SW'W PCD Point Solid E. mpirc Fort SW'W Waste Bragg Willi~Gualala Arena Wa.~lc Waslc Bragg Willits 120 100 8O 60 4O 20 0 1 cubic yard s100.75 $62.00 ~U Ukiah · Solid Empire ~orl SWW Wa.sic WaslC Bragg Willils 1 cubic yard 150[ $130 Empire Fort SWW PCD Point Waste Bragg WillitsGualala Arena 1.5 cubic yard 200r $17435" 15o~ 5~-/ lOO1 ~ IIlBIB 598.oo r ~.~o I~i::1~ 1 Solid Empire ~ S~ W~Ie W~le B~gg ~llits 150 1 0 1.5 cubic yard $182 $1.50 Empire Dolt SW'W PCD Point Waste Btagg WillitsGualala Arena 2 cubic yards $204.60 150~ $115.00 lOO[ Ukiah Solid Empire F~rl SWW WaslC Wa.~;~c Bragg 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2 cubic yards $35 $198 $135 Empire Fo~' SWW FCD Point Waslc Brag~ WillitsGuaJaJa Arcna October 1 O, 1995 Traders Taking in the Trash New Marketplace for Recyclables By' David Dishneau , AP Chicago - Forget junk bonds. Now they're trad- ing junk. A national mar- ketplace for buyingand selling recyclable trash opened Tuesday at the Chicago Board of Trade.The first transac- tion: WeyerhaeuserCo. bought 100 tons of old newspapersfrom Oswego County, N.Y. The venture promises to boost recycling by setting quality standardsand publicizing prices for used paper,plastics and glass. It can help smalltowns with curbside collection pro-grams find big buyers of reusablematerials. "This is the biggest shot in the armfor recy- cling in this country since municipal recycling ef- forts began inthe 1970s," said Mark Lichenstein, Os- wego County's trash man- ager andpresident of the National Recycling Coali- tion, which includes both buyersand sellers of recyclables. Eventually, the Board of Trade maylaunch fu- tures and options contractsfor recyclables, turning old beer bottlesand milk jugs into investment vehicles. The computerized system already has60 subscribers who paid $1,000 each foraccess to its electronic bulletin board. Users can offer or bid for materialsor just check the prices at which recy-clables are trading. "With these transac- tions, Americawill take its recycling efforts from the current state, which are really like havinga na- tional yard sale, to an electronic mar-ket place for recycled goods'i said DavidGardiner, an admin- istrator at the EPA. Currently, big compa- nies buy most oftheir re- cyclable materials from brokersand commercial trash collectors. But smalllocal governments are often at the mercy · oflocal dealers because they lack knowledge of the value of their materi- als elsewhere. In Washington State recently, cor- rugatedcardboard was selling for $200 a ton in Seattle, but just $35 in Spokane. Weyerhaeuser, based in Tacoma, Wash- ington and Oswego County made the first transaction and shipped the paper to Italy. "Recycling is an in- vestment and whenever you can hook the supplier up to the end user, you minimize the risk in- volved'' said a W ' eyerhaeuser spokes- man. This exchange can cut costs for both sides by eliminating intermediar- ies. "We could coopera- tively market recyclables with other small commu- nities,'' he said. "The more quantity you have, the more market leverage you have, and therefore, bet- ter prices." CITY OF UKIAH CITY OF FT. BRAGG CITY OF WILLITS COUNTY OF MENDOCINO "Right now in LA county, wt full recycling services, incl diversion rates are as high Recycling Re' "Our present policies are disjointed. A solution that looks only at what we throw away, not what we use and how we use it, will ultimately amount to just sorting garbage. Instead of focussing on waste, we need an approach which considers how our use of materials affects energy use, waste management, transportation, land use and economic development. If designed correctly an efficient materials policy will greatly reduce the velocity with which materials hurtle through our economy to emerge out the other end as =ama=e. The Ecology of Commerce Paul Hawken *iVlost Often Recycled: 1. Alumin. cans 2. Alumin. foil 3. Tin cans Appendix E · Interview List The following people were interviewed during the preparation of this report: Jerry Ward, president, Solid Wastes of Willits Gordon Logan, Willits city manager David Madrigal, Willits landfill supervisor Jim Burham, staff, Solid Wastes of Willits Robert Walker, staff, Solid Wastes of Willits Randy Sperling, staff, Solid Wastes of Willits Noe Suldana, staff, Solid Waste Systems (Ukiah) Jesse Buenrosto, staff, Solid Waste Systems (Ukiah) Ramon Solis, staff, Solid Waste Systems (Ukiah) Sue Goodrick, Public Works Administrator, City of Ukiah Ray Ferguson, gate attendant, Ukiah landfill Paul Cayler, Director of Solid Waste Division, County of Mendocino Pete Halstad, Director of General Services, County of Mendocino Maureen Middlebrook, Community Relations Manager, Emp!re Waste Management Sherry Robison, office manager, Fort Bragg Disposal Walt Puffer, operations manager, Fort Bragg Disposal Gary Milliman, Fort Bragg city manager Valerie Hausmann, Pacific Coast Disposal We regret that the following individuals were not available to us: Bruce McCracken, manager, Solid Waste Systems (Ukiah) Bob Thornsberry, operations manager, Empire Waste Management in Ukiah Appendix F · News from Elsewhere Included are copies of the following magazines articles from recycling trade publications which provide useful comparative information on some of the same issues facing Mendocino County: Multifamily recycling "Multi-family Recycling: What the big kids are doing," Resource Recycling, May, 1995. Over 60% of the largest U.S. cities have some fOrm of multi-family, Article describes programs in Austin, Dallas, Milwaukee, Los Angeles, PhiladelPhia, and San Francisco. "Reaching Success in Multifamily Recycling," Biocyc/e, September, 1993. Describes mandatory multi-family recycling program in Fairfax County, Virginia. "Moving Forward with Multifamily Recycling," Biocyc/e, May, 1995. Describes how Kane County, Illinois made haulers provide recycling service to all residential units as condition of holding a hauling license. Recycling & Jobs "Recycling Impact on Jobs," Biocycle, April, 1995. Analysis of how 9,000 jobs have been created in North Carolina by recycling, most in private sector. Curbside Recycling "Trends in Curbside Recycling," Biocycle, July, 1994. Recycling costs are competitive with refuse Collection costs Jn survey of cities. "Recycling Cheaper in Four Washington Cities," Biocyc/e, August, !993. Study shows overall cost of recycling is less than trash disposal. Recycling Markets "Waste Paper: Tight Supply, .High Prices Predicted Until 1998," Recycling Times, August 22, 1995. New mills create strong demand. "The bottle is the bottleneck," Resource Recycling, September, 1995. Steady growth in use of recycled PET plastic now makes it more valuable that recycled aluminium. "Good Recycling Markets Continue in '95," Biocyc/e, April, 1995. Year will be best ever. ApPendix F-- Page I Processing "MRFs are bustin' out all over," Resource Recycling, April, 1995. "Clean" MRFs growing rapidly, but "dirty" MRFs remain unchanged from 1992. "Couches and mattresses: The next recoverables?" Resource Recycling, October, 1994. Alameda County does study on recycling these items. Co-collection of recyclables and trash in same truck . "Dual Purpose Vehicles Making Inroads," Biocycle, October, 1994. Successful use of single vehicle for both kinds of collection in five communities. Drop-off Recycling "Voluntary Recycling Goes A Long Way," Biocycle, October,'1993. Describes model drop-off recycling program of Wellesley, Massachusetts which accepts 40 items. Appendix F -- Page 2 M M What the big kids are doing by Meg, Lynch Resource Recycling aewcycling coordinato.rs nation- ide come clean with facts about their multi-family recycling programs. There are two practical reasons fbr cities both large m~d small to offer the opportunity to re- cycle m residents of multi-family housing. For one thing, cities and states aren't going to achieve their waste diversion goals solely on the back of recovery fi'om single-family residences. For another, it's a crying game tbr end users who are pleading with munici- palities to recover more materials to meet ca- pacity needs, especially for end users of re- covered paper. To find out what the big kids on the block ~ the nation's 40 largest cities ~ are doing in multi-flintily recycling, Resomr.e Recycling conducted a survey. Over 60 percent ~f the largest U.S. cities have some fo['m of multi- filmily recycling. ~e ones that don't ~ over- whelmingly located in the Sot]th and the Soud~wcst, where the absence of recycling legislation and the Iow cost of disposal have nt)t spurred much in the way of recycling ac- tivities. We asked recycling coordinators to answer ClUCs{i(ms about the their muhi-l~mfily recy- cling programs: the size, cost (collection, processino promotion and administration less any revenues), number of materials collect- cci, frcclucncy and l~)rm of collection, aver- age [~tl[~bc[-()l' tolls collecled monthly, mate- c{~vc['v talc. q'his m'licle describes several pl'{)o I'HlllN. Austin, Texas After the success of a 1993 multi-family pilot project, Austin will add a universal recycling tee to the utility bills for its multi-family residences in 1996. Although the universal recycling fee will be mandato~, recy- cling participation will be voluntary. Although apartment managers will contract independently ~Br recycling collection service, apa~ment com- plexes with fewer than 20 units can choose city curbside recycling col- lection. Apartment managers that contract independently lbr recycling services will re- ceive rebates t?om the city to pay tbr the serv- ice. Fees that are nol returned in the fi)rm of rebates or administration will be used to es- tablish drop-off centers without on-site pro- grams. The program will serve about 88,000 multi-family households (130,~) of the city's 400,000+ residents). The projected cost of the program will be abottl $1.50 per house- hold t)er re(ruth. Apartment [nanagers can ch()ose any materials now collected by [he curbside recyclin~ c()llection program: old Multi-family residents recycle old new.v~apers in provided containers. ' newspapers, old magazines, old corrugated containers, glass containers, steel and alu- [nint[m cans, plastic soft drink containers and plastic milk jugs. Collection will lake place weekly tbr the smaller apartment complexes thal participate in the city's curbside recycling collection; for complexes that contract with a private recyclables collector, fi'equency of collec- lion will vary. Recyclables are source sep- arated, with city-collected recyclables sep- arated into paper and conlainers; lhe sepa- ralion requiremenls of lhe private recycling collectors vary. Recyclahles are handled hy a prival¢ proc~ss()r. stream, but only about 20 percent of these housing units -- mostly those under five traits -- are provided garbage and recycling col- lection service by the city's Bureau of Sani- tation; the other 80 percent are served by pti- vale haulers. City-provided recycling for inulti-family housing collects the same ~naterials that are collected fi'om single-fmnily residences: glass containers, aluminum and steel cans, #1 and #2 plastic bottles, old newspapers, brown pa- per bags and old corrugated containers. In addition, city residents -- though not busi- nesses -- can deliver recyclables to drop-off sites at the city's collection yards. To a certain degree, recycling at the com- mercially serviced multi-family housing unitg is complicated, because 95 percent of units serviced are in apartment complexes with fewer than 50 units, making it difficult to achieve the economies of scale that are Ix)s- sine in I,'uger complexes or commercial build- ings. Another barrier is that collection serv- ice is provided to these units by nearly 80 dif- ferent haulers on routes that are not neces- sarily organized geographically. To expand recycling and reduction op- portunities for commercially hauled multi- family residential housing at the lowest pos- sible cost. the city provides technical assis- tance and public outreach to building owners and managers, and private garbage and recy- cling collectors. The city publishes directo- ries of reuse businesses and recycling collec- tion services fei' apartment buildings. In ad- dition, the city has published a series of arti- cles in Apamnent Age Magaz. bw, a trade mag- azine for apartment owners and managers. The articles describe different aspects of suc- cessful recycling programs in laige and small apartment complexes. The effort will be carefully monitored and its progress will be evaluated next year. If the city's strategy is not effective in increasing multi-fmnily recycling, the city will look at other ways to boost recycling rates. The city is optimistic, however. When markets have been high, there's always been some incen- tive to recover materials for recycling. Now that tenants are more interested in recycling, private haulers are increasing their recycling services to attract and maintain hauling con- tracts, and new businesses are springing up to provide recycling on a fee-for-service ba- sis. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mandatory recycling for Philadelphia's 125,000 multi-family households began in July 1994. In this city of 1.6 inillion people, the nmnicipal government collects recyclables from facilities with six or fewer units (ap- proximately 45,000 households); housing with six or more units (about 80,000 house- holds) are required to develop thcir own re- cycling program. The city provides techni- cal assistance, enforcement and education materials. Materials collected for recycling include old n(iwspaper, glass containers, and steel and aluminum cans. These materials, typically commingled, are picked up bi-weekly by the city and at least monthly by private haulers. The recyclables are sorted at a privately owned and operated processing facility. The net cost to the city for collecting recyclables from multi-family housing is approximately $120 per ton; for private haulers, the net cost is likely to be around $75 to $95 per ton. Ac- cording to David Biddle of the city's recy- cling office, because fl~e program is less than a year old, "it's too soon to tell" what the re- cover), rate is for multi-family recyclables. San Francisco, California Residents of multi-family housing with few- er than five units receive a curbside recycling collection container; apartment buildings with five or more units receive two 90-gallon wheeled carts -- one for fiber and one for containers -- that are sited in a central loca- tion. San Francisco's voluntary multi- family recycling program serves 91,050 hous- ing units in 5,800 buildings. The program collects aluminum contain- ers (and foil), glass containers, #1 and #2 plas- OIL FILTER RECYCLERS! As regulations get tougher, making money is getting easier... with the E-Z FILTER CUTTERTM · High Output/Hr. · Multiple Filters Hand/ed · Fast Payback · Simple to- Operate Recycle Faster For More $$$ TERRITORIES AVAILABLE ° PREMIUM INCENTIVES mikr n corporation Tel/Fax: 612-688-8889 815 Deer Trail Court Mendota Heiahts. and shredder machines. These knives are made to OEM specifications and backed by Beall's Quality Certification and Warranty Program; and are made of special steel, heat treated for increased hardness and come plain or hard surfaced. Contact the customer service depart- ment for more informa- tion. pricing and ordering. GET BEALL'S - BEST FOR THE TIME ~ MANUFACTURING, INC. tic bottles, steel cans and all paper (unless it's contaminated by food or mixed with plastic or foil) -- about 925 tons per month. Materi- als are collected weekly and are sorted at a privately owned and op- erated processing facility. The program costs about $1.90 per house- hold per month, and the recovery rate is approximately 20 percent. San Jose, California Christopher Petak of the City of San Joge recycling office describes the city's multi-family recycling program as "one of the most com- prehensive recycling programs in the nation." The multi-family re- cycling program, which began in July 1993, defines multi- family housing as four or more units; four- to eightzunit apartments can choose to receive single-family or multi-family recycling serv- ice. Although £ecycling participation is voluntary, multi-family complexes received three 96-gallon recycling carts per 25 housing units. Recyclables are collected each week from 78,000 housing units at 3,300 complexes. Eleven materials are collected by GreenTeam, the city's contractor -- old corrugated containers, old newspaper, mixed paper, glass containers, plastic bottles.and jugs, steel and alu- minum cans, scrap metal, polystyrene packaging, plastic bags, juice cartons and textiles. (For more information about San Jose's curb- side collection of plastic bags, see "Film at 11: A picture of curbside recovery efforts for plastic bags," also in this issue.) At the apartment complexes, materials are sorted into the three recycling carts: one cart for old newspaper, one for mixed paper and one for mixed recy- ' clables. Old corrugaied containers are stacked next to the carts. In the 1993-94 fiscal year, an average of 500 tons per month were collected; in the 1994-95 fiscal year, recyclables are averaging 650 tons per month, or a 10 percent recovery rate. The cost of the pro- gram for the 1994-95 fiscal year is $10.9 million; the contractor re- tains the revenue from the sale of the materials. RR Utter Receptacles and Recycling Receptacles over 30 styles Outdoor Cigarette Planters over Urns (5 Styles) 40 sizes Beautify any Street, Downtown, Park,or Building with Quality Products Designed to Last! Litter and Ash Receptacles Benches 15 Styles [Quality Products Designed ~-~ Iwith Strength, Durability ~ ~ Iand Beauty in Mind! Recychr~ Receptacles i[ 11 I I i I IIII ' . . . IFactory Direct Oiscoums[ I!1 I I I I I IIII and F~oaucTst.~ng ' ' II I ! ~ I I I 1 III. ~ecyOed Dory 8, Sons Concrete Products, Inc. 1275 East State St., Sycamore, IL 60178 Free 1-800-233-3907 Fax: 815-895-8035 Circle 100 on RR service card GLASS PROCESSlH . PROFff FROM HAZEMAG EXPERIEHCE · . [ Since 1947 the name Hazemag has been l~ed with the highest standards of material processing know-how. The Ha~nag APSXY:~/BA glass impact~ often the following technical bexetlt~ · Processes glass at rates up to 10 tms/lxx~ (other models available with capacities ranging begxqd 100 t~) · Offers h~e feed size capabilities · Provides high redtrtm rat~ · Provides ecomnical service through wear-resistant, replaceable parts HAZEMAG USA INC. Mt. Braddock'Road P.O. Box 1064 Uniontown, PA 15401 Phone: 412-439-3512 Fax: 412-439-3514 HAZEMAG Hazemag lmpactors... Putt/ng Experience to Work! Circle 264 on RR service card says YES to Backyard Composting and THE EARTH MACHINE. The City of Pasadena, California is one of more than 625 'government agencies to choose THE EARTH MACHINE Backyard Composting pro~m. I . Find out why. In the U.S., call 1-800-267-439 I or write Norseman Plastics, 2296 Kenmore Ave, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. In Canada call (416) 745-6980 or write Norseman Plastics, 39' Westmore Dr, Rexdale, Ontario M9V 3Y6. Fax: (416) 745-1874. Circle 182 on RR service card Resource Recycling May i 9~}5 l~ A COUNTYWIDE APPROA_CIt REACHING SUCCESS IN MULTIFAMILY . RECYCLING With' 250 multifamily complexes and a landfill scheduled to close in 1995, Virginia's Fairfax County set out to ensure that apartments and condominiums tOok part in the waste diversion effort. Designated recycling bins · placed outside enclosed dumpsters are common in Northern Virginia. 60 BIoCYCLE work with their current solid waste collector in performing a "recycling/waste audit." This provides a comprehensive picture of solid waste generation, the handling process and disposal system for the complex, Harris says. A tally of the volume and type of collection containers or equipment, and the frequency of service is needed. Also to be identified are factors whichi affect existing' service levels, such as curren~ recycling or source reduction efforts. Examples of the questions to be answered are: How many employees are involved in refuse disposal? How many staff hours are required for collection and handling? Is the recycling program likely to increase these hours? Will it increase operating costs? Har- ris notes that many apartment/condo com- · plexes in Fairfax have been able to break HE FUNDAMENTAI~ of recycling even, if not save a little money on recycling. in multifamily dwellings are the same regardless of Whether build- ings are garden style or high-rise, according to C. Edward Harris, re- cycling auditor in Fairfax County, Virginia. Key elements ar~ flexibil- ity and proper communication. Education of building staff and residents is important be- fore implementation and throughout the pro- gram, he adds. Fairfax County's experience with multi- family recycling stretches back six years, when some of the 250 apartment and condo- minium complexes began to recycle on their own. More recently, the county mandated that every multifamily building recycle -- ef- fective in January, 1993, for low-rise build- ings, and in June for high-ri~es. Most businesses and all residential units are reqUired to recycle. The motivation is a shortage of local disposal space -- the land- fill used by the county is scheduled to close in 1995. The requirements were designed with input from the Fairfax Business Recycling Task Force (BRTF), which is made up of rep- resentatives from the private sector- haulers, recycjers, manufacturers, retail 'stores and other commercial operations. Starting in September, 1992, Fairfax County Division of Solid Waste conducted an initial site assessment of every apartment complex -- gathering data on waste systems, loading docks, proPerty managers, number of floors, and other factors. Enforcement is carried out by six waste inspectors posted at two sites where all county waste must flow-- a transfer station and a waste to energy plant. The inslSectors know the haulers and the routes, and if they find loads with high levels of recyclables, this can trigger a folloTM up consultation. In the case of multifamily dwellings, this generally involves the prop- erty manager. The follow-up visits are not punitive, Harris says, unless the parties prove intractable. Fairfax instead takes an educational approach. PERFORMIHG AN AUDIT ' Because a variety of factors influence waste generation rates, Property managers TH E ROLE OF RESIDEHTS AND MANAGEMENT Residents must separate their recyclables' frOm refuse and place them in designated col- lection containers. Some mhltifamily com- plexes have supplied bins, but in most cases residents must purchase their own or use plastic bags. This collecti°n system -- either commingled or sorted -- will be determined by the solid waste collector. Building staff need to monitor the program and move ma- · terials from the point of initial separation to a central storage area or loading dock for col- lection, Harris says. Property owners and managers must de- cide whether building staff will provide as- sistance and feedback to residents, or ifa res- ident "recycling committee" will perform this function. "I strongly recommend that proper- ty managers give resident recycling volun- teers a chance to be involved," Harris says. "This motivates them, gives the recycling program a positive slant, and frees staff for other duties." PROGRAM DESIGN Some recycling collectors suggest commin- gling cans and glass in the same container when space is at a premium. This is practical when local processing facilities are equipped to sort mixed materials. Residents should be instructed not to deposit whole bags of com- mingled re~yclables into the recycling con- tainer. This makes the recycling container look like one used for refuse, leading to ira- proper refuse disposal. Similarly, newspa- pers should not be placed in plastic bags, but instead be bundled or placed in kraft paper grocery bags, to minimize contamination. If newspapers are stored in a bulk container, they may be deposited loose. According to most local fire codes, whenev- er combustible materials (such as newspa- pets or corrugated cardboard) are collected within a building structure, they must be re- moved daily, unless they are held in a con- tainer and stored in an area protected by a sprinkler sYstem, Harris notes. "Commin- gled cans, bottles and jars which are stored separately from combustibles do not require the same level of fire protection." They must, SEPTEMBER 1993 MODEL MULTIFAMILY PROGRAMS · ~11 OLLOWING are'examples of suc- , ~11 cessful multifamily recycling pro- · grams in Fairfax County, isupplied }' by the Division of Solid Waste:,.'some~.'.i".· ~ ?} have been in place for several: years,.. before mandates went ·into effect. Programs generally have been modi- :· fled over time to make :them "user. friendly," says county waste auditor C. Edward Harris. · BURKE COVE CONDOMIHIUM This garden-style complex with 46 . buildings and 448 units in Burke start- ed its recycling program with news- newspaper in 1990. Collection of commingled cans and glass began in February, 1993. Eight 18-gal. bins at each garage level door are emptied by maintenance staff three times daily into Toter containers at .the. loading dock; whiCh are collected three times weekly. Building Staff provide on-call recycling collection for the elderly and disabled. Owner's meetings and newsletters were supplemented by posters, and door to door fliers pdnt- ed in five different languages (Erlglish, papers. In April, 1991, the. program,... expanded to sorted collection of six/~ different materials: three colors of glass containers., steel and aluminum ;.. TllE.¥1R611!IAH cans, and newspapers.'. A year.later, ':~;.:: ,.This.!s a 6-st0ry;, mid.-rise retirement commingled collection beCame'aVail; ':~ :" ~c0mmunity .With' 302 residential units able and the program again changed to eliminate the need to sort the ma- terials into six categories. This design change substantially increased par- ticipation. In addition, it enabled the program to add the collection of HDPE and PET bottles to the Contain- er mix. Burke Cove's annual diversion of 225 tons of recyclables saves the owner's association $10,000 in dis- posal costs. and 100 nursing units, located in Fair~ fax.. Residents have been recycling newspaper since 1989. In 1991 the building .administration began recy- cling corrugated cardboard, scrap metal, used ·motor oil and kitchen fats, while providing residents with the op- portunity to recycle metal cans, glass and plastic food and beverage contain- ers. Residents place recyclables into commingled containers at designated areas on each floor. Building staff sep- arate minor contaminants and trans- port the materials to-recycling storage SKYLIHE PLAZA CONDOMIHIUM · A complex of two high-rise build- ings totaling 957 units in Falls Church, the management started recycling pounds per week. All yard debris gen, erated on the site is mulched and com- posted. In 1992, a total of 96 .tons of newspaper; eight tons of cardboard and four tons of commingled glass, plastic and cans were collected. Diver- sion resulted in the savings of over $4,800 in disposal costs. TilE R0fUNDA~ A complex of five 12-story high-riSe condominium buildings having a total of 1,187 units in McLean, the Rotunda Spanish, Korean, Arabic, Farsi). The began recycling newspapers in 1987. recYcling program has reduced the :: ':Commingled cans, glass and plastic association's operating costs by $487-:::?.'~.food and beverage containers were per month. - -. ' .~'~:added in 1992, Residents are resp°n- .... sible for the separation of recyclables '·' from refuse,- which are commingled , .and'placed in containers on each ': ':'garage leVel; newspapers are placed on a shelf in each chute room and are removed by maintenance staff daily, Building staff are responsible for mov- ing newspapers to Toters' used for bulk storage in each garage level trash room, maintaining the recycling areas, and providing recycling collection for the elderly and disabled. Volunteers assist in recycling education and inter- preting recycling instructions for non- English speaking residentS: The recy- cling program has not required any additional building staff hours. All landscaping debris generated, on the dumpsters at the loading dock.. Com- -' property is also mulched and reused mingled recyclables average 155 on the site. however, be contained to control litter, odors and pests, he adds. Because space inside the building is limited, interior holding areas generally should be used for temporary stor- age of up to a day's accumulation of recy- clab]es. Recycling areas must be monitored daily, or more Often when necessary, to en- · sure containers don't overflow. In Northern Virginia apartment complex- es, exterior recycling centers are common. Designated recycling bins, either Toters or Dumpsters, are placed within or adjacent to existing refuse enclosures. If exterior space is inadequate at the existing loading dock or trash bin enclosures, adjacent parking spaces may often be used, if the number of spaces available exceeds the minimum zon- ing requirements. Placement of recycling centers indoors may be possible when the building has a parking deck which is accessible to residents and has sufficient access for collection vehi- cles. Bins can sometimes be placed in exist- ing trash rooms or storage areas, Harris notes. Large complexes with several build- ings over a large area require many recycling centers to serve all residents. Recycling bins in high-rise buildings gen- erally are located in parking areas-- near el- evator exits if possible, Harris says. New chute based systems are on the market, and some haUlers like Waste Management and Browning-Ferris Industries are considering installing them, although none are currently used ·in Fairfax County, he adds. SIGHAGE Proper signage is essential ~ not only to identify materials to be recycled, but t5 des- ignate specific containers, describe proper material preparation, and to discourage im- proper disposal into recycling containers. In some cases signage needs to be in foreign lan- guages to serve the needs of diverse ethnic groups. International. symbols or "icons" can be used, so that the recycling message is clear -- even for illiterate residents. Participation improves, and contamina- tion is minimized when there is an organized "kick-off' meeting which explains the pro- gram elements. Newsletters, personal visits from volunteers and posters are good educa- tional tools. Experience has shown that "multifamily residents do want to recycle and that there are systems that Will work," he says. ~ R.S. · BIoC¥cI,E Proper signage is essential only identify , rna erials be recycled, bm designate specific containers, and discourage improper disposal imo recycling containers. SEPTEMBER 1993 61 I ESIDENT FRONTIER MOVING FORWARD WITH MULT'IFAMILY RECYCLING URING the rapid expansion of residential recycling in the last decade, single family curbside programs have led the way, with multifamily lagging behind. Now that curbside implementa- tion is slowing down (see "State of G~rbage In America," April, 1995, BioCy- cle), multifamily recycling may become the next wave. A recent survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that 60 percent of 255 re, sponding municipalities have recycling in apartments and condominiums, up from 47 percent last year. "A lot of cities have done as much as they can with single family dwellings," says Judy Sheahan, a pollution prevention specialist with the Conference of Mayors. "In order to meet 40 or 50 percent recycling goals, they are implementing recy- cling in multifamily buildings." Multifamily programs take many forms.._ Small buildings (generally less than five or 10 units) can be incorporated into curbside programs. Larger buildings require some form of centralized bins, including specially designed dropoff containers, rolloffs, 90-gal- lon carts and/or automated chute systems. Raleigh, North Carolina, is one Place where multifamily recycling is growing .rapidly. The city fully implemented curbside in 1991 and began a voluntary pilot program for apartments and condominiums in 1992. The program has been expanded to serve 84 buildings with 15,000 units, nearly half of multifamily residences. The city is getting a steady stream of requests from apartment owners to add recycling service, says Larry Mitchell, Raleigh's recycling coordinator. BIoCYCLE Compared to programs aimed at single homes, recycling is generally less convenient and commonplace for apartment dwellers. Local initiatives are starting to close that gap. Residents of St. Paul, Minnesota (above left), and Raleigh, North Carolina (right), deposit recyclables in specified containers at apartment buildings. The city has installed 175 fiberglass con- tainers, each with six compartments, at a cost of $1,100/container. About 300to 400 of these Fibrex dropoff containers are expect- ed to be in place by the time the program is totally implemented. Compartments are designated for newspaper, cans, plastic bot- ties and three colors of glass. The contain- ers are serviced by the city with a compart- mentalized LaBrie recycling truck operated by a two person crew. Bins are manually emptied into a mechanized trough, which lifts materials into the proper compart- ment. The crew collected 134 tons of recy- clables in December, 1995, which amounts to about 1,600 tons annually. Raleigh plans to purchase another truck to expand its multifamily service. Although residents can recycle at public dropoffsites at various locations throughout Raleigh, the city's goal, Mitchell says, is to increase recycling and make it more conve- nient for residents. "It's one thing to drive two miles to recycle and another to be able to do it right at your building," he says. The major problem so far has been contamina- tion from unwanted materials, e.g. office pa- per and phone books placed with newspa- pers, or Clorox bottles with milk jugs. "Residents have been overzealous in trying to recycle things that we don't want, or sometimes they don't understand what can be recycled," he adds. STILL GROWlHG AFTER ALL THESE YEARS St. Paul, Minnesota, which had one of the nation's first multifamily recycling pro- grams, continues to expand its services. The MAY 1995 59 Automated chute systems address a eeCific segment of marketplace tall apartment and condominium buildings .... allowing residents to recycle without leaving their floor. 60 BIoCYCLE city began the program in 1986, contracting through the nonprofit St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium, which also manages the city's curbside recycling. The quantity of materials diverted through multifamily recycling has risen every year, reaching 3,678 tons in 1994 (a 15 percent increase over 1993), says Pat Schoenecker of the consortium. Tonnage is expect- ed to rise again in 1995. Units served, types of materials' collected and public awareness have steadily increased over the years. During the first five years, the consortium brought more than 50 percent of St. Paul's 28,000 mul- tifamily dwellings on line voluntar- ily. The program is funded through a property tax surcharge, which means apartment owners paid for recycling whether or not their buildings participated. ~There has always been a financial incen- rive, but the biggest push was on the part of residents who wanted recycling," Schoe- necker says. "A lot of property owners were reluctant to start recycling, because they thought it would create problems and take a lot of staff time. In fact, they have been pleasantly surprised by the lack of prob- lems. In some cases, it has reduced trash hauling fees by 40 percent." In 1992, the pro- gram became mandatory, and another 30 percent of multifamily units started recy- cling. In the last two years, the consortium has continued to add a trickle of new ac- counts which were either served by other re- cycling systems, or were not in compliance. New materials also have been added. %Ve started with just newspaper, cans and glass," she says. "Now we pick up mixed mail, magazines and corrugated cardboard. In May, we're adding cereal boxes and other boxb°ard." The multifamily program cur- rently costs $84/ton, or about SI/unit/ month, with a total budget of $316,763. That includes public education, administration and hauling, which is subcontracted to Su- per Cycle of St. Paul. Each apartment complex has one or more centrally located set of bins where residents are asked to separate materials into three colors of glass, cans (mixed aluminum and steel), mixed paper and magazines, newspa- per and cardboard. Ninety gallon bins are used for different materials. Corrugated is generally flattened and stacked, except at about 70 large complexes which have a designated dumpster for card- board. Bins are usually located next to ex- isting trash dumpsters. The typical com- plex has about eight bins for recycling. The largest, with 560 units, has 60 bins at eight collection sites, in addition to a dumpster for corrugated. The system relies heavily on source sepa- ration, and the consortium has not had many problems getting people to put mate- rials into the proper bins. "Of course there · are buildings that have problems in gener- al, where ~thing seems to work," Schoe- necker says. ~In these cases, recycling is a problem. But I would say that is a very low percentage of buildings serviced." Super C~cle uses automated sideloading vehicles for collection. These trucks are ca- pable of emptying six bins at a time into separ.ate compartments at the pull of a lever. Materials are taken to Super Cycle's processing center, where they are cleaned, sorted (when necessary), bale~and shipped to market. RECYCLING BY DECREE Cities often do not provide trash collection service to multifamily buildings, putting them in the same category as commercial es- tablishments -- Which typically use private haulers. When a city is not in direct control of the waste stream, one way to ensure re- cycling is through an ordinance. Along with commercial generators, multifamily build- ings have been'the frequent target of local mandatory recycling laws. Kane County, Illinois, with a population of 320,000, is located 30 miles weSt of Chicago. The county implemented a mandatory ordinance at the start of 1995. As a condition of receiving a license, refuse haulers must provide recycling service to all residential dwelling units. Because curbside recycling already was provided in every city in the county, the licensing re- quirement was aimed at private haulers serving multifamily units (where recycling was rarely offered), and rural areas (where only about 50 percent of homes received curbside service). The ordinance requires that haulers recy- cle the same materials collected in each town's curbside program, but does not stipu- late the method. For smaller buildings, some haulers provide curbside pickup. Most build- ings, however, have dumpster refuse service, and haulers are using 90 gallon carts for re- cyclables. A few are using four yard metal dumpsters with two compartments -- one for paper and the other for commingled contain- ers. Materials collected include newspaper, corrugated, mixed paper and plastic, glass, steel and aluminum containers. Kane County conducted a survey the first week of January, 1995, and found that only about 15 percent of properties were recy- cling. The county sent a stern letter to the 15 licensed haulers. By March 1, compliance had risen to about 50 percent. By June, haulers tell the county that 90 percent of multifamily buildings will be served. If haulers are found in violation, the county can take a series of enforcement steps in- cluding progressively steep fines, license suspension or obtaining a court order. 'Haulers are grudgingly going along with offering recycling service," says Gary Mielke, county recycling coordinator. ~rhey definitely feel they are being forced to offer it.~ If there is any concern on the part of the county, it centers on the quality of educa- tion provided by haulers, e.g. the level of MAY 1995 signage on containers. For its part, the county is mainly relying on newspaper re- ports to get the word out to the public. "It's difficult to track down apartment owners," Mielke says. AUTOMATED SYSTEMS While centralized recycling containers at multifamily complexes provide residents with more convenience than public dropoff sites, automated chute systems go a step fur- ther. The technology addresses a specific segment of the marketplace -- tall apart- ment and condominium buildings -- allow- ing residents to recycle withoUt leaving their floor. They work by making use of existing trash chutes. A push of a button directs re- cyclables and trash into separate bins locat- ed on the basement or ground floor. Still a rarity nationwide, the number of buildings with this type of System is growing. Hi-Rise Recycling Systems Inc. of Miami, Florida, has marketed an automated chute system since 1991. The company has in- stalled its equipment in 75 to 80 buildings, many in Miami'and a few scattered through- out cities in the U.S. and Canada. It makes use of six rotating, pie shaped bins Connect- ed to automated controls on each floor, al- lowing a variety of separations of recy- clables and refuse. A computerized, modem accessible Counter is installed with each sys- tem to enable Hi-Rise to track the quantities of recyclables and garbage being put down the chute. Hi-Rise installs and leases equipment to building owners at a cost of $600 to $2,000/r~onth (systems are more expensive for taller buildings). The contract also gives the company a percentage of savings real- ized by the property owner as a result of re- duced trash/recycling related fees. ~l~ypical- ly, the economics start to make ~ense with an eight story building or larger," says Mark Shantzis, chairman of Hi-Rise. "In high price labor markets, it may make eco.nomic sense for smaller buildings." Buildings in municipalities with manda- tory recycling are targeted markets -- in- cluding msjor cities like Miami, Chicago and New York. While retrofitting buildings with existing trash chutes is the primary market, the company is increasing sales to new building developers. College dormitories are another market. Recently, Hi-Rise made an expansion move by purchasing IDC Systems, Inc., which installs and services compaction sys- tems in multifamily buildings in the New' York City area. ~The acquisition gives us im- mediate access to the New York market," says Shantzis. He also sees expansion with regard to the materials the system is diverting. "Twenty-three percent 'of the garbage coming out of buildings are organ- ics," he adds. "Right now, we have six divi- sions with the chutes. Two go to garbage, and one each goes to newspaper, cans, plas- tics and glass. I see a time where the sepa- ration will be into metal/cans, plastic, glass, wet waste and dry waste." -- R.S., N.G. · BIOCYCLE SCREEN U S A ® ,,. ,ow cos,....v, · · · Duty Screen Plant Designed For Small & Medium Size PrOducers COMPOSTING BLENDING BIO-REMEDIATION , SOIL REMEDIATION Feeder/Shredder/Screen/30' Conveyor All In One .Extremely Portable Plant CONSTRUCTION STEEL, INC. 1772 Corn Road Smyrna, Georgia 30080 404-433-2440 "We're Proud to be Made in the U.S.A." NEW FRONTIER WINDROW T U R N E R'S SELF,,i IOLILERING'n"-'n_J BBB ~tr--'~ n IXOM ROAD rD sow i a "-- ~ 'IN UNDER Unparalleled Aeration by the DOUBLE VORTEX ACTION of The TURBO-RATORTM can Prevent Anaerobic Odors. .. Now available FOR ALL MODELS ' Powerful · Efficient · Productive · Because composttng Is an andent art, doesn't mean your turner has to be. Call or send for your FREE VIDEO! (503) 792-3737 FAX: (503) 792.-3795 f.O.Box 9176 Brooks, Orefon 97305 MAY 1995 61 STATEWIDE STUDY RECYCLING 'IMPACT OH JOBS In North Carolina, .. recycling is a significant job creator, comparable to employment in livestock and farm crops. Michael ShOre and Matt Ewadinger l!!/ ECYCLING is a significant in- dustry in North Carolina, sup- porting close to 9,000 jobs, or about 0.27 percent of the state's total employment, according to a study commissioned by the state )ffice of Waste Reduction. For every 100 jobs created by recycling, an esti- mated 13 jobs are lost in solid waste and vir- gin material extraction within the state. Since 1989, recycling jobs have been grow- ing much faster than employment in gener- al, and have been created mostly in the pri- vate sector. · Employment impacts were assessed in two ways. First, total recycling jobs in North Carolina were estimated by examining sec- tors that handle and utilize postconsumer material. Second, a model was developed to evaluate job creation and job loss due to re- cycling. Recycling businesses and local gov- ernment programs were surveyed. Recycling increased dramatically since passage of the 1989 North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act. In fiscal year 1993- 1994, an estimated 630,000 tons were re- ported recycled, up from 244,000 tons in 1990-1991. This not only reduces waste that requires disposal, but cuts energy consump- tion and dependence on virgin resources. Recycling adds value to materials by sort- ing, processing 'and marketing them to in- dustry for feedstock. That economic activity creates jobs. By contrast, landfilling is a dead end. JOBS ALONG THE RECYCLING PATH Jobs required to move materials along the recycling p~/th include: Collectors who gath- er and transport materials; Processors who transform recyclables to make them more easily transported or utilized, e.g., crushing, baling, shredding, sorting, cleaning; and End users who utilize recyclable materials to make new products. To collect, process and manufacture recycled prodUcts, both blue and white collar jobs are created in the 'private, government and nonprofit sectors. Other workers are required to support re- cycling functions listed above --'including equipment manufacturerg and sales people, consultants, and educators. As recycling in- creases, material flow to disposal sectors and from virgin extraction sectors (such as tim- ber harvesting or mining) tends to decrease; thus, job losses are assumed in those sectors. For this study, 504 recycling businesses and 360 local government recycling pro- grams in North Carolina were surveyed by mail in June and July of 1994 to obtain numbers of employees by function, and quantities of materials managed, The re- sponse rate for recycling businesses was 62 percent. Employment information was available on an additional 19 percent of companies through the North Carolina Em- ployment Security Commission. The local governments' response rate was 78 percent. Total recycling jobs in private and govern- ment sectors were estimated by extrapolat- ing survey responses to the total population of recycling businesses or local programs. · According to the survey, recycling sup- ports an estimated 8,867 jobs statewide, 7,757 (87 Percent) in the private sector and 1,110 (13 percent) in government (Figure 1). Recycling employment is comparable to agriculture Crops and livestock sectors. The private sector total does not include freon recyclerS, consultants, recycling equiPment manufacturers and sales person- nel. Also, all end users of recycled materials have yet to be documented by the Office of Waste Reduction. Finally, emploYees re- sponsible for managing in-house recyclables were generally not counted. As a result, the estimate tends to be conservative. EMPLOYMENT GROWTH Job growth is directly related to the North Carolina Solid Waste Management Act of 1989. More than 2,800 recycling jobs have been created Since then, an increase of 42 percent. Most jobs (1,939) were established in the private sector, with 692 new recycling positions in the public sector (Figure 2). The rate of job growth is expected to moderate, as recycling rates level off and economies of scale for diversion are realized. In the public sector, about a third of jobs (360) involve collecting materials from dropoff sites and through curbside pro- grams. ComPosting employs 164 govern- ment workers (15 percent). The rest of gov- ernment recycling employees staffcolleCtion centers, process materials, administer pro- grams and perform other duties. In North Carolina private sector (Figure 3), most recycling jobs are in end use manu- facturing (31 percent), scrap metal process- ing (19 percent) and multimaterial process- ing (16 percent). There are 586 private sector jobs (eight percent) linked to collec- tions of residential and commercial recy- Clables -- not including pick up of special- ized materials like textiles, pallets and tires. Overall, less than 1,000 recycling jobs in North Carolina directly involve collection of the most c~mmOn reCyclables. Growth in recycling jobs does not signifi- cantly increase or decrease wages. Average wage for all recycling employees is $9.04/hr, 36 BIOCYCLE APmL 1995 comparable to landfill ($9.16/hr) and forestry ($8.96/hr) pay, both of which are affected by recycling. In North Carolina, recycling wages are below the average ($11.50/hr), but pay is considerably higher than minimum wage. Government recycling wages are slightly lower than solid waste pay. This may be due to the fact that recycling jobs are gen- erally newer than landfill jobs. RECYCLING JOBS MODEL Recycling related jobs were examined within the context of the entire North Car- olina economy. The spreadsheet based Re- cycling Jobs Model developed for this study correlated the number of workers necessary to perform.various functions to tons of ma- terials managed in each sector. The model incorporated changes in solid waste and virgin extraction material flows due to recycling. Using current recycling rates, the model estimates that for every 100 recycling jobs created in North Caroli- na, 10 solid waste jobs are lost; less than three timber harvesting jobs are eliminated due to paper recycling, and less than one in- dustrial sand extraction job is lost due to glass recovery. There is no metal mining in North Caroli- na and, thus, no commensurate virgin ex- traction job loss because of recycling alu- minum cans, steel food cans, and scrap metal. Also, there are few jobs in the state associated with oil and gas extraction, The average wage for all recycling employees is $9.04/hr, comparable to landfill and forestry pay. therefore little or no jobs are lost due to recycling plastic bottles (there may be jobs lost in these sectors elsewhere). However, by replacing virgin materials extracted outside the state with recycled feed- stock generated in state,' the local economy gets a boost. The Recycling Jobs Model predicted future employment increases if a higher percent- age of municipal solid waste is recovered. For each 10 percent increase in tons diverted from landfills, an estimated 249 jobs will be created. Since passage of the 1989 Solid Waste Management Act, efforts by North Carolina businesses and local gov- ernments to develop alternatives to dispos- al and a stable recycling infrastructure have complemented each other. Recycling is having a positive impact on the environ- ment and the job market. [] Michael Shore is a graduate student in Environmental Sciences & Engineering at the University of North Carolina. Matt Ewadinger is market development specialist with the North Carolina Office of Waste Reduction, De- partment of Environment, Health, and Natu- ral Resources. For the complete report, call (919) 571-4100. More Choices, Better Solutions. DynaZymeTM biofilter systems The DynaZyme system is simple and easy to operate; there's no haz- ardous side streams needing disposal. A system designed for Iow operating costs and low capital costs. The preferred technology for bio- logical elimination of odors and VOC emission problems. We offer more choices and better solutions for all your environmental problems. Call today and find out which is the best choice for you. Dirty Air BIOCYCLE Sump Tank Clean Air Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc. 14522 South Outer Forty, Suite 100 St. Louis, MO 63017 314-275-5700 Monsanto CHern Systems Inc. A~RIL 1995 37 BIOCYCLE SURVEY TRENDS IN CURBSIDE RECYCLING HE SHEER variety of methods to extract bottles, newspapers and other materials out of the waste stream is one of the most mar- velous aspects of the explosion of recycling programs in the last five or six years. Some use bins, oth- ers bags. Some cocollect refuse and recy- clables. The extent of commingling and source separation, variable rates for refuse and the variety of recyclables collected are features that give programs their individu- al characteristics. Despite the differences, some trends are emerging, according to a BioCycle survey of a dozen municipalities (see Table i for list). Compaction was used, at least to some extent, in five of the programs. Seven have gone beyond newspapers in the grades of paper collected -- with corrugated, old magazines and mixed paper the most popu- lar choices. If there is any standard practice, it is allowing residents to commingle steel, aluminum, glass and plastic containers. That is the case in every one of the 12 pro- grams (with the exception of Philadelphia, which does not pick up plastic at the curb). Two of the programs -- Phoenix, Arizona, and North Augusta, Georgia -- go further by accepting paper together with commin- gled containers in totally automated collec- tion systems. Most other municipalities give residents a single bin (generally 14 to 18 gallons), and ask them to bundle newspapers on the side (Table 2). A three sort system is used for commingled containers, newspapers and mixed paper in two programs. Most vehicles A BioCycle survey looks at collection methods, vehicles, bins, costs and materials in a dozen curbside programs. Robert Steuteville, Jay Freeborne, Fulton Rockwell Photo by Ann Kochanasz have two or three compartments (depending on whether mixed paper is collected), but some programs begin a more elaborate sort- ing process on the truck. In unincorporated Durham County, North Carolina, and Hartford, Vermont, virtually every material is placed in sepa- rate compartments. Hartford uses that sys- tem because it is a small town in a rural area, where materials recovery facilities (MRFs) are nonexistent. SunShares, the re- cycling contractor for Durham County, sep- arates for reasons of collection efficiency and material quality. Rumpke Recycling, the contractor for Westerville, Ohio, sepa- rates glass on the truck, enabling com- paction of the other recyclables. Two-thirds of the programs surveyed use a one person crew in attempts to keep costs low. But larger crews do not necessarily mean higher costs per ton, and they are employed for a variety of reasons. The Pennsylvania cities of Allentown and Philadelphia use three people per truck, partly because they have dense neighbor- hoods. More than one crew member is some- times needed for sorting purposes, as in Durham County. The vehicles vary almost as much as the programs. Of the 12 municipalities, only Phoenix and North Augusta use the same type of truck. These programs were de- signed so that a standard refuse compactor could be used for recycling. Loveland, Col- orado, represents a trend toward truck based cocollection. These trucks generally have two main compartments for recy- clables and a compactor for refuse. Divided compaction systenis are starting to appear in curbside programs. Milwau- kee's vehicle allows different levels of com- paction for paper and commingled contain- ers in Milwaukee -- maximizing tonnages per truck and minimizing breakage of glass. In Westerville, the paper and con- tainer fraction (without glass) are compact- ed separately. Per household collection of recyclables ranged from 2.8 lbs/week to 16.8 lbs/week in the dozen programs (Table 3). Costs were as low as $50/ton and as high as $175/ton. For nine programs, costs could be compared to solid waste disposal. Recycling was less ex- pensive in five, and more expensive in four. By examining the programs in detail, gen- JULY 1994 eral principles behind capture rates and costs become clear. Direct comparison of numbers is probably not appropriate, be- cause of the wide differences in the commu- nities themselves. Selections of programs were nonrandom. An attempt was made to get a range in terms of population, region and geography. Mostly, programs were chosen because they represent directions that curbside collection is taking in 1994. TOTALLY COMMINGLED Phoenix is the ultimate example of an au- tomated, commingled collection system. The spread out, suburban nature of the city pro- vides enough space on the curb for large carts, making automated collection of both refuse and recyclables feasible. By accepting a large number of materials, the program is designed for high diversion. Without sepa- rate collection of yard trimmings, the city is achieving a 25 percent diversion rate for those households served by curbside, cording to Karen Schuldt, recycling coordinator. Residents are given two 100-gallon rollout contain- ers, one for recyclables and the other for refuse. The carts are compatible with automated collection trucks, operated by one- person crews. The same trucks are used for recy- cling and refuse collection. Compaction is used, on a limited basis, for recy- clables. Trucks are al- lowed to carry a maximum of 13,000 pounds of com- mingled materials. About 80,000 house- holds are currently served by recycling, and the city is adding about 1,500 a week (about one collection route). As each new route is added, refuse collection is cut back from twice to once weekly -- allowing the city to implement recy- cling without purchasing new vehicles. With 285,000 households, the recycling program is scheduled to be imple- mented citywide by 1998. In addition to the standard curbside ma- terials -- HDPE, PET, three colors of glass, aluminum and steel cans and newsprint Phoenix picks up third class mail, maga- zines, scrap metal, corrugated cardboard, aseptic containers, chipboard, white ledger and plastic number six. Until recently, tex- tiles were collected, but that material was dropped because of market problems. Ev- erything is commingled in the same bin, and loaded on the truck without any sorting. The processing is done at the New Eng- land CRInc. MRF, using an advanced sort- ~IOCY(?I.i.: Two of the programs accept paper together with commingled containers in totally automated collection systems. SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS: · More curbSide prOgrams are adding corrugated,'magazines, mixed paper and kraft, leading to commingled paper streams. · Compaction in curbside collection is a trend, sometimes using divided units --- and presenting a challenge to avoid breakage of glass. · Recycling costs are competitive with refuse collection costs in most of the municipalities surveyed. · Two-thirds of the programs surveyed use a one person crew in attempts to keep costs Iow. · Recycling programs continue to change and expand, even after they achieve substantial levels of diversion. Recyclables in Phoenix are collected with automated packer trucks (top left). Commingled containers are dumped by hand in a manual syst.em (left). In Milwaukee, a semlautomated divided bin system delivers paper and container fractions simultaneously (above). ing technology,'which separates containers and paper mechanically. There are tradeoffs -- the MRF has a 29 percent residue rate. Much of the residue comes from residents putting nonrecyclables in the recycling bin, says Schuldt. The city is focusing on educa- tion to bring the residue level down. Breakage of glass bottles and jars is min- imized because of the padding effect of pa- p~er and plastic, Schuldt says "With th~ or-items that we have, we g~t'little to ken glass as a result of collection. The only time we have broken glass is when materi- -als are dumped on the tipping floor." The glass that does break is sifted out in shaker screens, making it possible for newsprint to meet quality standards at the mill. Phoenix's new contract with CRInc. puts the cost of processing, minus, sale of mate- rials, at about $12/ton. The economics of recycling are improving for the city -- the previous contract cost Phoenix a net $24/ton. Landfill tipping fees are currently at $22 to $26/ton. With the scheduled clo- sure of the city's southern landfill later this year, Phoenix will need to start long dis- tance waste hauling, which will raise the cost of disposal SEPARATION OH THE TRUCK In unincorporated areas of Durham Coun- ty (13,400 households), the emphasis is on source separated collection. The program is operated by SunShares, a nonprofit agency in Durham. The firm's recycling endeavors began with cofounders David Kirkpatrick and Ray Bunnage, both of whom toured the country evaluating recycling progr'ams. They decided that separating materials would save money on processing, according to Karen Smith, the seni6r program, manag- JuLY 1994 31 Because nearly everything is brought in source separated, SunShares has a residue rate of less than one percent. Containers, mixed paper, newspaper and yard trimmings are picked up curbside from a street of Allentown row houses. 32 BIoCYcI,E er for waste reduction, who joined Sun- Shares after it began in 1989. Back then, "off the shelf' equipment was very limited, so SunShares had to design its own. "They held a brainstorming session that lasted three days over multiple six packs of Dr. Pepper," explains Smith. The company developed a modified flatbed truck with wooden compartments operated by a driver and crew member, who rides on the back and sorts materials between stops. Residents use a 14-gallon bin for commin- gled containers -- including three colors of glass, steel and aluminum cans, and plastic one and two (shampoo bottles are accepted, in addition to milk jugs and detergent). Newspaper is placed on top, held by a elas- tic cord "extension" system. The crew member dumps commingled ma- terials into a sort tray in the middle of the flatbed. After climbing onto the truck, the sorter separates recyclables into mesh bags, which are placed in wooden compartments. Only aluminum and steel cans are not sort- ed on the truck, because they are processed magnetically at the 70 ton/day SunShares facility. Because nearly everything is brought in source separated, the facility has a residue rate of less than one percent, Smith says. The unincorporated area includes very ru- ral and densely populated areas. The same collection system is used for both -- but Sun- Shares charges the county slightly more for the rural households. Because of collection efficiencies and biweekly service, Sun- Shares is able to charge a maximum of $1.25/household/month for the service. Quality of source separated materials is good, which enables the nonprofit to main- tain markets, Smith says. On the other hand, biweekly collection, and the fact that the program is voluntary, results in participation of around 50 percent -- lower than many mandatory, weekly pro- grams. Average per household collection is 2.8 lbs./week (5.6 lbs. every two weeks), the lowest in the survey (no figures were avail- able on per household collection from Hart- ford, Vermont, or Philadelphia, the other two municipalities with biweekly service). SunShares is aware that going weekly would increase volumes and participation, but the program is constrained by a limited county budget, says Smith. The total cost for curbside recycling in the county ranges from $50 to 65/ton, one of the lowest reported in the survey. ADDING MIXED PAPER Recycling coordinators that want to in- crease curbside tonnages substantially need to look no further than mixed paper collection. Allentown, Pennsylvania, added mixed paper last fall, and is on pace to divert 111 pounds/household/year (2,000 tons) of the material. As a result, curbside diversion may increase by 25 percent. The city's total residential recycling rate was 39 percent in 1993 (including dropoff and yard trimmings), and mixed paper should push the rate above 40 percent, says Betsy Levin, manager of recycling and waste management. Allentown was not expecting such big vol- umes, Levin adds. A pilot program indicat- ed that the city would get perhaps 1,000 tons a year. Part of the reason the program is so successful is that the specifications for Al- lentown's mixed paper market are relative- ly broad. Only corrugated, newspapers and catalogs are excluded, leaving a lot of paper that can be pulled from the residential waste stream. The city receives $15/ton from a New Jersey mill. In addition to the resi- dential sector, mixed paper is central to Al- lentown's new business recycling program (see "Giving Business A Lift" in this issue). Residents were given a seven gallon bin when mixed paper was added. They also have a 14-gallon bin for steel, glass, alu- minum and'plastic cans and bottles. If resi- dents need extra bins, they are available. Newspaper can be placed into kraft bags or bundled. The city contracts with J.P. Mas- caro & Sons Inc., a local hauler, to collect the recyclables weekly and take them to a pri- vate materials recovery facility operated by Todd Heller Inc. At a glance, Allentown's recycling/waste - management system looks like .it could be costly and inefficient. Two compartmental- ized rolloff recycling trucks designed by Mascaro are used on every route. One col- lects the paper fraction, with two compart- ments for newsprint, and the other for mixed paper. The second truck picks up commingled containers. Three person crews are used on the recycling vehicles. Two more trucks collect yard trimmings and refuse, which adds up to four trucks passing by each house weekly. Moreover, disposal is expensive -- with a $67/ton tipping fee at the landfill. So much for a superficial analysis. The system actually comes with a low price tag. JULY 1994 It is paid for entirely through a $12.50/month fee charged to each house- hold. The city is able to make the four-truck system cost-effective because of the tightly packed neighborhoods, where the distance traveled per route is relatively small. "Be- cause Allentown is so dense, it probably isn't as inefficient as it may seem," says Levin. The city also gets good participation (around 90 percent) in its mandatory program. The cost for curbside recycling is some- what misleading at $130/ton, because that includes administrative expenses for oper- ating the yard trimmings and the dropoff programs. The overall recycling cost is $68/ton--. about the same as the tipping fees at the landfilt. TRUCK BASED COCOLLECTION Truck based cocollection systems, which merge a refuse compaction vehicle with a recycling truck, are starting to be imple- mented in a few municipalities. Still a new concept, some of the best data on how they work is available from Loveland, Colorado, which began a pilot in 1991 and went city- · wide in 1993. Like other innovative ideas highlighted in the survey, no "off the shelf' equipment was available when Loveland began its pilot (that situation has since changed). The city worked with May Manufacturing in Arvada, Colorado, to custom' design a unit with a 10 cubic yard compactor for refuse, along with two main compartments -- one for commin- gled containers and the Other newspapers. Loveland's 14,000 households receive weekly service, using two stackable bins for commingled and newsprint. Corrugated can be placed at the curb to the side or under- neath bins. A two person crew operates the semiautomated trucks. At the same time that cocollection was implemented, Love- land instituted variable rates for refuse ser- vice-- the first of its kind in Colorado. Stick- ers can be purchased at stores, 40 cents for a 13-gallon bag, and 75 cents for a 30-gallon bag. A set fee of $3.40/month is charged on every utility bill for recycling. Yard trim- mings collection is offered separately for $2/month. The pilot Participation in the voluntary recycling program is above 90 percent, in part attributable to the variable fee incen- tive. The city increased the size of the truck compartments to seven cubic yards for newspaper and 11.3 cubic yards for contain- ers after the pilot, because they were filling up on route. Mick Mercer, the streets and solid waste manager, calculates that recycling costs $92/ton -- attributed to the savings due to cocollection, and a short list of marketable materials picked up at the curb. The pro- gram receives high marks from the public. A recent survey indicated that 87 percent of citizens find it excellent or good. IMPROVING OH BLUE BAG Blue bag cocollection systems are noted for efficiency and low equipment costs, but BIOCYCLE Table 1. Overview of Programs Households Collection Mandatory/ Municipality Served Frequency Financing Voluntary Allentown, PA 36,000 Durham County, NC (unincorporated) 13,400 Hartford, VT 2,217 Jacksonville, FL 230,000 Loveland, CO 13,700 Madison, WI 58,000 Milwaukee, WI 135,000, N. Augusta, GA 7,400 Philadelphia, PA 565,000 Phoenix, AZ 80,000' Vancouver, WA 16,378 Westerville, OH 9,156 Weekly Set fee Mandatory Biweekly Tax base Voluntary Biweekly Tax base Mandatory Weekly Tax base Mandatory Weekly Variable fees Voluntary Weekly Tax base Mandatory 63,000 Weekly Tax base Voluntary 72,000 Monthly Weekly Set fee Voluntary BiWeekly Tax base Mandatory Weekly Set fee Voluntary Weekly Variable fees Mandatory Weekly Tax base Voluntary 'Represents a portion of the city can have low participation and high con- tamination. North Augusta, South Caroli- na, designed a program to address those challenges. The city with 17,000 population combined the start-up of recycling with a complete automation of its waste services. North Augusta uses 13-gallon, 2.5-mil semitransparent bags custom designed by Presto Products Co. of Appleton, Wisconsin, to be tear resistant. Bags close with a draw string, allowing.air to escape during com- paction. The five percent breakage level re- ported by the city is much lower than some bag-based cocollection systems. Unlike most blue bag programs, residents are not required to purchase the bags in stores. Instead, they are delivered by the city on a quarterly basis. Residents are charged $2.25/month for recycling, attached to water bills. Although the program is vol- untary, paying the fee is mandatory, says George Handy, director of engineering for the public works department. In Loveland the pilot appears to have translated well into full-scale operation. Table 2. Collection Characteristics Municipality Collection Unit Container Crew Size Allentown, PA Durham County, NC Hartford, VT Jacksonville, FL Loveland, CO Madison, WI Milwaukee, WI N. Augusta, GA Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ Vancouver, WA Westerville, OH Custom compartmentalized rolloff Custom flatbed SAC multiple compartment LaBrie semiautomated May cocollection Dual compartment 30 cu yd Semiautomated dual compartment Hell automated compactor Compartmentalized 13-33 cu yd 2 Hell automated compactor Dempster semiautomated Modified sideloader 14 gal. bin, 7 gal. bin 14 gal. bin 18 gal. bin 18 gal. bin 12 and 15 gal.stackable bins 30 gal. clear bag 95 gal. split cart 13 gal. bag, 100 gal. cart' 6 gal. bucket 100 gal. cart 3 stackable bins 14 gal. bins 'Bag is p/aced in cart with refuse 2A variety of collection vehicles is used JULY 1994 33 Residents commingle newsprint, maga- zines, PET, HDPE, three colors of glass, steel and aluminum cans in the bags, which are placed with refuse in 100-gallon rollout carts. Collection is weekly with automated, sideloading trucks with Heil compactors, op- erated by one-person crews. Material is taken to a city owned MRF/transfer station, where blue bags are separated and placed on a picking line. The city provides refuse service for commercial and multifamily establishments, and clean corrugated cardboard also is pulled from the tipping floor, which boosts the overall recy- cling tonnages by 25 to 30 percent. "The blue bags work nicely for the multifamily build- ings, which use a dumpster system," says Handy. The city recycles about 15 percent of the waste that it collects. Officials are look- ing at increasing diversion with a yard trim- mings program. Costs per ton were not available for North Augusta's recycling program, but officials estimate a per household expenditure of $2.25/month. Of that, $1.33 goes toward capital financing and operations at the ma- terials recovery facility, and 92 cents pays for bags. SORTING THE GLASS Rumpke Waste Systems, which provides curbside recycling to the affluent suburban city of Westerville, Ohio, has found a way to compact materials without breakage or con- tamination. The approach is unique, com- bining elements of source separated and commingled collection with a truck designed and modified by the company. Westerville's 9,156 households follow fair- ly standard recycling practices. Commin- gled containers go in a 14-gallon bin, placed at curbside weekly. Newspapers and maga- zines are stuffed in kraft bags. The only un- usual materials are milk cartons and drink boxes, which also are placed in the bin, and corrugated, which is cut into pieces no larg- er than two feet by three feet and bundled. The unusual aspect starts with the trucks, which are sideloading compaction vehicles which Rumpke buys used, and modifies in its fabrication shop. A space is created be- tween the cab and compactor for a five cubic yard container. The unit is divided into three compartments to hold brown, green and flint glass. The compaction unit also is divided into two compartments. The driver is responsible for sorting the glass into three colors in the front compart- ment. The remaining "light fraction," con- sisting of steel and aluminum cans, HDPE, PET, milk cartons and drink boxes, is load- ed into one side of the'compactor. The pa- per goes on the other. A standard level of compaction is used, which flattens the con- tainers but is not enough to make them stick together. The participation in the community is high for a voluntary program (close to 90 percent), and so is the set out rate (10.4 pounds/household/week). Each collection route serves 800 to 1,000 households. On some routes, Rumpke has picked up 13,000 pounds of materials, yet the company can- not fill its trucks. "Our limiting factor is time. We have not gotten to a point where we have packed out a truck," says Shawn Mead- ows, who coordinates the Westerville pro- gram for Rumpke. At the company's MRF in Columbus, Ohio, the glass unit is removed first with a forklift, keeping the colors separate and generating virtually no mixed glass. Quali- AUTOMATED COLLECTIOH IN L.A. IMPLEMENTING curbside recy- cling in a huge city presents its share of challenges. The obstacles are multiplied when the entire pro- gram is revamped at the same time, as was the case in Los Angeles, which switched to automated refuse collection when:'it:began Picking up recyclables and. yard trimmings. Although the start-u p was plagued by late equipment deliveries and me- chanical breakdowns, it appears that the second largest recycling pro- gram in the U.S. (behind New York City) is on a good track. Nearly 600,000 households receive weekly curbside recycling service. Yard trimmings are picked up separately for composting from another 252,500 households. By the end of 1995, all 720,000 households that receive city refuse services ai'e scheduled to be on line for both re- cycling and yard trimmings collec- tion. (Implementation is behind schedule as the original plan called for citywide curbside recycling by .September, 1992.) LoS Angeles is starting to realize efficiencies originally projected for collection. The Bureau of Sanitation reports that the' automated, trucks are collecting from 800 households per route, and the curbside crews are reaching 1,000 households.per route, These ai-e substantial im- provements over two years ago, es- Pecially for the automated trucks -- which: were averaging 500 house- holds because of early equipment failures. Furthermore, Los Angeles has managed to avoid capital ex- penditUres for large scale process- ing facilities, letting the private sec- tor bear that burden. City officials and recycling advo- cates alike expect Los Angeles to meet the state's recycling mandate for 1995. "1 think they will reach the 25 percent goal," says Rick Best, of Californians Against Waste. "In 1990, the city was recycling 20 per- cent of its waste, mainly in the com- mercial sector, because the curbside program had not been rolled out yet. They have a very well developed re- cycling industry." Curbside recycling and the yard trimmings program currently divert about 13 percent of the city man- aged waste stream. Among house- holds that participate in both ser- vices, the Bureau of Sanitation estimates that 28 percent of waste is diverted. The city collects an aver- Yellow bin materials are placed in a bucket and mechanically tifted into the proper compartment. age of 6.5 pounds/week of recy- clables from every household. While studies have shown that revenues from sale of recyclables do · not cover the cost of processing at many materials recovery facilities (MRFs), that does not hold true in Los Angeles. The city gets paid $12/ton for its commingled materi- als, which are processed by six pri- vately run MRFs located within Los Angeles. That is a major reason why it costs the city only about $1.50/month to provide each house- hold with curbside service. Markets in Los Angeles are good because "we are a huge metropoli- tan area with a lot of manufacturers, and they are looking to use recycled mat .erial," says Drew Sones, manag- er of the Recycling and Waste Re- duction Division. The city is also a major port to the Pacific Rim, which buys a lot of scrap paper. Los Ange- 34 BIoCYCLE JULY 1994 ty of~he newsprint is high, because cullet is kept out of the bales. Rumpke commands a good price for its materials, which enables it to charge the city a $1.72 fee/household fee (or $76/ton) and still make a profit. DIVIDED CARTS AND TRUCKS In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, curbside 'recy- cling is composed of two different types of systems, each started in different neighbor- hoods at different times. In the original ini- ., les generates a steady, growing vol- decided purchasing .that. number of ume of relatively uncontaminated re- '. bin~"f0r"'thel ei3tir'~, ci~ WOuld be tOo cyclables, Officials are cautious ex~ie~n~i{/e~:Ais0;!.su~eys revealed about adding new materials, first -th~,tresideritsW~nt~a commingled making certain that markets are systeh3~. The city leamed Something good. "All of these factors together · :about'bin COlOr. The md' bins used in explain why we get money.for the tlie'pii6tdegr~Jeih thes~)uthern Cai- material we collect, rather than pay ifomia sunshine, which Was one rea- to get rid of it," says Sones. SAME DAY SERVICE Households are given 14-gallon bins, placed out on the curb on the same day as refuse and yard trim- mings service. Commingled steel, aluminum, three colors of glass, PET and HDPE bottles go into the bin. Old newspapers are collected in kraft bags. A one person crew picks up materials using a semiautomated collection unit with two compart- merits, one for commingled and the other for paper. Recyclables are dumped into a mechanical bucket, which carries the materials up and over into the proper compartment. The semiauto- mated system represents a change. "When we started recycling we were using side panels, which were very inconvenient," says Gyl Elliott, direc- tot of public information for the divi- sion. "It was difficult to throw the ma- terials up high." The list of recyclables collected has been expanded since the pro- gram began. At first, the only ac- cepted plastic was PET soda bottles. Now, all PET and HDPE bottles are collected. Corrugated and kraft bags were added in 1993. "We try to push the envelope every time we ask for bids to process materials, which is every two years," says-Elliott. The city plans to add magazines to the paper fraction later in 1994, starting with a pilot project. A market analy- sis has shown that the material would have minimal impact on the processing price the city receives. A commingled system was select- ed, after testing source separation in a pilot. Three bins for various mate- rials were given to 15,000 house- holds in West Los Angeles. The pro- gram has continued, but officials son for selecting ~ighly ref!ectiveyel- 10W'for the'fuil,s(~ale'iS'r~gram. ~ GREEN MATERIAL COLLECTION Yard trimmings, like refuse, are col- lected with fully automated trucks to minimize the increase in staffing with the addition of the services. Residents are given two 60-gallon carts -- a green one for leaves, grass and brush and a black one for refuse. No plastic bagS are accePted in 'the yard trim- mings bin. Compostables are taken to San Joaquin Composting in Bakers- field, California, for processing. In parts of Los Angeles, the city has gone beyond leaves, brush and grass clippings. Horse manure is col- lected in 60-gallon carts from 1,200 households.:About 300 tons per month are being collected and com- posted on a pilot scale. Horse ma- nure is a valuable fertilizer for mush- room farms, and the city expects to eventually.realize revenues from marketing the material, Elliott says. It remains to be seen just how much overall diversion will be achieved from the collection of recy- c!ables and yard trimmings when the program is fully in place. The busi- ness sector, entirely served by pri- vate haulers, likely will play a more significant role in helping the city to reach the state mandate. A separate city department, the Integrated Waste Management Office, pro- motes and oversees commercial/in- dustrial recycling. To maximize di- version from this stream, Los Angeles has taken a "generator ap- proach'' to determine where the largest quantities of waste are locat- ed. Data gathered indicates that one percent of the industrial/commercial facilities generate half of the waste from this sector, and five percent generate 70 percent. --R.S. BIoCYcI.E tiative, 63,000 households were given 20- gallon containers that they set out weekly. Since then, households added to the pro- gram have been given' compartmentalized 95-gallon carts, with monthly service. A to- tal of 135,000 households receive recycling service. By October, all 190,000 households on city refuse routes will be served. Milwaukee switched from bins to carts be- cause of an increase in back injuries to crew members, says Steve Brockman, city recy- cling coordinator. The refuse collection re- quires no lifting, because the city had con- verted to a semiautomated system in the mid-1980s. "It was a throwback to go'to the bin system of collection when recycling was implemented," Brockman says. The newer carts, conversely, are rolled out to the hoist- ing mechanism, located on the rear of the truck, avoiding manual lifting. The city plans to phase out the 20-gallon bins as equipment wears out. The carts, made by Otto Industries Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, are divided in half vertically. The automated lifter dumps the commingled containers and newsprint simultaneously into separate compartments on the split bodied truck. Compaction in the trucks is divided as well, allowing the single crew member to "squeeze the heck out of the paper without breaking the containers," says Brockman. The costs for the two systems are fairly similar -- the cart system has higher capi- tal costs, but is more efficient in terms of col- lection. Because of compaction, trucks can hold seven to eight tons of recyclables -- twice as much as the bin routes. Another ad- vantage is that the large capacity of the carts makes it easier to add new materials to the program, says Brockman. The city is considering collecting mixed paper. The recycling program costs $175/ton (versus $96.52/ton for refuse collection and disposal). Recycling costs are partially offset by a $4 million grant from the state, funded at least until 1998 by a business tax. Rev- enues from the sale of recyclables are split with the operator of the MRF, bringing Mil- waukee an average of $13/ton for all mate- rials in 1993. Landfill prices are trending downward -- to $27.50/ton from a high of $34/ton. SUPPLEMENTING CURBSIDE WITH DROPOFF All but two of the municipalities in the survey offer dropoff service as well as curb- side. The dropoffgives residents a chance to recycle additional materials. Hartford, Ver- mont, makes the most of both options. All of the town's 2,217 households receive curbside recycling. Hartford also belongs to the 17-town, Greater Upper Valley Solid Waste Management District, where most re- cycling is done through dropoff sites. The district, which includes parts of Vermont and New Hampshire, is mostly rural. All ma- terials collected curbside and at dropoff loca- (continued on page 72) JuI,Y 1994 35 TREHI H CURBSIDE RECYCLING Contin~.~rom page 35 tlons in the district are taken to Hartford's re- cycling center for marketing. For that reason, Hartford's program is virtually indistin- guishable from the region as a whole. Traditionally, residents took household trash to the "town dump." They scaVenged and talked to neighbors. Hartford's recy- cling center and trash transfer station is the town dump of the 1990s. "People come down on a Saturday just to take a trip away from home," says Scott Henry, of the town's solid waste department. The recycling center offers a lot of services not available curbside. Hazardous wastes -- like lubricants, batteries, paints and clean- ers -- can be dropped off six days a week. The first Saturday of the month, the district contracts with Laidlaw to collect solvents and poisons. Yard trimmings can be dropped off, as can reusable 'goods, scrap metal, third class mail, corrugated, office paper and oth- er materials. A nonprofit group, Southeast Vermont Community Action, operates the Good Buy Store at the facility, which does-a brisk business in reusable goods. Biweekly curbside collection is provided to households in Hartford and a few adja- cent towns by Northeast'Waste of Hartford. Commingled containers are collected in 16- gallon blue boxes, with .newsprint in a sepa- rate kraft bag. Motor oil, in a clear plastic container, also is accepted. Separation is done on the truck, with the exception of brown and green glass, which are marketed together. Recyclables are stored at the recy- cling center and sent directly to processing or end use facilities. "Building a MRF would Quality of source separated materials is good, which enables SunShares to maintain markets. Table 3. Diversion and CoSts~ Curbside Disposal Recyclables Cost/Ton' Cost/'l'on' Municipality (Ibs./HH/wk.)' ($) ($) Allentown, PA 8.4 1305 105 Ourham County, NC 2.8 50-65 n/a Hartford, V'I' n/a n/a 67 Jacksonville, FL 5.7 140 65 Loveland, CO. 9.2 92 101 Madison, WI 8.3 112 119 Milwaukee, WI 5 175 97 N. Augusta,iGA 7 ' n/a n/a Philadelph!~i,,~A n/a 125 140 Phoenix, ~."..". ' 16.8 50' 62 Vancouver, WA 13.0 131 156 Westerville, OH 10.5 76 58 'Differences in communities, programs and demographics should be taken into account when evaluating figures. ~Average weight of materials placed on curb by each eligible household, including nonparticipants. Weekly average is calculated for biweekly and monthly programs ~Net cost of collection and processing recyclables minus sale of materials. qncluding collection, hauling and tipping fees. 5lncludes administration expenses for all diversion programs. Allentown reports an overall $68/ton cost for recycling, including dropoff and composting. 72 B]oCYcLr. have been overkill," says Henry. "We don't generate enough materials." VARIABLE FEES, MATERIALS GALORE Vancouver, Washington, had the advan- tage of starting its curbside program in ear- ly 1992. By then, many of the pioneering programs in the Pacific Northwest were up and running, and the planners could learn from the successes and failures of other mu- nicipalities. Recycling participation is helped by vari- able 'fees for refuse. Residents are charged $10/month for the standard 30 gallon can or $7.30/month for the minican (20 gallon) ser- vice. In addition, households are given a chance to recycle most materials that can be collected curbside. Vancouver's program, operated by Clark County, collects materials as diverse as asep- tic packaging, mixed paper, corrugated and scrap metal. Used oil, collected in HDPE jugs, has been a particular success, capturing 56,261 gallons in 1993. Residents sort mate- rials into three stackable bins, picked up by a one person crew operating a semiautomat- ed truck with three main compartments. The number of materials accepted in addition to the variable fee incentive help to achieve an average per household recyclables genera- tion of 13 lbs/month, second only to Phoenix in the survey. The program is supplemented with yard trimmings collection, to achieve an overall 40 percent diversion rate. Vancouver's costs of curbside recycling in 1992 were $25/ton less expensive than dis- posal, according to a study by the Clean Washington Center, a state agency. The per- formance is remarkable for the first year of operation. The recycling cost advantage is partly due to expensive tipping fees ($71.45/ton) and refuse collections costs ($72.40/ton). Start-up has not been free of obstacles, es- pecially with regard to residents' sorting and material preparation. Some customers place aseptic packaging in the mixed waste paper bins. That results in additional sort- lng and/or loss of revenue, because aseptic containers are baled separately at a MRF and marketed to Weyerhaeuser with a much higher return than mixed paper. Another difficulty is getting customers to put their used oil in milk jugs rather than nontrans- parent plastic oil bottles and other vessels. They are both "problems that only education will solve," says Ken Gimpel, waste reduc- tion specialist at the county. HIGH DIVERSION WITH BAGS Recycling first came to Madison, Wiscon- sin, in 1968, when residents were asked to bundle newspapers separately from 'their trash. The program evolved gradually, adding brush in 1972, scrap metal in. 1976, leaves in 1980 and metal, glass and plastic in 1991, according to George Dreckmann, Madison's recycling coordinator. Metal racks fixed onto the regular JULY 1994 74 Recycling coordinators who want to increase curbside tonnages substantially need to look no further than mixed paper collection. Recyclables collected in blue bags are sorted in North Augusta's materials recovery facility (MRF). BIoCYcLE garbage trucks made economical collection of newspapers possible. As collection volume grew, and the racks filled faster than the trucks, relay trucks were added, allowing trash crews to unload newsprint on route. When other materials were added, the city switched to dedicated 30 cubic yard vehicles with compartments for commingled con- tainers and paper. Racks are still used for scrap metal. Leaves are collected in bulk at the curb and at dropoff sites for composting. The city chose to use clear 30 gallon bags for recyclables, rather than bins, following a 1989 pilot. Madison is a college town, a state capital and is home to some large corporate headquarters, all of which creates a very mobile population. "With so many people moving in and out, the bins make good book- shelves and storage containers and we fig- ured there would be a high replacement fac- tor," says Dreckmann. Instead, residents purchase the bags at stores. Commingled containers are placed in the bags; newsprint and corrugated are bundled separately. Madison has remarkable partic- ipation -- surveys show that 95 percent of residents put a bag out at least once every eight weeks. The set out rate on any given week is only 42 percent, which saves in col- lection costs. Madison collected 12,571 tons of recyclables curbside from 58,000 house- holds last year. Dreckmann attributes the participation and volume to a strong public ethic. Because of recycling, garbage col- lection was cut by six routes a day. Officials also were able to switch from a dual axle to the cheaper single axle truck. "We don't have the tonnage in trucks that we used to," explains Dreckmann. On the other hand, re- cycling has increased the size of the collec- tion crew from 31 in 1989 to 36 today, and the vehicles fill up faster than refuse trucks. The bottom line in 1993 is that recyclables were $7.04/ton cheaper to collect and pro- cess than trash. This year, the difference will be larger, because of improving rev- enues from sale of materials, and higher dis- posal tipping fees. "The last 16 months have made recycling look good economically," says Dreckmann. GOOD LOCAL MARKETS Many factors contribute to a 40 percent re- cycling rate in Jacksonville, Florida. A strong industrial base provides an outlet for most of the recyclables collected in the curb- side program, including aluminum cans and corrugated cardboard. Organic recycling is boosted by a healthy farming and food processing sector and by Jacksonville's location in a subtropical cli- mate, a boon to yard trimmings volumes. The city managed to capture 115,000 tons of that material last year for composting. "It was almost too much to handle," says Scott Kelly, Jacksonville recycling coordinator. New outlets for recyclables are developing in the area. Glass markets have been helped recently by the new use of glassphalt in lo- cal roads and in the nearby city of Lakeland. Previously, mixed cullet, the by-product of the commingled collection program, was considered unrecyclable at the city's MRF. On the down side, the curbside recycling program has not been cheap. Low participa_ tion in rural areas and the inner city coupled with long hauling distances -- four private contractors and a municipally run route coy- er 860 square miles -- have contributed to collection costs averaging $140/ton. Dispo~- al in the city averages $65 a ton due to low tip fees, $20/ton. Yard trimmings collection in Jacksonville, which generates nearly four times as much material as curbside recy- cling, is less expensive at $85/ton. Recyclables are set out in 18-gallon bins, which hold both the paper and containers. In addition to newsprint, the city picks up corrugated, magazines, kraft bags and cata- logs. Average weekly set out is 5.7 pounds. Kelly believes that figu,r,~ could be improved with public education. We got an 80 to 90 percent positive response in a survey gaug- mg enthusiasm for recycling," he says. DEALING WITH PLASTICS In 1992, Philadelphia found itself in a fi- nancial crisis. Officials examined all city programs, including curbside recycling, for ways to save money. Plastics, which com- prised a majority of curbside volume and only six percent of weight, were costing $1,200/ton to collect, according to Alfred Dezzi, deputy streets commissioner. By shifting plastic collection from curb- side to six mobile dropoff centers with com- paction, costs were brought down to 765/ton. Further refinements are in store for plastics ~ a citizens' advisory group is looking into collection boxes as alternatives to the mobile dropoff sites. "Philadelphia wants plastics recycling, but it must be cost- effective," says Dezzi. When plastics were dropped, the city switched to biweekly curbside recycling for the other materials. Costs at the curb fell from $160/ton to $125/ton, making it cheap- er for the first time than solid waste dispos- al, at $140/ton. Tonnages collected by each vehicle rose 82 percent, reflecting the elimi- nation of plastics, with its high volume to JULY 1994 ,eight ratio. Participation has suffered, however. v~hen the biweekly collection first was in- Lituted, participation dropped 40 percent, ut the city since has regained some of the ~sses. The city has no data on average per ousehold amount of materials collected, be- ause the citywide expansion was recently ompleted -- but it is safe to say the figure ~ on the low side, because of the biweekly ollection and fewer materials than the oth- r 11 programS.' Of all the municipalities surveyed, 'hiladelphia has by far the largest program - with 565,000 households served. It lso is one of a half dozen in this survey /ith a manddtory program.. Like most ,rograms surveyed, curbside collection is upplemented with a dropoff system, and ard trimmings collection. Currently, roves are picked up in the fall, and the city ~as a pilot program for regular collection of ard trimmings. Philadelphia operates a composting facil- ~y in Fairmount Park that produces 7,000 ubic yards of finished material annually. 'his represents only a third of the capacity ,ceded, so the city is emphasizing source re- iuction with a Master Composter program. UTURE PLANS If there is any one constant in the pro- rams, it is change. None are resting on heir laurels. Allentown, for example, can be escribed as a fairly mature program, with aost of the elements of the municipal waste tream addressed. The city's diversion cur- ently goes well beyond the state mandated ates. But officials are still looking to ex- ,and and improve the program. Recycling coordinator Betsy Levin says he next step is a waste characterization tudy to determine what new materials ould be added -- perhaps corrugated, tex- iles, and/or food scraps. The overall curb- ide system will be reevaluated prior to the ,ext collection contract, which will go into ffect in 1996, to see if Allentown should tipulate a different type of truck or tech- ,ology to improve efficiency. In Philadelphia, the goal in the solid /aste plan is for 40 percent diversion by the ~ear 2001. The city has a fleet of trucks with our and five compartments, purchased with ~dxed waste paper collection in mind. Plans ~r that material were abandoned, and so ,ow there is flexibility to capture other re- yclables, perhaps magazines. Dezzi expects he diversion through curbside to plateau at 5 to 18 percent. MSW or source separated omposting are being examined to take the ity the rest of the way. Adding materials remains an important ~sue for nearly all of the municipalities sur- eyed. Mixed waste paper, collected in three f the programs, is being considered' as an dditional material in two more- Milwau- .ee and Jacksonville. Others are adding' pecific elements of the paper stream. As of 'uly, 1994, Madison will collect magazine nd catalogs. SunShares, in Durham, is ex- [oCYCLE / Perimenting with pick up of cardboard, mag- azines and milk cartons/drink boxes. Yard trimmings continue to play an ira- portant role in diversion programs. The only two without composting projects -- North Augusta and Phoenix -- have plans to start diverting yard trimmings in the future. Oth- ers, like Philadelphia, are expanding their programs. I~. terestingly, municipalities appear to be paying more attention to the commercial sector in terms of providing collection ser- vices for recyclables~ In five of the programs surveyed, at least limited collection 'services are offered to the commercial sector beyond just contract private sector hauling. In Van- couver, the county is examining the option of wet/dry collection by commercial waste haulers. In that scheme, dry materials would be routed to the MRF and sorted for recyclables like corrugated and scrap metal. The changes in curbside collection illustrated in the survey have their impacts on processing facilities. Cities like Phoenix and North Augusta show a trend toward single stream collection, requiring a separation of paper and container frac- tions. New paper grades like magazines, corrugated, kraft and mixed paper often mean commingled fibers, which present new sorting challenges. These and other is- sued will be explored in a special MRF re- port, which will appear in the August issue of BioCycle. [] Adding materials remains an important issue for nearly all of the municipalities surveyed. BIoC c CONFERENCE SCHFI-)I!I F BioCycle Northeast Conference '94 AUGUST 22, 23, 24, 1994 BURLINGTON, VERMONT Radisson Hotel BioCycle West Coast Conference '95 MARCH 13, 14, 15, 1995 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Sheraton Palace Hotel BioCycle Southeast Conference '94 OCT. 31, NOV. 1,2, 1994 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA Belleview Mido Resod Hotel 25th Annual BioCycle National Conference MAY 8, 9, 10, 1995 WASHINGTON, D.C. Omni Shoreham Hotel Circle these important dates on your calendar. Watch for program information and complete details in upcoming issues of BioCycle and your mail. BioCycle · 419 State Ave. · Emmaus, PA 18049 · (215) 967-4135 JULY 1994 75 FINAL REPORT ON WET BAG COMPOSTING PROJECT The Wet Bag Composting Demonstration Project in the towns of Fairfield and Greenwich, Connecticut, demonstrated three main points: 1) About 30 percent of household waste is cgmpostable material -- such as food and soiled paper. When composting is combined with effective recycling, 70 percent diversion can be achieved. 2) Soil improving compost can be made from the compostable portion of residential and commercial waste in about three months. 3) A 38 percent increase in yield is achieved when tomatoes are grown in compost, compared to plants grown in native farm soil. Flowers fared well in compost medium. The project was sponsored by the National Audubon Society, Procter & Gamble, International Process Systems Inc., Waste Management Inc., the Town of Fairfield, McDonald's and the Greenwich Audubon Society, f~od and soiled paper waste were collected in ~wet bags" from approximately 500 volunteer households. A fast food restaurant also contributed organic material. Composting was done in an in-vessel agitated bed facility. Noncompostable materials comprised about four percent of total weight of wet bags, and was removed by screening. The finished compost was high in nutrients (1.6 percent nitrogen), and free of pathogens. Metals and other inorganic materials met EPA Part 503 standards. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station conducted plant growth studies in a field application with tomato plants and a container application with black eyed Susans, a flowering perennial. Tomato plants were grown in 10 foot square field plots amended with zero, 25, and 50 tons of compost per acre. The weight of tomatoes grown in compost (50 tons/acre) was 10.8 pounds per plant, compared to 7.8 pounds per plant for the control plots. The 25 ton/acre application yielded 9.5 pounds of tomato per plant. Compost generated more and larger tomatoes. Black eyed Susans were grown in containers with five compost concentrations, compared to a standard potting soil mixture. The plants performed well in all concentrations from zero to 100 percent compost. BEHEFICIAL USE GETS A BOOST Professionals and public officials interested in overcoming obstacles to beneficial use of sludge formed the Biosolids Information Sharing Group (ISG). The ISG is a joint effort of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Cornell University and Rutgers University. The group met initially in April at a working conference attended by representatives of food processors, lending institutions, wastewater treatment facilities, farmers, academia and government agencies. To identify obstacles to beneficial use and the means to overcome them, ISG divided into subcommittees on liability, risk assessment, research, education and technical assistance. In response to comments from members, the risk assessment subcommittee organized a one-day workshop in June on the Clean Water Act Part 503 regulations. The workshop was led by the USDA's Rufus Chaney, Terry Logan of Ohio State University and James Ryan of the EPA. RECYCLIHG CHEAPER IH FOUR WASHINGTOH CITIES A study sponsored by the Clean Washington Center (CWC), a state agency, compares the cost of waste disposal and recycling in four cities. Recycling -- including collection, processing and sale of materials -- is less expensive than garbage collection, hauling and disposal in each municipality. Seattle, the largest city in the state, has the lowest costs for beth recycling and disposal, according to the study, which was conducted by Sound Resource Management Group Inc., a contractor hired by CWC. Seattle's recycling · program costs $91/ton, and disposal $137/ton, for a $46/ton difference. Of the four cities, Seattle was the only one with curbside collection of yard waste. The net cost for this service was $116/ton, or $21/ton less than disposal. Low costs for Seattle are attributed to a competitive system (the city is divided into sections that are bid separately), and contractors are given considerable freedom to implement their programs. Bellingham has the largest cost differential between recycling and disposal ($65/ton). Total costs for recycling are $116/ton, compared to $181/ton for disposal. Spokane has the highest disposal costs' ($188/ton), and recycling costs ($175/ton), oft he four, and the smallest differential ($13/ton). In Vancouver, Washington, recycling is $25/ton cheaper than disposal, at $131/ton versus $156/ton. Recycling expenses directly correlate to the amount of material diverted per household annually. Seattle diverts the most material, 650 pounds, and has the least expensive program. Bellingham ranks second in diversion (485 pounds) and cost. Vancouver ranks third in diversion (435 pounds), and Spokane, with the highest costs, ranks last (225 pounds). Spokane's relatively low diversion is attributed to the fact that residential mixed paper is not collected, as it is in the other three cities. All four cities offer variable rate trash collection fees, so residents can lower their refuse bills by recycling. IHVESTMEHT CREATES RECYCLIHG JOBS The New York Jobs Development Authority (JDA) has loaned a total of $30 million, to recycling businesses statewide, leveraging millions more from banks and other commercial lenders. The JDA made its first loan to help finance a recycling operation 10 years ago. The $971,000 package helped Jing Beer Distributors to develop the $2.5 million facility to recycle 6,000 tons of beverage glass annually. The Queens, New York, plant is going strong, employing 35 people. Karta Container and Recycling Inc. of Peekskill, New York, employed 12 iSeople when it asked JDA to help finance a $3.5 million expansion. The company, which processes paper, metal~, glass and C&D for reuse, was loaned $1.2 million by JDA. Employment has jumped to 65-70 workers. Karta processes 50 tons of material daily. Brownville Specialty Paper of Jefferson County, New York, uses 90 percent recycled fiber in the paperboard products it produces. With help from a $1.2 million acquisition ~0an, the company was able to acquire the former Boise Cascade Paper Mill, which closed in 1988, putting 82 people out of work. Today Brownville employs 55 workers. 6 BIoCYCLE AUGUST 1993 u The bottle is the bottleneck Edgefield, South Carolina Supplies of recovered PET' bottles can't keep up with growing market demand.. by Steve Apotheker Resource Recycling Vhat is the most valuable container that should e in your recycling collection bin? In the ,asr, the correct answer would have been the aluminum can," but today it is the "PET plas- lc beverage bottle." With pET scrap prices ,-ipling since last November, the average PET ontainer is worth four to five cents, or double he value of an aluminum can. Another question: What will be the fastest :rowing packaging material destined for the vaste stream unless it's reCovered? It's PET ~y a mile. This form of plastic packaging is :xpected to register double-digit growth in he U.S. from now through the end of the iecade. PET's blistering growth will domi- late metal cans and HDPE containers, whose narket increases are projected to be single- ligit, and glass bottles, which are struggling o maintain any growth at all. By 2000, PET ~ottle use in the U.S. is expected to reach k7 billion pounds, an increase of 143 percent ;ince 1994. Lee Farlander, vice president of market- mg and new product development at Anchor Glass Container (Tampa, Florida), predicts almost total conversion of 100 million cases of glass bottles dedicated to soft drink pack- aging in 1994 to PET containers by the end of next year. Although observers have been predicting strong growth for PET in numerous markets (see products box), recent demand for the plastic; exacerbated by some natural cata- strophes, has outstripped everyone's predic- tions. This has left many markets scrambling for material, recycled or virgin. Although there is a shortage of virgin resin production, recycling processing capacity is abundant and is limited only by the supply of recovered PET bottles. With a PET recovery rate of 34 percent in' ! 994 ~ lower than the Resource Recycling September 1995 Conlainers ~ Ihcrc sccn~x lo be plenly Thc boIl<)~t linc ix llml PET boIIlcx arc of processin~ capacily is already handle Ihis malcrial. Accordin~ lo Ire Sleel Recycling Institute (Pillslmrgh), 82 percent ofct.'bxidc recycling collection progr;uns ami 69 percent of drop-off siles accepl lhe PET package as of mid- 1995. This article reviews ~he status of I'E'I' covcry and explores Ihe dynan~ics dml will shape flmu-e recovery efforls. In a the PET bottle more and more resembles Ihe :igc with worldwide dcm:md (sec sidcbar), an expanding scrap c()llcclJ(m inl'raxlruclure and aJJl'acJivc I'CC()k Cl'f CC[)II()IlliCh. The I)rice is nice Wilh fewer recycling collcclion programs handling PEI' hollies compared to scrap pa- per ami alL[~ninu[l~ used beverage CallS. 't is p()ssihle lhaI many municipal recycling co- ordinalors n~ighl have missed th~ surge in scrap value registered by PET bottles in the last year. After all, I)ET scrap prices have been fi~irlv c(m~islenl, if dull, for Iht last 12 years. Aslu(lvbvlheNalionalAssociation for Plastic Col~laincl- Rcc()x c~ 5' (Charl()tlc. North Carolina). a trade asxociati(m dedicat- ed to promoting PET bollJe recovery, PET bottles make up over 90 percent of all PET rigid packaging. In 1994, about 200 million pounds of PET bottles were returned through beverage container deposit and redemption programs. More curbside recycling programs are being targeted to include PET bottle collecti6n. A COMPOSTER TOO GOOD TO REFUSE Currently, 27 PET reclamation facilities are operating throughout the U.S. PET on the inter- national scene Backyard composting programs will work - in cities that offer the Biostack~ Composter. The unique three-tiered design of the Biostack® makes light of the hardest part of the composting job - turning the pile. Because it makes compost-Lng so easy, the Biostack®ensures a successful municipal composting program. And it's fabricated of 60% recycled polyethylene. For more information, contact our Municipal Sales Dept. at (415) 383-4415 ext. 7661. (:ir'cie 299 on RR scrvicc card According to PET Container Recycling Eu- rope (Brussels), PET consumption grew 25 percent in 1994, to 1.5 billion pounds, which is about 92 percent of the size of the U.S. market. PET bottle recollection grew almost as fast, increasing by 23 percent, to 62.3 million pounds, for a recovery rate of 4 percent. Actual volumes collected before sorting were closer to 72.7 million pounds, with the difference being unusable containers. Col ored PET bottles compose the largest frac- tion of unrecoverable bottles because there is no demand for them by the textile market, which is the main consumer for recovered PET As in the U.S., Europe's PET reclama- don capacity of 137 million pounds far ex- ceeds available supply. Although Europe's overall PET recover3, effort lags that of the U.S., there are a num- ber of success stories. Netherlands collects scrap PET containers with a llqandatory de- posit system that gets back 95 percent of the beverage containers. Two countries account for almost two- thirds of Europe's recovered PET volumes. Switzerland has a system of 12,000 drop-off collection sites coupled with a deposit scheme offered by one of the major retail- ers. In 1994, the country collected ahnost 20 million pounds, or about 75 percent of what was generated. Italy collected more than 26 million pounds of scrap PET, of which three-quarters qualified for recycling markets in 1994. that scrap PET prices for the period from 1982 to November 1994 averaged betWeen seven and 10 cents per pound, f.o.b. One exception was a little price dip to two cents in 1992, re- flex:ting a surge in curbside recycling collec- tion PET volumes, which suffered from high levels of PVC contamination. It was at the end of 1994 that the horror stories, from the perspective of PET re- claimers, began. Bryan Sykes, in charges of sales and products for Primus Environmen- tal Inc. (Marietta, Ohio) relates a call from a supplier who wanted a dime more than the going price of $0.12 per pound for a truck- load of PET bales, delivered. Sykes laughed and declined, only to be shocked when he found out later, that the load had been sold at the higher price. Over the next six months, prices for scrap PET bottles took off in leaps and bounds of four and five cents a pound, compared to the historical bumps of 0.5 and 1.0 cent. The driv- ing force behind the surging scrap prices were .Chinese buyers trying to supply material to fiber mills that were facing a shortage of cot- ton fiber due to a crop failure, as well as a bur- - geoning world demand for polyester fiber. In many cases, buyers for the same Chinese mill were bidding against each other to secure the · same material. Speculation was rampant, with brokers paying high prices for scrap and then trying to sell the material while the scrap was being shipped. By late spring of this year, baled PET bot- tles were reportedly commanding delivered prices of more than $0.40 per pound on the West Coast, with prices in the 30-cent range for East Coast scrap. Domestic buyers were forced to match the higher prices to cap the flow of PET scrap overseas. Nevertheless, California, which recovers about 65 million · pounds of PET scrap annually, saw about 90 percent head offshore in the first half of 1995, compared .to just 50 percent two years ~ago. By this summer, the aggressive purchasing activity of the Chinedse buyers had diminished. Actions by the Chinese government to reduce iipeculative buying, as well as some bad ex- periences by mills with shipments of contam- inated scrap, curtailed the free-for-all. But scrap PET .prices didn't fall back to the Iow teens; instead they have been main- tained in the range of $0.27 to $0.35 per pound for delivered truckload quantities of baled material. One reason is that domestic demand for all PET is growing significantly in 1995. Driven up by this growing demand, virgin resin prices increased from $0.73 per pound at the'end of 1994 to more than $0.85 per pound by mid-1995, after growing by six cents during 1994. In addition, many PET reclaimers needed to rebuild inventories that had been serious- ly depleted, some by one-third or more. On top of that, at the end of July, Image Indus- tries (Armuchee, Georgia), the third largest reclaimer, suffered a fire that took out five million pounds of scrap, or 25 percent of its normal inventory level. Two fingers needed Looking at the future of Scrap PET pricing is more challenging. In the short run, current scrap prices look good. There is still too much processing capacity chasing too little supply. And, after a hiatus of two months, Chinese buyers re-entered the marketplace at the end of July. Their purchasing activity has been much more subdued, however, with scrap prices offered within the current market struc- ture and purchases targeted to a specific mill order as opposed to speculative buying. In t. he long mn, David Smith, manager of recycling programs in the plastic container division for Johnson ContrOls, Inc. (Milwau- kee), one of the largest PET bottlemakers in the U.S., flatly predicts that in the long mn, "I seriously doubt that we will see single- digit prices [for recovered PET boules] in this decade." On the other hand, almost without excep- tion, every PET reclaimer, including Smith, predicts that scrap prices, now in the 30-cent range, will likely come down next year. Sev- eral industry observers feel that PET scrap prices can be sustained in the $0.20 to $0.25 Automatic Plastic Bottle Sorting The BottleSort® System 5000 pound per hour multi-resin BottleSort~ System The BottleSort* systemprovides state-of-the-art automatic plastic bottle identification and sOrting of whole or baled plastic bottles. Our infrared and x-ray sensing systems ignore dirt and labels. The modular design BottleSort® provides sorting of PVC, PET, natural HDPE, and mixed-color HDPE. Color sorting of resins is also available with an advanced vision system. With over 30 process lines installed, MSS is the world leader in multi-resin automated bottle sortation. Also be sure to investigate our 10,000 pound per hour debaling and declumping system. MAGNETIC SEPARATION SYSTEMS, bic. 3738 Keystone Avenue Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Phone: (615) 781-2669 Fax: (61 5) 781-2923 Circle 351 on RR service card Resource Recycling September 1995 ~J~ IRIEDUCE VOLUM INCREASE American Pulverizer's rugged, slow sp~d, high torque, shear type shredders efficiently reduce your scrap metal, construction/demolition lumber, tires, steel drums, wire, plastic, etc. Lower scrap volume up to 80% as you increase your income by producing a better, more condensed product. Stationary or portable systems are available and every unit can be outfitted with infeed or take-away conveyors if required. 5540 West Park Avenue St. Louis, MO 63110 Ph(x~: 314/781-6100 Fax: 314/781-9209 Circle 16 on RR service card STOP DOUBLE HANDLING AND SCRAP American Pulvedzer's portable reduction systems go right to the work site to cut the soadng costs o.f double hauling and handling of scrap. Outfitted on a fiat bed trailer, these units efficiently handle scrap metal, paper, wood, plastic, tires, wire, steel drums, garbage, etc., f6r efficient recycling, reduced handling charges and landfill costs, and easier cleaning and/or baling of scrap~ (~ PUI. VERIZER COMPANY 5540 West Park Avenue St. Lo~s, MO 63110 Phone: 314/781-6100 Fax: 314/781-9209 Circle 28 on RR service card .D Reso,rce Recycli,g September 1995 range. For one thing, margins have been squeezed tremendously. Vir- gin resin prices in 1995 went up only half as much as scrap prices did. In the next few years, there will be a tremendous surge in virgin PET resin production capacity that should reduce the price for virgin PET resin, as well as the ability of recycled PET resin to command a premium. And, according to several reclaimers, curbside collected PET will again be priced about two to three cents per pound lower than scrap PET soft drink bottles from states with beverage container deposit laws because the latter material is cleaner and can be processed at twice the rate (4,000 to 5,000 pounds per hour) of the dirtier curbside tonnage. Capacity is not the issue According to Michael F. Schedler, director of technical services for NAPCOR, the U.S. PET reclamation industry consists of 24 companies operating 27 plants in 18 states. A Resource Recycling survey of U.S. PET reclaimers indicates a total installed annual washing capacity (com- puted for a three-shift operation) for clean flake of almost one billion pounds will exist by October ! 995 (see Table !). .~:. ;:,~ "v. ~,cx~n set pending the current m,-u'- ;~.¢I situalion." Perilz points out that the com- pany's p:oces,,;ing facility in Albany, New York is slili~ underutilized and that CPR is di- recting .tts ~ecovered bottle stream cross- country unti~ other sources of supply open up for Albany. Recycling advocates in California also cite the potential adverse effect on supply for a new plastics washing facility that could re- sult from changes being considered in the state's landmark recycling legislation. The changes, proposed by the glass container in- dustry and beer distributors, Could cause scrap supply lines to shift so that there would be less scrap PET available for a domestic wash- ing plant. Environmental Products (Fairfax, Virginia) will add washing capacity to its sorting and grinding operation in Riverside, California. The start date on that expansion has been pushed back to the first quarter of 1996. This will be the first washing plant to open west of the Mississippi. The company has access to a source of PET from its network of reverse vending machines that it operates around the state as pan of California's beverage container redemption program. The third PET washing plant planned for west of the Mississipi River is being target- ed for Salt Lake City, with a startup some- time in 1996. According to Lowry Redd, Markets can't get enough PET bottles and containers. president of Recovery Processes Internation- al, the company is finalizing the partnership in a processing operation with a nominal ca- pacity of 20 million pounds-per-year. The Salt Lake City project is the first PET reCla- mation plant that would directly involve an equipment supplier. RPI provides propri- etary PET washing lines whose key features involve separating aluminum and PVC from the washed flake. The new plant would serve as a demonstration and training facility for RPI's equipment, as well as a testing ground for further technical development. Lack of supply has kept at least one facil- ity from moving out of the planning phase. A washing facility planned for Oregon has Jr Nationwide Sales and Service Distributor Network / ANUFACIURING * ILLEIr2 WhereltCounts Now entering o.ur third decade of manufacturing superior recycling equipment. PLASTICPERFORATOR/FLATTENER ModelPF. l~00 Design your system from our u- to2'n ........ ~ .'~- maucu°n °t l'ia-l' O°ttles and HDPE Juss }' b'aaom m size. Not omv ao~ tim PF-1500 e,.,,,~h ..... ~...,_ ~ ~ but . - .... ·,--,, l.,~,u,~ unr- ra ~mntmc~ Uallng and reduc~ springback and broken thn~ heavi~- payloads. full range of equipment. · ..Miller Mtnt-MRF - Ideal for processing all mixed curbstde recyclables. -.Can Shredders, Flatteners,. Weigh Hoppers, Magnetic Separator Conveyors and Blower Loaders. · ..Paper Shredder- Ideal for documeni destrUc. tion, animal bedding and cellulose insulation manufacturing. · ..Plastic Perforator/Flattener for PET/HDPE bottles and jugs. · ..Glass Breakers. In-house engineering staff to help design all your specialty applications. ~lResource Recycling September 1995 A ILLER ./ ANUFACTUh21NG P.O. Box 336, Tm'lock, CA 95381 (209) 632-3846 Fax (209) 632-1369 Circle 132 on RR service c~ird been put on hold indefinitely. John Fletcher, president of Portland-based CRInc., which provides collection services for deposit bev- erage containers, acknowledged plans for the plant, with the potential introduction of two new plants in California, however, Fletcher is taking a wait-and-see attitude. Although CRInc. controls about one-fourth of th/~ feed- stock needed for the plant, it could be chal- lenging to come up with the balance of the supply while competing against three other plants in the West. Lack of supply is the issue PET recovered volumes grew a healthy 22 percent in 1994, a rote that was double the 11 percent increase in .1993. With PETproc- essing plants using less than 60 percent of their capacity, it was no surprise that almost every PET reclaimer interviewed cited lack of supply as the biggest bottleneck to ex- panding their operation. Of the 565 million pounds of scrap PET bottles collected in 1994, about 200 million pounds were returned through beverage con- miner deposit and redemption programs. And,. although a number of the processors felt a na- tional beverage container deposit law would be the fastest way to generate the largest vol- ume of top-quality scrap, the current politi- cal situation means that municipal curbside .recycling collection programs will be the ma- jor target for increasing PET supply. One way is to get the word to local com- munities that PET bottles should be includ- ed in municipal recycling collection programs. Toward this end, NAPCOR has hired three regional repre.sentatives to get the word out (see box). In addition to convincing communities to add PET to their list of recyclables, the pub- lic needs to be educated to distinguish be- tween PET bottles and other PET packaging, all of which is marked with a No. I code. At this point, other PET packaging is incompat- ible with bottle reclamation. PET bottles, which are desirable, make up about 92 per- cent of PET rigid packaging, according to a composition study of rigid plastic packaging conducted by Green Solutions (Renton, Wash- ington) for the Oregon Department of Envi- ronmental Quality. The other, incompatible 8 percent includes ovenable trays and ther- moformed products, such as clamshells. There is some evidence that more con- sumers are aware of PET's recyclability. A 1995 survey by Packaging Digest indicated that although aluminum cans were siill the P ,-rec cling help ison the way The National Association for Plastic Con- miner Recovery, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a trade association founded in 1987 to promote and facilitate the recovery of PET plastic containers. In the past year, it has hired three .staff people to help com- munities add PET containers to recycling collection programs. NAPCOR regional staff sandi Maurer Childs Eastern regional director (704) 684-6221 Tim Warren Midwestem regional director (314) 984-6898 Western regional director (206) 224-7464 most recovered item (cited by 82 percent of households), plastic bottles had edged out glass containers for second place, 64 percent to 62 percent. But, while PET recovery may be accessi- ble to more citizens, capture rotes lag behind other materials. One reason is that many re- cycling collection programs collect PET soft drink bottles only. By adding custom PET bottles, such as those used for oils and liquor, programs would have access to almost half again as much PET. According to a study by the American Plas- tics Council (Washington), the typical house- hold in a state that does not have beverage container deposits but does have curbside re- cycling collection generates equal amounts of aluminum UBCs and PET containers -- about 17 pounds per year (see "Collecting plastic bottles more efficiently" in the Sep- tember 1994 issue). The APC study also found that the capture rate (i.e., the percentage of available materi- al recovered from a participating household) of 57 percent for PET containers was much lower than the rates for glass containers (80 percent) and aluminum cans (71 percent). If PET's capture rate matched that of glass bot- tles, the annual recovered PET bottle volume would increase by 40 percent, or more than 140 million pounds annually. At current prices, this additional PET scrap volume would earn another $35 million in revenues for municipal programs. Based on additional revenues generated, a community of 50,000 households could easily justify spending $5,000 on an education program to boost PET recovery to 80 percent. Reclaimers weigh in PET reclaimers are also looking at a number of different approaches to solving the supply problem. Durable Metal Products specializes in the ITealment of. all tool steels. We guarantee it will more than double the life of your current tool steel .wear ports including chipper blades, shears: knives, granulators, pellefizers and shredders. We bock our process with o 100% money back guarantee. Il 40 Elizabeth Ave. W_aukegon, IL 60085 1-800-851-7302 Circle 306 on RR service card Revottrce Recvclino .~entomhor IOOq ~ St Jude Polymer Corp. (Frackville, Penn- sylvania) is going after commingled bales of HDPE and PET. This allows smaller com- munities to turn over their scrap plastic vol- umes faster and not worry about thecosts of storage space and sorting. St. Jude expects to discount the price of this material about 20 percent off the price for straight PET bales. Image Industries is evaluating a number of supply options from commingled HDPE/ PET to ali commingled bottles. By adding two processing lines, the plastics company is also increasing its sorting capacity to han- dle curbs·de tonnages of PET scrap bottles. Finally, Image is adding staff to its buying group. Clean Tech offers long-term contracts for up to five years, with prices tied to material quality. The strong rise in scrap PET prices in lhe last eight months has been a drawback to securing long term contracts. Some sup- pliers anticipate higher prices and a dynam- ic market in the near future, at least until proj- ected increases in virgin production actually~ come on line. Wellman is moving from month-to-month purchases toward securing longer term rela- tionships with suppliers. The company also provides collection of less-than-truckload quantities from several communities in the same area. Almost every PET reclaimer involved in contracts bemoaned the absence of a good in- dustry publication that shows accurate and timely prices of scrap and virgin resin. On the scrap end, the late-1995 startup of the Chicago Board of Trade computer listing of scrap transactions, which will include PET and other materials, could fulfill this need for accurate and timely pricing information. Integration Some PET reclaimers that are part of com- panies that produce higher value end prod- ucts, such as bottles or carpet fiber, have been better able to survive the tighter operating margins brought about by soaring scrap pdces. According to NAPCOR's Schedler, nine of the PET reclaimers are integrated: [] Image, Martin Color-Fi (Edgefield, South Carolina) and Wellman produce recycled polyester staple fiber, with Image also us- ing the fiber to make carpets. [] Clean Tech,' Johnson Controls and Na- tionwide Recyclers are linked with sub- sidiaries that produce bottles. [] The Plastic Recycling Alliance (Chicago) dedicates its clean flake to the production of strapping by its parent, ITW. [] Pure Tech International, which recently merged with a specialty plastics maker, Ozite, will substitute recycled flake from its Pure Tech Plastics division for virgin resin in some of Ozite's products. [] Ultra Pac uses all of its recycled flake to make clamshell packaging. And, according to our interviews, a num- DResou,ceRecycling September 1995 Polyester fibers, the largest end use for recycled PET bottles, being spun at a Martin Color-Fi plant. ber of other reclaimers.w°uld like such a re- lationship. Integration not only benefits the supplier; it can be a boon to end users as well. For ex- ample, Rock-Term Co. (Norcross, Georgia), a manufactUrer of PET thermoformed pack- aging, found itself without access to enough recycled PET resin during the supply crunch of 1995. So, it decided to buy a seat at the table by signing a contract to purchase the PET processing operation of Goodwill In- dustries. Jokers in the deck A number of other developments should be mentioned that have longer term conse- quences for PET recovery and pricing. First, PET bottle reclamation will become more efficient over the next few years. Alu- minum caps and HDPE base cups are two as- pects of PET bottle design that reduce PET yield and slow p~ing lines. Due to short- ages of polypropylene and PET resins, the conversion tO more friendly polypropylene caps and an all-PET bottle slowed in the last year. New virgin capacity for both resins is coming on line in the next two years and should help resolve this situation. Labels, however, are an area of growing concern for processors. Metallic·zed labels can clog extruder screens and their polypropy- lene backing can discolor PET pellets. Oth- er labels can bleed and contaminate flake. Polystyrene labels are more difficult to sort out from PET than PP, because PS has a spe- cific gravity close to that of PET. A second development to monitor will be the use of recycled-content resin in bottles. With the sunset of Florida's advance dispos- al fee in October, beverage companies that have been using recycled resin will probably go back to using virgin PET; the public won't know because the beverage companies are not advertising recycled content in their cur- rent bottles. In Oregon, recycled content in plastic rigid containers has been effectively removed as a motivating force. The 1995 legislature ex- empted plastic packages containing solid and semi-solid food products from meeting the recycled-content standards, which go into ef- fect.only when packages fail to meet a re- covery rate of 25 percent. Although bever- age product packages were not exempted from the existing law, beverage, companies don't need to make use of the recycled- content option in order to comply with the law, because the current recovery rote for rigid plastic containers exceeds the requirement. That leaves California as the only state try- ing to influence the marketplace through leg- - · slat·on to use more recycled resin in food grade packaging. The question then becomes: Can Johnson Controls and other companies manufacture a · recycled PET resin that can compete with vir- gin PET? Currently, recycled PET resin is sold for a premium of 5 to 10 percent above the cost of virgin PET. One last development to monitor has the potential to cause a'major ripple in the PET collection and processing infrastructure in the U.S. Pepsi and Coca-Cola have hired a con- sul.tant to explore the feasibility of a PET proc- ess~ng operation in a South American coun- try. With the two soft drink companies be- coming more heavily invested in PET pack- aging, it seems they are interested in explor- ing the potential cost savings associated with controlling their own raw material. If the companies do proceed, such a project -- if successful-- could have implications for PET _markets in the U.S. RR COHGRESS MOVES TO GIVE STATES COHTROL OVER GARBAGE FLOW Late last month, the Senate Environ- ment and Public Works Committee en- dorsed a bill that would give governors authority to limit waste imports and to protect publicly financed facilities (such as compost and waste-to-energy plants) that depend upon a steady de- livery of solid waste. The proposal takes on significance in light of recent court decisions over flow control. Legis- lators from states like Pennsylvania -- that received nearly four million tons of MSW in 1993, amounting to 31 percent of the total disposed coming from other states m have been vehement about es- tablishing veto power. An overview of legislative initiatives and court chal- lenges concerned with flow control, by Washington attorney Dexter Ewel, will. appear in the May issue. CHICKEH 'H EGG WITH LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL COMPOSTIHG The special report in this issue on the diversion of commercial and institution- al organics to composting highlights the growth and exciting development in this sector. Many of these projects, how- ever, are smaller scale, leading Sumner Martinson of the Massachusetts De- partment of Environmental Protection to comment that "we have come to a point where we need to move from the small generator/composter to the larger generator/composter." Notes Martinson: %Ve have to seri- ously start looking at ways to divert the larger amounts of commercially gener- ated organics -- and then residential organics. This can't be accomplished by any single entity but only by a well co- ordinated effort of all involved parties. "The development of larger'Scale or- ganics diversion/composting has been hindered by the 'the chicken or egg sce- nario.' There are scores of generators of organic by-products willing and eager to change their in-house system of or- ganics collection to make it possible to divert their material to composting. There are, at the same time, vendors interested in establishing merchant composting facilities to process this type of material. The problem lies in the fact that neither can move forward without the other. Generators cannot change their collection system until they can be assured that there will be an organics processing facility to accept their materials within a reasonable dis- tance and at a competitive price. On the other hand, no vendor can invest in siting and building a facility until there is assurance that a constant feedstock is available." Martinson suggests that this gap be bridged by initiating a working roundtable to develop a direct dialogue between the generators, haulers, pro- cessors, and involved governmental agencies. "The goal is to develop a plan which will lead to a working model for the development of a full-scale organics composting facility," he says. ~The model will identify the steps that will have to be taken, simultaneously, by both generator and processor. Roundtable members will work out the details of an agreement that will estab- lish the level of confidence required for each to make the changes and invest- ment necessary to make organic diver- sion/composting a realityf The ideal forum for this first discus- sion, adds Martinson, is BioCycle's 25th Annual National Conference, May 8-10, 1995 in Washington, D.C. ~Hopefully, the kernel of an idea will emerge that can be taken back to the states and mu- nicipalities where it will germinate and grow." Martinson can be contacted at the Massachusetts DEP, Solid Waste Management, One Winter St., Boston, MA 02108. (617) 292-5969. GARDEN PESTICIDES LIHKED TO CAHCER IH CHILDREH A research study in North Carolina suggests that children under 14 have four times the normal risk of contract- ing cancer (soft tissue sarcoma) if their gardens are treated with pesticides or herbicides. The research by Jack Leiss of the North Carolina State Center for Health and Environmental Statistics, Raleigh was summarized in New $cien- tist. Leiss and colleagues analyzed data for 252 children'diagnosed with cancer and a similar sized group without can- cer. He took into account parental re- ports of roughly how much the children had been exposed to pesticides and h~r- bicides (American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, P. 249). ~More study is needed to clarify which specific expo- sures, if any, are associated with which childhood cancer," notes Leiss. CLEAN WATER LAWS MAY GET FOULED UP Reports from Washington show that the Clean Water Act faces substantial loss of power to protect wetlands and control polluted runoff from farms and city streets. Changes introduced by a bi partisan group in the House of Repre- sentatives in March are viewed as "goo( for passage;" the Senate has not yet be- gun to work on modifications to the Clean Water Act. According to EPA Ad- ministrator Carol Browner, the bill mun- dermines 20 years of success in our clean water programs." As introduced, the House bill would: More narrowly define what kind of land qualifies for wetlands protection; Spark new debate over controlling runoff that flows from nonpoint sources like pesti- cides and nitrates leaching from farm fields; and Repeal provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act which al lows some states to enforce controls on polluted runoff. Analysts say that the bill would abolish the systems of per- mits now being used to control runoff from storm waters into rivers and lakes GOOD RECYCLIHG MARKETS COHTIHUE IH '95 The positive trend in markets that began in mid-1994 has continued in 1995, and it appears that this will be the best year ever for recycling progran revenues. Corrugated cardboard prices climbed above $150/ton in February, near peak levels seen last summer. Mixed paper was at an all time high in February, and newsprint, plastic bottle (especially HDPE natural) and alu- minum remained strong nationwide. Reports from materials recovery faci] ities (MRFs) indicate that weighted av- erage value o'f materials from curbside programs is generally $t00/ton or high- er, good news for municipal recycling budgets. Allentown, Pennsylvania, gen- erated $100,000 in revenues from recy- cled materials in 1994, up from zero in prior years. This year, the city is on track to receive $200,000, according to Betsy Levin, the city's manager of recy- cling and waste management. Philadel phia, which serves 565,000 households with curbside recycling, expects $1.15 million in revenues in fiscal year 1995. Last year, not only did the city receive no revenues, it paid $500,000 to have its recyclables processed. 6 BIOCYCLE APRIL 19: M RFs are bustin' all over by Eileen Brettler Berenyi Materialsrecovery are growing, facmties but mixed waste processing facilities remain unchanged. It's a heyday for MRFs. As a result of feder- al policies, state and local mandates, and per~ haps for the fwst time, market conditions, there has been a noted increase in the number of MRFS serving communities throughout the country over the last several years. As com- munities turn to recycling as a way to divert a portion of their waste stream from landfill or incineration and initiate curbside recycling programs, they are recognizing the need to ensure that these recyclables will be proper- ly processed and marketed. This article reports the preliminary find- ings of a nationwide study currently being concluded by Governmental Advisory As- sociates on materials recovery facilities (MRFs) and mixed waste processing facili- ties (MWPFs). In addition, building on pre- vious surveys conducted in 1990 and 1992, it draws out emerging trends with respect to these processing facilities. Some definitions There are a variety of definitions associated with materials recovery and mixed waste processing facilities. For the purposes of the GAA study, MRFs were defined as those fa- cilities at which there is some degree of sort- ing of incoming commingled recyclables from the residential waste stream, even ff such sort- ing consists only of separating No. I and No. 2 plastics. This definition excludes fa- cilities that receive only pre-sorted materials, which are baled or otherwise aggregated with other pre-sorted streams to be sent to other plants for further processing or sent directly to market. In addition, projects that are sole- ly recycling centers or buy-back centers are excluded. Finally, facilities which solely serv- ice the industrial/commercial sectors are not part of the study. Mixed waste processing facilities are those plants that accept mixed solid waste and re- move the recyclables from this waste at the facilities. The remaining residue, the nonre- cyclable refuse, is disposed at a landfill or in- cinerator. Included in this category are sev- eral hybrids that more closely resemble refuse- derived fuel incineration facilities, with front- end processing of the waste stream. Lastly, there are hybrid projects that do not fit n.eatly into one category or another. These projects may be a combined composting plant and MRF or transfer station and MRF. Also falling into this category are plants servicing plastic bag collection programs or programs that co-collect mixed refuse and recyclables and take them to the same facility. The study identified 473 facilities in total. The listing of projects is based on previous GAA studies, an exhaustive search of the lit- erature, and contacts with industry and pub- lic sector representatives. Each of the facili- ties was contacted by telephone, and infor- mation was collected by a pre-tested ques- tionnaire. Based on responses, some facili- ties were reclassified; of the 473 projects con- tacted, 37 were eliminated because they were either recycling/buy-back centers or transfer stations. That left 436 projects that fit the cat- egory of a MRF, a mixed waste facility or a hybrid MRF. How many? ' The GAA study identified approximately 436 facilities on a preliminary basis. Specifical- ly, this number breaks down into 346 MRFs (including 35 hybrids) and 34 MWPFs that are operational, in the planning stages or un- der construction. An additional 32 former- ly operating plants (two of which were MWPFs) have been decommissioned,'and 24 facilities (five of which were MWPFs), which were planned over the last several years, never proceeded to the operational stage. Eileen Brettler Berenyi, Ph.D., is the president of Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc., an environ- mental research and consulting finn based in Westport, Connecticut. She serves as a consultant to the pub- lic and private sectors on solid waste management issues. GAA, Inc., publishes the Materials Recovery amt Recycling Yearbook and similar yearbooks on municipal waste combustion and landfill gas recovery. ~lResource Recycling April 1995 West-Van Materials Recoveo, Center in Vancouver; W~t.vhington. Of the remaining 346 MRFs, about 306 (88 percent) are operational, 25 (7 percent) are planned, and 15 (4 percent) are under con- struction or in the shakedown phase. These numbers represent a significant growth over 1992, when GAA conducted its last study and identified 222 MRFs. Thus, the number of facilities has increased by 56 percent. Interestingly, since 1992, the proportion of operating facilities has jumped from 75 percent in 1992, to 88 percent of the total in 1995. When one compares 1992 to 1995, the percentage of projects under construction or in shakedown has stayed constant, about 4 percent, while the percent of projects iden- tified in planning have dropped, from 20 per- cent down to 7 percent. These percentages attest to the tremendous growth that has occurred in the last few years, when many local government units and pri- vate firms have proceeded with plans to pro- cure and construct MRFs. It may also point to a leveling off of growth over the next few years as the industry assesses its strengths and weaknesses. This growth in MRFs has come despite the fact that it number of projects shut do;vn or never proceeded out of the plm~- ning stages. Among tile factors contributing to the shutdown of projects were increasing competi- tion from other facilities for the materials, as well as the need by some of the Inulti-project own- er/operators to consolidate operations with the goal of achieving appropriate economies of scale. With respect to MWPFs, what is apparent from study results is that the much-vaunted trend in this direction has not materialized. The nmnber of facilities identified -- 34 -- is nearly the same as the number found in 1992, which was 35. Several of the facilities operating or planned in t 992 have shut down or did not proceed to completion, and only a few new projects were implemented. Although mixed waste processing has not taken off as anticipated by some prognosti- cators, single-stream anti bag pi'ognxms do appear to be increasing. Under these pro- grams, all recyclables, including paper, are placed in one container, often it plastic bag. These bags may be collected on a separate re- cyclable l)ick-t~p day el-c{~-collecled x~ itti the nonrecyclable waste. They are then processed at a facility that in some cases resembles a n-fixed waste processing plant, in that the non- recyclable refuse is coming in at the same time with the bags. Where are facilities sited? In 1992, the Northeastern U.S. led the nation with almost half (41 percent) of MRFs that were planned, under construction or operat- ing. With 20 percent each, the Southern and Midwest regions had about one-half of the percentage, and the West had about 18.5 per- cent. By 1995, this distribution of facilities had changed, particularly in the South and the Midwest. The Northeast still leads, with 30 percent of the MRFs: however, with 26 per- cent, tile Midwest has almost the same pro- is classified as "high-tech." If its equipment consists of a conveyor with or without a mag- netic separator, or if there is simply floor sort- ing of materials, it is classified as "low-tech." Although GAA's 1995 data remain pre- liminary, 297 MRFs have been classified thus far. by type. Almost two-thirds (65 percent) fall under the low4ech classification..Inter- estingly, this proportion is nearly identical to that found in 1992. Processing remains pendent on basic types of equipment config- uration. If one looks only at the 35 projects in the planning or construction stage from which GAA obtained equipment information, the percentage designated as low-tech falls to 48. percent. Planned facilities appear to be relying on a higher degree of mechanized sep- aration equipment than facilities already op- erating. In terms of processing capacity, MRFs are processing about 100 tons per day. Low-tech facilities are smaller, handling about 86 tons per day on average; high-tech projects have larger capacities, averaging about 160 tons per day. These numbers are quite similar to the findings in the 1992 study. Average cap- ital costs are running between $3 million and $6 million, again similar to the 1992 findings. By definition, mixed waste projects handle larger amounts of waste than MRFs, averag- ing about 675 tons per day; their average cap- ital costs are correspondingly higher. portion as the Northeast. The South has seen a small increase, to 24 percent of facilities. The region with the least increase in propor- tion of MRFs is the West, which has 20 per- cent of the nation's MRFs. As cities and coun- ties across the country have implemented curbside recycling collection programs, these projects are much more evenly distributed geographically. -' The development of the less-common MWPFs has been slower than MRFs, and their geographic distribution shows a differ- ent pattern. Of the 34 facilities identified as MWPFs, only 6 percent are found in the Northeastern U.S. The South and the West have the preponderance of the projects, with about 32 percent each of the projects identi- fied. The Midwest has about 29 percent of mixed waste facilities. An explanation of this skewed distribu- tion, away from the Northeast, may be that localities in the Northeast implemented curb- side recycling collection programs before oth- er regions and chose MRFs m rather than MWPFs m to complement collection pro- grams that were already in place. In contrast, ~aain Southern localities chose to maintain their regular refuse collection system and con- centrated on sorting at a centralized location. And in the West, some private haulers already collected both residential and commercial refuse and simply added on to pre-existing sorting operations to pull out commingled residential recyclables~ Types of MRFs One characteristic of MRFs is the extent to which they are mechanized. In the GAA data- base, MRFs are classified as "high-tech" or "low-tech." This determination is based on the configuration of equipment. For exam- ple, if a MRF has separating equipment be- yond a magnetic separator-- such as an eddy current separator and an air classifier-- or if it is usi.ng an integrated separation system, it SHREDDERS · GRANULATO · FINE GRINDEI and PL and Tire products Wood Light Weight Metal Featuring: · High Capacity Stand Alone, Integrated or Custom Systems · Other Products Available Including High Speed Impact/Cutting Mills Oversized Shafts Protected Beadngs Available from 3 to 300 HP All US Manufactured Components With The Quality & Performance Only Available From ALSTEELE BY ENTOLETER 251 Welton Street, Hamden, CT 06517 · 203-787-3575 · Fax 203-787-1492 1-800-729-3575 Circle 139 on RR service card Resource Recvcline Anril 1995 ~ Case studies The GAA study and database contains infor- mation on many other aspects of MRFs and MWPFs, such as types of material processed, staffing allocations, procurement arrange- merits and the nature of control over the re- cyclables coming to the facility. Three case studies of facilities are offered, which have one or more unique characteristics. The first one, North Augusta, South Car- olina/Augusta, Georgia has an unusual insti- tutional arrangement. The second facility, in the District of Columbia, processes both res- idential and commercial recyclables. The third, Tompkins County, New York is dis- tinctly configured and financed. What these cases are meant to illustrate is that behind the summary data are a variety of facilities, which have responded to the n .eeds of their particu- lar communities and customers in different ways. North Augusta, South Carolina/Augus- ta, Georgia. North Augusta, South Caroli- na is the site of a single-stream/commingled recyclables MRF that has been operating since Spring 1993. It is one of the few publicly owned and operated facilities that is based on an interlocal, interstate agreement. Further- more, it is a hybrid facility, a growing cate- gory of recyclables processing facility. Although the facility is located in North Augusta, South Carolina, the majority of the waste comes from a city across the state line --Augusta, Georgia. Three cities send waste to the facility: Augusta has 17,000 house- holds; North Augusta, 7,500; and Aiken, STRONG Return on Investment · Best output versus initial machine investment in the industry · Ideal shred/chip size for denser loads · Longer cutter life due to pierce and tear cutting action · Faster throughput due to unique cutter design · Effective on wide range of materials · From single units to complete integrated systems · 800-51-SHRED. Manufacturer of Shredders and Engineered Recycling Systems (Since 1972) 1000 South Woodward Blvd. Birmingham, MI 48009 Fax: (810) 642-2529 Circle' 301 on RR service card ~Wl~ Resource Recycling April 1995 South Carolina about 6,700. Both North Au- gusta and Augusta have programs were re- cyclables are placed into plastic bags and co- collected with regular household refuse. North Augusta uses an automated truck collection system. All recyclables, which in- cludes old newspapers, old corrugated con- tainers, aluminum and steel cans, and PET and HDPE containers -- are put into a blue plastic bag with a drawstring tie. Regular garbage is placed in 100-gallon roll carts, on top of which is placed the recyclables-filled plastic bag. When collected, everything goes into the truck, and is compacted. According to plant managers, the plastic bags are strong and do not break during compaction. The plant processes about 100 tons per day, using conveyors, balers and intensive manual sorting. After the garbage and recy- clables arrive at the processing facility, garbage and blue bags are dumped on a tip- ping floor, where they are fed into an in- ground pit conveyor. Large pieces of recy- clables, such as scrap metal, tires and corru- gated cardboard are taken out. The refuse goes to a compactor and then is transferred by.trailer to the landfill in Aiken County, South Carolina. The plastic bags are pulled off the line, split open manually and placed on a sort- ing line, where the recyclables are then hand sorted. Augusta has a similar co-collection sys- tem, but it doesn't have automated collection vehicles, instead using regular rear-loading trucks. (Aiken sends only its commingled recy- clables to the facility. These materials are sorted with the recyclable materials from Au- gusta and North Augusta's plastic bag col- lection material.) To finance the operation, both cities are charging a user fee. In Augusta, the charge is $1.33 per month. Households purchase their own bags for the recyclables. In North Au- gusta, the household charge is $2.25 per month, which includes the price of the plas- tic bags to hold the recyclables. The underlying justification for this proj- ect was that refuse collection and recyclables collection could be done simultaneously with the same vehicle. Collection costs are kept low and residents are being asked to do a min- imum of sorting. At the same-time, recy- clables are being kept separate from garbage, obviating the need for intensive sorting of regular refuse. In instituting the system, lo- cal officials modeled the program on other planned or operating plastic bag collection programs in Chicago, Cleveland and Oma- ha, Nebraska. Washington, D.C. This high-tech MRF is being consh'ucted in an urban area by Ea- gle Management Services, Inc. of Washing- ton to service the district's curbside recycling collection program, as well as various com- mercial a6counts. Constructed by RRT at a cost of about $6.1 million, the MRF will han- die about 500 tons per day of commingled residential recyclables and paper recovered from the commercial sector. Eagle has a five-year contract with the Dis- trict of Columbia to process its curbside re- cyclables. The company has been successful in finding strong paper outlets when the mar- kets have been weak. For example, it has sent paper to both insulation companies and to landscapers who use the paper for a hydro- mulch. Eagle Management got its start in the re- cycling industry by providing janitorial ser- vices to RFK stadium, the Washington Con- vention Center and other office buildings, where it began handling aluminum cans, old corrugated cardboard and office paper. From there, it expanded into further proc- essing of recyclables, receiving an interim contract to process the commingled recy- clables from Prince Georges County. Al- though it no longer has the Prince Georges contract, the company won the bid to process Washington's recyclables, and is construct- ing the new plant to service this contract and its commercial customers. About 40 percent of the material p~ is generated by the commercial sector, and according to the company's owner and oper- ator, Richard Tynes, that percent is growing. By including commercial as well as residen- rial recyclables, Eagle Management Services has expanded the definition of the tradition- al MRF. Tompkins County, New York. Tomp- kins County is constructing another type of hybrid facility -- a mixed waste and transfer station that operates in tandem -- serving both an urban and a rural area. The main city in Tompkins County is Ithaca, the site of sever- al colleges and universities, the most famous Rabanco's Seattle MRF. of which is Comell University. The areas out- side of Ithaca are quite rural. The MRF will process various grades of paper; clear, brown and green glass contain- ers; metal cans and other metal scrap; No. 1 and No. 2 plastic containers; and yard and wood wastes. Nonrecyclable waste will come to the transfer station, which is co-located with the MRF. ~ Model RS-900. Arrives on one trailer completely wired, assembled & tested. Processes up to 30 ton/shift immediate- ly after unloading and connect- lng to local power source~ Room for 6 sorters. Automati- cally sorts tin, ferrous materials, aluminum etc~ Dozens of other features. CHAIN BELT CONVEYOR Model 1400B In-floor or above-floor styles. Heavy duty 2~." SCM bearings. Skirt height, belt widths, belt cleat size & spacing as .~.~.~: ~ required. Rugged 4" tubing frame, entirely enclosed For information call or writes A. 2-STAGE TROMMEL Model 700. with 2-screen size option. B. SINGLE STAG£TROMMEL Model 702. 4"xl/,'' sg. tubing frame, drum screen hole size & speed as required. Circle 34 on RR s~rvtce card NGINEERED NVIRONMENTAL QUIPMENT TRIPLE "£" ~PANY RO. Box 491 · Cedar][F. alls,~.lA 50613;0491 319/266-4723 · FAX 319/268-0394 Division ABCO Engineering Corp. Resource Recvcline Anril 1005 ~ Montgomery County, Maryland's MRF operated by CRlnc. CRInc. is constructing the MRF and will operate it and the transfer station for an ini- rial contract period of five years. Recyclables will come' into the MRF either commingled from curbside recycling collection programs in Ithaca and other parts of the county or pre- sorted, collected from drop boxes throughout the'county. The county has a special financing arrange- ment for the MRF/transfer station, where it will pay CRInc. abou~ $30 per ton of recy- clables marketed -- not processed. In addi- tion, the company receives a per ton fee for solid waste processed at the transfer station. As part of its contract, CRInc. must divert 5 percent of the solid waste received at the transfer station to the MRF for recycling. The MRF has no tipping fee and will be paid for by a combination of general revenues and a special assessment. This direct special assessment is based on the square footage of property and is levied against all commercial, industrial, residential and nonprofit units and organizations. It is unusual for two reasons: First, it includes non- profit organizations located within the coun- ty; and second, it was structured in such a way that it varies by degree of refuse generated by the type of property. RR For more information about the North Augusta program, contact George Handy, Superintendent of Recycling, City of North Augusta, (803) 441- 4242. For the District of Columbia MRF, contact' Richard Tynes, President, Eagle Management Serv- ices, Inc., (202) 291-0200. For the Tompkins County MRF, contact Bar- bara Eckstrom, Solid Waste Division, Tompkins County, (607) 273-6632. The study on which this article is based will be published as a database and yearbook by April 1995. It will be available in hard copy and disk format and will be broken down by region. The price of the printed yearbook will be about $400; breakdowns by region will be priced at about $150 per region. For further information, call (203) 226- 3238. Nationwide Sales Distributor Network LLER Now entering our third decade of manufacturing superior recycling equipment * Quality 9r Where It Counts Design your system from our full range of equipment. ...Paper shredding and document destruction. ...Wood chip grinding. ...Glass breaking. . ...Can shredding, flattening, and magnetic separation. ...Mixed material processing for curbside collection. PS-0040 PAPER PRESHREDDER Designed specifically for destruction of computer printouts and other confidential papers. In-house engineering staff to help design all your specialty applications. A 'ILLER ,ANUFACIU ING P.O. Box 336, Turlock, CA 95381 _ (209) 632-3846 Fax (209) 632-1369 ~S~Resource Recycling April 1995 Circle 132 on RR service card Couches and mattresses- The next recoverables? by Arthur R. Boone Apilot project looks at the generation, markets, processing and economics of recycling couches and mattresses. Every month, the landfills in Alameda Coun- ty, California receive more than 8,000 mat- tresses and 5,000 couches. As the systems to recycle typical consumer products have become increasingly common, recycling con- sultants and planners are looking at different parts of the waste stream to plan the next level of recycling activities. A pilot project in Alameda County was recently conducted to determine the feasibility of dismantling and salvaging the parts and materials of mattresses and couches. Originally led to the project by a Good- will Industries vice president who complained about the noticeable increase in disposal costs for his firm and the apparent waste of re- -sources, two recycling consultants (Arthur R. Boone of Phoenix Recycling Services and Kathy Evans, former recycling program man- ager for the City of Berkeley) received $35,000 from the Alameda County Waste Management Authority for a year-long pro- ject to look seriously at product dismantling and salvage. The major points of their April 1994 feasibility report follow. Generation and potential recovery Finns that specialize in reused goods typi- cally take half of the items they collect to land- fill, one-quarter gets sold as rags and one- fourth goes to the retail stores. Couches and mattresses are bulky but not a significant weight of what must be landfilled. Almost noth- ing has been done nation- ally to study the salvage- ability of these products. In Alameda County, · these products enter the waste stream from a vari- ety of sources, the most important being the pick- up truck driver who takes a load of waste to the transfer station with a mattress or couch tossed on top. Based on countywide : weekly volume estimates for Alameda County, the project consultants estimate the following generation rates from various sources: · Major reused goods finns: 300 mattress- es, 300 couches. · Self-haul, including furniture liquidators from hotels and motels and smaller inde- pendent reused goods firms (e.g., thrift shops): 1,225 mattresses, 694 couches. · Waste hauling finns' drop boxes: 100 mat- tresses, 100 couches. __ Paper, 1.4% Fiberfill, 2.0% ', Other, 10.0% Cotton batting, 3.4% Urethane foam, 7.8% Textiles, 8.6% Wood, 42.9% Metal, 23.9% · Small local mattress rebuilding finn: 225 mattresses. No estimate was made of generation from_ neighborhood clean-up days. - This material (at 61.5 pounds per mattress unit and 137.5 pounds per couch) generates about 140 tons of bulky goods per week, 605 tons per month and 7,100 tons per year enter- ing Alameda County landfills, or about 0.4 percent of the waste stream. Couches and mattresses are easy to dis- Arthur R. Boone is a recycling consultant and projects manager, doing business in Oakland, California as Phoenix Recycling Services. In addition, he works for the Total Recycling Association on its home furnishings salvage_ facility, also in Oakland. Resource Recycling October ! 994 l~l mantle thoroughly. They are simply layered soft materials affixed to a hard core. Dis- mantling involves cutting and prying the ~nate- rials apart. Nothing is glued or nailed so thor- oughly that it can't come apart, although because of the way it is built, old-fashioned furniture can be much more tedious to dis- mantle. With the right tools and the right atti- tude, a single worker can process 30 mat- tresses or five couches a day. Markets The pilot project found that ~narkets exist for almost everything in these products. Recov- ered steel and wood were the easiest, going to wood shredders for co-generation fuel and scrap metal dealers. Sotne of the wood seemed amenable to mom esoteric markets (musical instruments, furniture, flooring, etc.), but those markets were hard to find. Urethane foam (8 percent of a couch's weigh0 went to a local carpet underpad manufacturer, and cotton batting was sold to a mattress rebuilder to be sterilized, rebatted and applied to a rebuilt mattress. Urethane foam frequently sells for 25 cents per pound or better and national markets are strong, although it may take some efforts to find them. Markets for the cloth that covers the couch- es and mattresses were the most difficult to locate because post-consumer cover cloth is not a grade used by the rag wade. Most man- · Table 1 -- Markets for materials recovery_from mattresses Percent of" Average -' ":~' - - ' · S/ton Material total- .: pounds/piece S/pound ~ mattress Steel 537.52' C 23.O9. : $ 0.02 '. $'0.46 $15~01 0.55 N.A. 0.00 0.00 Other Burlap -' ' 0.73 0;46 "0100 0.00 0.00 Quilted cloth/ urethane:.,::.: '-s~.i::?~:i? .... 5.16:..i::,-: .3A7-~.:-:..., ,:~-:, 0.01 '..i :~ 0.00 1.03 Padding l. ' ., ,. 24.98 15.37' N.A. x. 0.70 22.67 ShoadY;pad~' :i?.~.ii!.~.~ 2.51 '~_~' ' . 1.55 .~".. 0.01 :0.02 0.50 · cot~6~ 15attl~?~?:~i420y~:-~,:~ ~":~"--=.~·8:64'.-'~?:-~??:?~,0.05 ,~:,:.:-'~ '.~ 0:43'- 'i4.05 ,~.-~.~. 3.36' ,.- .~,--0.00, ,; .0.00.' 0.00 ,8.12 : . .... 0.18 :{!i~ :' 0.27 -- ':;.! 0.02-:)/?:¢. :~)50.01.~:' 0.18 :...-61.54 . 1.52 51.01 matefiMs '"., i" .' , ~ _ . .. .... · _ ,: -. NVR INC. !000 POUNDS PER HOUR PLASTIC GRANULATOR AND BLOWER EVACUATION SYSTEM NATURE'S VITAL RESOURCES, INC. RR 1 BOX 112 MELVIN, IA 51350 FAX: 712-736-2306 PHONE: 712-736-2306 ,, W~ ALSO BUILD C~~ AND PAPER SI-IREDDEI'~ TO ,SP~42: AND GAN HANDI I:: All OF YOUR OTHER ~ULATOIt NI~DS. *'BUILT-IN'~ FEATURES INCLUDED · MAGNETS IN HOPPER · ELECTRIC INTERLOCK SHUT DOWN .· BLOWER EVACUATION SYSTEM · SOUNDPROOFING · UP TO 1000 POUNDS PLASTIC GRANULATING PER HOUR · BLOWER, PIPE, AND CYCLONE · 30 HORSEPOWER 3-PHASE ELECTRIC MOTOR · STEEL PLATE CONSTRUCTION · EASY ACCESS CLEAN-OUT DOOR EAGLE I000 I~ Resource Recycling October 1994 Circle 404 on RR service card ufacturers of shoddy (the bits of string and small patches of cloth used to make auto insu- lation panels, mg underpad and furniture pad) find their feedstocks in the leftovers from the so-called "rag graders," who pull out export clothing and wiping cloths (cut-up tee shirts, etc.) from what is sold as rags by nonprofit agencies such as Goodwill Industries. There are more old textiles for shoddy on the market today than buyers, and much cover cloth has been treated with adhesives that make it hard to work with and almost unmar- ketable. A slower speed shoddy-making machine called the LaRoche wOrks better than the standard shoddy-making machine on most cover cloth material, but the only value for the material is in its avoided disposal costs. The m~jor deterrent to reusing these types ofmatefials in California is the rule requir- ing that all furniture and bedding products containing any "secondhand" materials be sold with a red tag label. Rod-tagged rebuilt ma~ sell at retail for 50 percent less than virgin mattresses. No one in the mattress industry thinks a new mattress with second- hand parts can be profitable. Processing Ordinary, able-bodied laborers using simple hand tools and a few small power tools can process these materials repetitively without .injuring themselves or getting bored to death. At first glance, it would appear that in a County of 1.2 million people with three trans- fer stations and three landfills, getting all the products out of the waste stream and into one place for disassembly would involve a great deal of management and tracking. But in Alameda County, getting 60 per- cent of the products in one place should be easy, because all of the reused goods firms, the unusables from the local mattress rebuilder and the furniture liquidators cleaning out hotels and motels already send all of the tar- geted products through one big (3,500-ton- per-day) transfer station. Economics On the question of whether a facility could be profitable, the consultants looked at vari- ous tipping fees, sales prices for recovered materials, dismantling time, availability of "alternative" labor (people working off jail time, etc.), and other more mundane costs of business (rent, insurance, etc.). A potential processing facility was seen from the beginning as an operation with.low wage, industrial-type jobs. The first business plan looked at salvaging 300 couches and 300 mattresses per week from just the reused goods firms and anticipated that such a pro- gram would break even only with very high "volunteer" labor force participation, coming from the sheriff department's "work in lieu of incarceration," a first-time offenders' group. The sheriff's department had committed [] Table 2 -- Markets for materials recovered from sofas and sofabeds (1) Percent of Average Materia___l. total ~ ~ Wood 47.80 64.30 N.A. Lumber 42.00 56.50 $ 0.02 Masonite 0.59 0.80 0.00 Particle board 5.20 7.00 0.00 Metal 19.55 26.29 N.A. Sofa bed unit 10.21 13.73 0.02 Springs 8.79 11.83 0.02 Misc. fixtures 0.55 0.73 0.00 Urethane 9.39 12.63 0.25 Textile 10.08 13.56 N.A. Cloth'COverings~ 8.08 10.87 ' N.A. Burlap sheet 0.67 0.90 0.00 Burlap Web .~0.07 0.10 0.00 Wovih ~heet 0.87 1.17 0.02 ';N°m~0ven sheet 0.20 0.27 '- N.A. ' Shoddy pad 0.20 0.27 0.01 Fibeffill . . 2.43 3.27 N,A. Sofo~h~et ' 2.28 3.07 0.01 Hard/strip 0.15 0.20 0.01 Cotton batting -. . 6.17 8.29 0.05 . Paper 1.78 2.40 - 0.02 Other materials 2.80 3.77 N.A. Pick hair 1.49 2.00 N.A. Jute rope 0.37 0.50 N.A. P.E. foam 0.02 0.03 N.A. Quilted cloth/ urethane 0.59 0.80 0.01 Sisal pad 0.25 0.33 0.00 Unknowns 0.07 0.10 N.A. 100.00 134.52 With no revenue from wood With rev~hue from chipped wood Total marketable materials 89.76 120.75 N.A. = Not applicable. (1) 80 percent sofas, 20 percent sofabeds. Source: Phoenix Recycling Services, 1994. S/ton ~ sofas $1.13 $16.80 1.13 16.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 7.60 0.27 4.08 0.24 3.52 0.00 0.00 3.16 46.9.5 0.03 039 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.49 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.03 0.41 6.17 O.O5 0.71 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 0.~ 4.20 62.42 5,33 79.22 to providing large numbers of volunteer staff, and a second business plan was drown up after a major mattress rebuilding firm expressed interest in buying many of the mattresses for reuse rather than salvaging them for pans. This second plan concentrated more heav- ily on mattresses and appeared profitable from the beginning, especially if the large number of self-hauled mattresses now entering the transfer station could be diverted to a scrap mattress pmc~sing facility and were rebuild- able. Potential material sales revenues dou- ble when the mattress cores can be sold. The second business plan suggested a pos- itive cash flow that would enable additional paid workers to be hired. An unknown fac- tor in the second plan Was the willingness of the reused goods firms to turn over the mat- tresses that they are now taking to the trans- fer station to a third party for sale as cores. Although a new buyer was "found" for the old mattresses, the reused goods firms may expect a level of consideration for their old cores that may make it impossible for a mat- tress processing facility to enjoy the project- ed positive spread between disposal costs and material sales. The future In June 1994, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority provided $30,000 in start-up funds to a nonprofit firm, Total Ret:y-. cling Association, to develop a home fur- nishings dismantling facility in Oakland. An empty 10,000-square-foot track warehouse with a 9,500-square-foot outside yard opened in September 1994, processing used couch- es and mattresses. RR A copy of the 52-page feasibility study and the 34- page business plan is available from Bruce God- dard, Public Affairs Manager, Alameda County Waste Management Authority, 1933 Davis Street, Suite 308, San Leandro, CA 94577; (510) 639- 2481. Resource Recycling October 1994 ~l COCOLLECTION TAKES SHAPE DUAL PURPOSE VEHICLES MAKING INROADS Communities that want to collect both refuse and recyclables on the same route are seeing more options and a better track record when evaluaffng existing programs. Robert Steuteville The city of Durham, North Carolina, is the largest U.S. municipality tO re~lace its entire sanitation fleet with cc)collection vehicles. - BIoCYCLE TILL on the cutting edge, truck- based cocollection of refuse and re- cyclables is slowly s .tarting to prove itself in communities across the country. Cities like Shaker Heights, Ohio, and Loveland, Col- orado, have had cocollection vehi- cles on the road for several years, and mu- nicipal officials report that they are performing well. These vehicles are de- signed specifically to handle both refuse and recyclables -- as opposed to bag-based co- collection, where recyclables and refuse are placed together in a conventional com- paction vehicle. A significant recent development is the conversion in Durham, North Carolina (pop- ulation 136,000) -- the largest city yet to make the switch to truck-based cocol- lection. Municipalities like Visalia, California, and Matsqui, British Columbia, are trying new systems as well. 'It is still metamor- phosing,' and there are questions as to what is the best way to do it," says Jonathan Burgiel, a consul- tant with R.W. Beck and 2,' Associates who has studied cocollection. ~There are 'communities that set the pace for everyone. When successful programs have been documented and mu- nicipalities start to need replacement Vehi- cles, that is when things will really break loose.~ Burgiel believes that a large number of communities will start switching to cocol- lection vehicles in about two or three years. Currently, he estimates the number of towns with truck-based cocollection at a few dozen nationwide. The greatest barrier to municipalities switching to cocollection is investment in their existing equipment, according to Burgiel. If garbage or recycling trucks are in good repair, officials may be reluctant to make a large capital investment in cocollec- tion vehicles. Since most curbside recycling. programs have been started in the last five years, most equipment will not have to be re- placed for a couple years. In many cases, communities that are switching over now are implementing recycling for the first time and/or ne. ed to replace refuse vehicles. Two companies manufacture equipment exclusively for cocollection -- May Manu- facturing of Arvada, Colorado, and Oshkosh Truck Corp. of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. These trucks have two main recycling compart- ments-- one for paper and the other com- mingled containers -- and a compactor for refuse. The compartments can be'further di- vided for more separation of materials. May, the first to market a cocollection truck unit, has sold about 60 to municipalities and pri- vate haulers, mostly in Colorado. Other manufacturers -- such as Shu-Pak, G&H Manufacturing, Pak-Mor and Heil -- have developed dual compaction vehicles : which can be adapted to cocollection of refuse and recyclables. LaBrie is on the verge of introducing such a truck. When used for cocollection, one compaction unit holds commingled recyclables, and the oth- er refuse. These trucks are generally suited for automated or semiautomated collection, in addition to manual. INTEREST IS HIGH All manufacturers report that cocollection vehicles are attracting a high level of inter- est. One reason could be the inherent logic, at least in theory: Why have two vehicles on the road when one can do the same job? Also there is the novelty factor. "When we take a cocollection truck to trade shows, we get 10 times the inquiries than we get for any oth- er vehicle," says Bastian. But interest does OCTOBER 1994 45 Cocollection is going strong after four years in Shaker Heights, Ohio, where three wheel scooters are used to go up and down driveways, taking materials to a truck with numerous compartments (inset). In many cases, communities Using cocollection are implementing recycling for the" first time and/or need to replace refuse vehicles. not translate immediately into sales. ~sVe get eight to 10 calls a week from municipal- ities and private haulers who are interested in cocollectionf says Jim May. ~But a phone call is a long way from placing an orderf May adds that he has high hopes. ~I wouldn't keep [making cocollection units] if I didn't. There are so many garbage trucks that could convert to cocollection.~ Under the right circumstances, there are clearly savings from collecting recyclables with refuse. In general, cocollection has a 13- 15 percent cost advantage over separate col- lection, according to a study that Burgiel con- ducted for R.W. Beck, involving pilot programs in South Florida. The results may vary, however, depending on a variety of fac- tors: Distance between stops; Number of crew members per truck and wage rates; and Ability of larger cocollection vehicles to get through city streets. Truck based cocollection is largely untested in dense urban centers. The first municipality of any significant size to switch to truck-based cocollection was Shaker Heights, Ohio, using May Manufac- turing units to hold recyclables along with Heil refuse com- pactors. The commu- nity has been using five of the trucks for four years, serving 10,000 households, and they have worked out better than officials anticipated, according to Abe Bohanon, superintendent of sanitation. Despite a high level of service -- crew members use three-wheel motorized scooters to go up and down driveways and collect recyclables and trash from the back- lard -- the city's sanitation costs amount to 12/household/month, says Bohanon. The main reason Shaker Heights adopted cocollection was a desire to implement re- cycling, maintain backyard service, and keep costs down. The three person crews collect from an average of 500 house- holds/day, and virtually everything is sepa- rated on the truck. Newsprint is placed in one compartment, aluminum and steel cans COCOLLECTIOH OF ORGAHICS MOST of the truck-based cocollection programs to date have merged . refuse and standard Curbside recy- clables. But many of the vehicles that are coming on the market with dual-com- paction compartments could be used .for collecting organic materials with another stream. Probably the simplest system · would Involve collecting yard trimmings and refuse -- both of which benefit from com- paction;.Taking that concept a step further is the wet/dry system, where refuse is col- lected alongside a variety of compostables, including yard and food trimmings. Shu- Pak dual compaction vehicles have been used in a wet/dry pilot in Guelph, Ontario. Hauling companies owned by Waste Management. Inc. near Fairbom, Ohio, have taken the concept in a different direction. They are Using Pak-Mor dual compaction vehicles to collect yard trimmings and re- cyclables together. Paper goes in the smaller of the two compactors, and loose, commingled containers are placed along with bagged yard trimmings in the other compactor, according to Steve Fuller, who operates a Waste Management transfer · station and materials recovery facility (MRF). Yard trimmings bags (which are tagged) are separated from recyclables on the tipping floor. Recyclables are pro- cessed at the MRF, but yard trimmings are debagged and hauled 25 miles to a com- posting operation, says Fuller. "You are go- ing to get a burst bag here and there in the truck, and that makes it more difficult to separate the materials out, but Overall it is the best alternative we have found." --R.S. 46 BIOCYCLE OCTOBER 1994 in another, and glass is sorted by color into three sections. Plastics go into a small com- pactor. Total capacity of the recyclable com- partments is about eight cu. yds., while the refuse compactor ho]ds 17 cu. yds. Separa- tion on the truck allows the municipality to market, recyclables directly, without paying for processing. Perhaps the most widely publicized cocol- lection program has been Loveland, Col- orado, which began a pilot program in 1991 and went citywide in 1993. The city oper- ates fOur trucks, with an additional vehicle as a lJackup. Loveland is purchasing a sixth May cocollection unit to serve apartment build- ings, says Mick Mercer, the streets/solid waste xiianager. ~ The cocollection program has worked out very well, says Mercer. Two-person crews are now cocollecting from 950 homes/day, more . than double the 450/day served by the same sized crews that previ- ously picked up only refuse. Loveland was able to double productivity and add recycling due to three changes. About 25 percent of households now subscribe to separate yard trimmings collection, which reduces the amount of refuse on the curb. The city insti- tuted a variable rate fee system at the same time that cocollection started, which has re- duced the number of bags set out per house- hold. Finally, the new trucks have the steer- ing wheel on the right, which enables the driver to hop out and assist with collection, Mercer says.. TOTALLY AUTOMATED At least one municipality is converting to a totally automated truck-based cocollection system. Visalia, California, developed and patented its own divided 110-gallon cart. Residents put commingled recyclables on one side -- including a variety of paper gT. ades and containers -- and refuse on the other. The recyclables and refuse are kept separate in the dual compaction unit made by Heft. . Although Visalia is just now implement- ing its citywide curbside recycling program, the city has been studying truck-based co- collection fbr years. It finished implementing a completely automated refuse collection system in 1989, just before the California legislature passed AB 939, requiring recy- cling. City stafffirst proposed a manual load- ing curbside bin system, but elected officials rejected that plan, says Roy Springmeyer, di- rector of general services for Visalia. "Coun- cil asked us to figure out a way to use exist- ing equipment for recycling." Mike Ramsey, who at the time was direc- tor of research and development for Visalia (an unusual position for a municipality), worked with a private consultant, Dick Townley, to develop the split carts. Then BIoCYCLE Heil converted one of the city trucks into a dual-compaction vehicle with a 24 cu. yd. ca- pacity, adapting the unit to Visalia's split carts. After testing this system for two years, officials decided to implement the program citywide. Each truck collects from 300 households before it has to drop materi- als off at the recycling center, and dispose of refuse at the county landfill. The recycling facility is on the way to the landfill. Trucks operated by one-person crews av- erage about 900 homes per 10-hour shift, or three trips to the landfill -- comparable to the city's trucks that pick up refuse only. The only extra time required for cocollection is the 10-minute stop at the recycling facili- High interest level is attributed to inherent logic: Why have two vehicles on the road when one can do the same job? With the ALLU SM, quick cleanup of coarse material, and topsoil finishing, can be done in much less time, with much less equipment, and for much less money. Want to see the ALLU SM in action? Call 1-800.233-1941 for more AAMERICAN RECYCLING ~'A]~'C~'EQUIPMENT ~.~..~ CORPORATION F~m ~ Back to N~u~e information. In NJ: (908) 525-1104. 3141 Bordentown Avenue, Parlin, NJ 08859 OCTOBER 1994 47 Some industry analysts believe that a large number of communities will switch to cocollection vehicles in about two or three years. 48 BIOCYCLE ty, Springrneyer says. Visalia has 15 auto- mated collection vehicles; seven or eight of them will be converted to cocollection by April, 1995. At that time, all of the city will be served by cocollection. The remaining ve- hicles will pick up grass, leaves and brush only. "Visalia is a very green city with large lots that generate a lot of yard waste," ex- plains Springmeyer. The figures indicate that each household is generating 11.5 pounds of recyclables and 26.5 pounds of garbage/week. In early spring, households were generating 60 pounds of separated yard trimmings/week, although that figure has tapered off some- what in the summer. Overall, the system ap- pears to have a high diversion rate. Spring- meyer calculated that the new recycling system is costing 45 cents/household/month, including carts and truck conversion. The carts, which cost a hefty $80 each, are being manufactured for the city by Custom Rota- tional Molding of Arleta, California. The Heil Co. is not actively marketing the dual compaction vehicle developed for Visalia, although making the conversion is "getting easier for usf says Marc Stragier, new products manager for Heil. "If we found a customer interested in the vehicle, we would take them to Visalia." Stragier, who · designed the truck conversion, estimates the city's cost for recycling collection at around $40/ton. "They've got a good system there, and it should catch on." Adoption of that system depends on having automated refuse collection equipment, which has only been implemented in about five percent of municipalities nationwide, he adds. Most automated collection systems are concen- trated in a few states -- Arizona, Texas, Florida, California and Montana. SWITCHIHG AH OLD FLEET Some municipalities are switching over to cocollection as their equipment needs to be replaced. Durham, North Carolina, had a fleet of aging compactor trucks and con- tracted out most of its recycling collection. The city is replacing its refuse vehicles with 22 cocollection trucks built by Oshkosh (11 are on the road now, with the remainder to be on-line by the end of 1994), and taking over collection of recycling from SunShares, a nonprofit group. Durham is maintaining the same number of collection personnel. The trucks cost $135,000 each, totaling about $3 million, which the city financed with a long-term bond issue. Although 'the Oshkosh trucks normally come with two compartments for recyclables between the cab and the. compactor unit, the compartments were further divided to maintain Durham's source separated sys- tem for recyclables collection. That will en- able the city to continue using SunShares as a processor. The nonprofit group does little sorting at its 70 ton/day intermediate pro- cessing center. Residents did not'have to change their recycling habits, because Durham already had same day collection of refuse and recyclables. At first, the Oshkosh vehicles were stalling out on route, but the mechanical dif- ficulties have been solved, says Tom Bastable, Durham's assistant director of sanitation. The three person crews are col- lecting from 625 homes on a 10-hour route. The city is saving about $500,000 a year by not paying an outside contractor to collect recyclables, according to Bastable. IH THE BAG Matsqui, British Columbia, opted for a blue bag system of collecting recy~l ahle~ when it initiated its curbside prugrmn in February, 1994. Instead of col- ' lecting the blue bags in one compaction unit (bag- chose to use a Shu-Pak dual-compaction vehid~ Like Heil's trucks in Visalia, Shu-Pak builds a side-loading vehicle with separate ' compaction units on the top and the bottom. Pak-Mor and G&H Manufacturing are rear- loading, with compactors on the driver and passenger sides of the truck. The Shu-Pak truck has separate, lower compaction levels for recyclables, and is divided in a 60/40 ra- rio in terms of the size of the compartments. In Matsqui, the larger compartment is used for recyclables, which take up more vol- ume/pound because of the lesser com- paction, according to Roger Farrant, collec- tion foreman. The refuse compartment fills up sooner, and the city would have been bet- ter offwith compartments divided on a 50/50 basis in terms of volume, he adds (Shu-Pak offers various, size compartment options). Nonetheless, the operator can ease back on the compaction of recyclables, reducing the glass and bag breakage and contamina- tion, says Farrant. Yet full compaction can still be used for refuse. The one problem with the blue bag system has been partici- pation. ~Residents were not too keen on buy- ing the blue bags, but they seem to have got- ten used to it nowf he says. Still, only about 25 percent of residents put blue bags out on any given week, and there is considerable room for improvement in participation, he adds. The city collects recyclables totally commingled -- including cardboard, mixed paper, newsprint, magazines, glass, steel, aluminum and plastic in one bag. Since implementing recycling, Matsqui has been able to maintain the same number of collection trucks, despite fewer tons picked up per route (because of the reduced compaction in the recycling compartment), and rapid population growth, with about 700 new housing units each year. The city was able to do that by banning disposal of yard trimmings at the same time that cocol- lection was implemented, significantly re- ducing refuse generation. Residents have the option of taking grass and leaves to a dropoff facility, or backyard composting. The solid waste generation dropped to 10,700 metric tons in the year ending June, 1994, from 11,300 metric tons the prior year, Farrant says.. Next year, the first full year of implementation,, generation is expected to be 9,400 metric tons. Matsqui city officials were not afraid to OCTOBER 1994 experiment with something different. "We were one of the first t.o implement this new (cocollection) system, but we didn't have too many reservations," says Farrant. "We were worried about how well the trucks would work. There were some bugs that had to be dealt with, and I'm sure the next municipal- ity that buys the trucks will benefit from our experience. We knew how well blue bag pro- grams worked, and we wanted to collect refuse and recyclables at the same time, and frankly, we couldn't see how it wouldn't work better." RESISTAHCE TO NEW SYSTEM Fear of the unknown is a significant bar- rier to selling cocollection systems, says Jim May of May Manufacturing. His company, located outside of Denver, has sold most of its cocollection units to communities within 75 miles of its plant. "Here in Colorado, we can hold their hands through the process, because everybody has doubts about a new system," says May. Also, municipal officials and haulers get a chance to witness how well a cocollection truck operates in a neighbor- ing town. For haulers, it sometimes helps to have no preconceived ideas. Best Trash, of Denver, is a three year old hauling company which.has grown to 18,000 customers, using May co- collection vehicles. "It didn't take us long to figure out that driving two trucks is a waste of energy and it just made more sense to co- collect," says Dana May of Best Trash. "It saves on labor, fossil fuels, and wear and tear on the equipment." The hauler provides once a week pickup of refuse and an exten- sive list of recyclables -- including textiles, vehicle batteries, motor oil, latex paint and tires, in addition to newspaper, glass, plas- tic, steel and aluminum. Best Trash uses its recycling service as a selling point -- many competitors offer bi- weekly service with fewer materials collect- ed, explains May. Also, revenues from sale of materials are donated to the Hope Center for underprivileged children in Denver. The total service averages $11.41/~ousehold, which May says is "not the cheapest in town." In Denver, recycling is optional, and usually comes with an additional fee. Best Trash offers one set fee. "Customers like the fact that we do not charge extra to pick up recyclables,' he says. The cocollection unit that May Manufac- turing builds was conceived by Western Dis- posal, a hauling company which serves Boul- der County, Colorado, and rethins the vehicle patent. The hauler first came up with the idea of cocollection as a means to cut re- cycling/disposal costs in the wide open Col- orado plains, says Henry Fowler, of Western Disposal. Rural recycling may be a primary application for truck-based cocollection be: cause of the long distance between stops. A dozen or more units have been sold to small haulers in rural areas, says Jim May. · Two-person crews are now 'cocollecting from 950 homes/day in Loveland, Colorado, more than double the 450/day served by the same sized crews that picked up only refuse. SANDBERGER COMPOST T.URNERS DISCOVER THE "CMC" ADVANTAGE- Efficient windrow turning designed around the parameters of optimal decomposition and compost quality. · Economical Tractor-Pulled Models. · IndustfialSelf-Propelled Machines. · Gas & Diesel Powered "Baby" Turners. MICIOII*E COMfOSi~#G Y_our Dealers in the US' Autrusa Compost Consulting P.O. Box 1133 Blue Bell, PA 19422 ph. (610) 825-2973 fax-3982 Midwest Bio-Systems Rt. 1, Box 121 Tamplco, IL 61283 ph. (815) 542-6426 fax-6470 Farmer's Equipment Company P.O. Box 2431 Hollister, CA 95024 ph. (408) 637-4143 fax-3334 BIOCYCLE OCTOUER 1994 49 RDF WITH VIOLINS VOLUNTARY RECYCLING GOES A LONG WAY Twenty-three year old dropoff program in Wellesley, Massachusetts has become part of the town's independent Yankee culture. Adrienne Redd Recycling Awareness Day at the Wellesley RDF features a flea market (below) and live · music by a classical ensemble (middle). Residents can drop off trashand recyc, le up to 40 commodities (far right). HERE'S A JOKE about what the old New Englander saved in his at- tic ~ a box marked "pieces of string too small to save." In that spirit of frugality, Wellesley, Mas- sachusetts has made itself famous for more than its beautiful parks and excellent women's college. If they want to show off the town's accomplishments, cit- izens of this tidy Boston suburb take house guests to the bustling town dump. There, one can see how recycling has permeated the very culture of the town. At the dump, resi- dents can drop offtraSh and recycle between 20 and 40 commodities, depending on how one counts subdivisions of recyclables. Known formally as the Recycling and Dis- posal Facility (RDF), the recycling depot and transfer station is the result of 23 years of cooperation between Wellesley's residents and its Department of Public Works (DPW). M.R. ~Pat" Berdan, director of the DPW for nearly 18 years, calls Wellesley's pro- gram %econd generation recycling." He de- scribes first generation recycling' as the ~piles of things on the ground" which char- acterized start-up recycling in Wellesley. The program has grown in 23 y~ars. It'start- ed with piles, then boxes ofrecyclables, then 10 yard containers, then 40 yard containers. In fiscal year 1993, 26 percent of the waste stream or 3,545 tons of materials were col- lected for reprocessing. This figure doesn't include the books and appliances which can also be dropped off at the RDF. Nor does it include the 20 or more percent of the yard' trimmings which are composted. 78 B[oCYcLE OCTOBER 1993 Behind this exemplary program is a two- decade old grassroots effort combined with cooperation, rather than inertia and territo- riality, on the part of the town government. Begun in 1971 by a group called Action for Ecology, recycling in Wellesley got a boost when then chairman Martha Stone con- vinced the Board of Public Works to hire a recycling attendant. The program was insti- tutionalized and bas grown steadily since Berdan took over the Public Works depart- ment. Wellesley's entirely voluntary dropoff re- cycling program afforded the town a net benefit of $315,042 in FY92 and $143,951 in FY93. Revenues fi'om recyclables (especial- ly paper and cardboard) are down, but the cost of waste disposal has als() dropped slightly. Wellesley residents sent 8,323 tons of trash to the landfill in FY93, compared with 8,379 in FY92. The current tipping fee of $51.37 at the Plainville Landfill, to which Wellesley's trash goes, is expected to in- crease to $80 by the end of the decade. Land- Scrap metal at the RDF is now sorted into light iron, heavy iron, aluminum, copper, brass and lead. Berdan hopes to eventually add silver plate to this list. Table 1. Financial Benefits From Recyclin9 in Wellesley FY89 FYgO FY91 FY92 FY93 Sale of Recyclables $ 75,453 $ 69,580 $ 72,090 $ 56,626 $ 55,132 Sale of Compost 1,160 8,979 10,815 9,465 7,144 Avoided Transfer Haul Costs 211,959 285,816 273,670 365,520 223,216 Gross Benefit 291,643 364,375 356,575 431,611 285,492 Recycling Expenses~ 49,085 57,521 88,183 91,822 84,138 Compost Expenses2 N/A 10,300 37,659 24,747 57,403 Recycling Net Benefit $242,558 $296,554 $230,733 $315,042 $143,951 ~Depreciation and repair of equipment not included m this hgure. ~Brush handfl'ng and grind,,ng for I~zt h,#f c~f FI' n~clu(,~:l h~ th~s f~jufe, i e last half of FY93 = 500 tons ..."PRIVATE RECYCLING SERVICE COMES TO TOWN ?~I~EFo'RE START~URof Subur-' ~ Originally, Keyes and Buch- "~i~baff Recycling ~in june,: 1992,'~ ~binder's idea was to pick uP only re- ~:::;,:~only around eight percent of Cyclables, but enough new cus- ..:~.~: ellesleys 8,500 households used tomers requested trash pick-up that ia hauler. The others toOk their oWn they added it. "We pick up trash and .?:trash to'the RDF, and 90 ~erbent of Cecyclables for about 98 percent of ~;~;:~:them.claimed to do some recycling, .. :our customers," says Keyes. . ~.;~That' pattern has changed since Suburban Recycling trucks drop- ~ marco BuChbinder and Chris KeYes, ping off trash at the RDF have to pay ~?:~:tWo': recent.college graduates, $85 per ton, Keyes and Buchbinder launched their enterprise, "We negotiated with Wellesley Director .. talked to a lot of people at the dump of Public Works, Pat Berdan, to pay ~;'~d found~Oat that the Weekend ls the same pdce as residents to take , precious, Many people thoUght it ~. recyclables ~ nothing. "We even ~::was kind of a hassle to have to ~ake~: Pull more recyClables out of the - ~he~rtrash, but felt bad abOUt n°t ~e~ '~t~ash beyond What people sepa. ~,~cycling," says Keys, ..:...:. ~rate/' says Keyes. "The more we .~' Suburban Recycling, the private pull out, the more we save." He es- ;-~ector answer to curbside recycling ' timates that 43 percent of the ton- :-~,~:in WellesleY, ma~ets itself as a ~full~ ::;~. :. nage his t~cks bring to the RDF is se~iCe" hauler. "We cater to eaCh put in the recycling bins. . client, We pick up their trash and re- . ~e logistics are simple for Sub- cyclables however they find it most convenient. They can give us a key to their house and have us come and get it. We don't charge less to -~'~leave it at the curb, so people might as well have it picked up the way they want." RDF is put into recycling bins, no cost to the company. at urban Recycling. Two workers are on each truck. One sorts and one picks up the bags of garbage and binS of commingled recyClables, taking about five minutes per house; The company doesn't pick up leaves or grass, which are banned from MassaChusetts landfills, but Keyes says that this year they may Work out a way to Pick up Christmas trees to be chipped and composted. i,~..:....i~ SU burban~.Recycling ..~. began .. breaking even, Including a living salary for Keyes and Buchbinder, in ~.'. February of 1993. The number of ':customers has. dOubled in the past , hs.'They are now in the i~arke{ for a third truck and are set- lliig, thei~ sights on recyCling and two nearby: towns, _. eston. "We are glad . ?:.?!~tO be doing something that makeg"a¥ .: 'difference, and to be making a living at it," says Keyes. Public education about recycling is streamlined, relying on an annual mailing, word of mouth, and a poster, .urging, "Recycle, Join the Tearn!" filling costs will go up, so the costs avoided by diverting recyclables and compostables from the waste stream will continue to rise. Over two dozen materials are exchanged, composted, or-collected for recycling in Wellesley's program. They include clear, green and brown-glass, cans, HDPE and PET plastic containers, scrap metal, corru- gated and cereal box cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper and magazines, lead acid bat- teries, and grass and leaves. Also accepted for recycling are mattresses, tires, motor oil and lubrication oil, which the town must pay to have taken. A brochure detailing what materials are accepted and how they are to be prepared is mailed out annually with utility bills. 80 BioC¥c~E MARKETING CHALLENGE Continually trying to improve the recy- cling program also entails adapting to the markets for recyclables. Pat Berdan notes that when the market for mixed metals be- gan to falter, additional bins were set up to further sort scrap metals. Scrap metal at the RDF i's now sorted into light iron (less than 1/4" thick), heavy iron, aluminum, copper, brass and lead. Berdan hopes to eventually add silver plate to this list. Berdan says that one of the most impor- tant skills hedeveloped over the past decade of running the RDF has been the marketing of recyclables. He says that marketing, which he does by word of mouth and net- working, is the toughest part of the recycling program. He compares the wide range of materials the RDF accepts to a diversified investment portfolio, saying that if the price of one recyclable drops, another may rise. GOOD COMMUNICATION Good communication from citizens to mu- nicipal officials and vice versa seems to be a major reason for the success of Wellesley's recycling and disposal program. Both the Department of Public Works (DPW) and cit- izen groups work steadily to improve the Program. A major project of one citizen interest group, Friends of Recycling, is Recycling Awareness Day. Held this year and last at the park-like RDF on a Sunday near the end of September, the event features games, a flea market and leaflets on recycling. In the las~ two years, it has attracted thousands of residents. This year's poster boasts "lots of free stuff," including compost, wood chips and craft materials. The flea market fea- tured by the event emphasized the concept of reusing and trading household items. "It reassured residents who had a hard time leaving a working bicycle or TV set that it re- ally will get used," says Frank Hayes of Friends of Recycling. The event also rein- forced the pleasantness and social aspect of the RDF. This year, like last, participants were entertained by live flute and violin mu- sic. "How many disposal facilities are so nice that a classical ensemble fits in?" asks Hays. The DPW continually tries to improve the program, accepting additional materials such as textiles at the RDF. One of services Pat Berdan would like to add is the collec- tion of potentially hazardous and potential- ly reusable household products, like clean- ers and solvents. Telling of the affluence of Wellesley is another commodity whose col- lection Berdan has considered mixed for- eign coins for owners who can't be bothered to sort and cash them in. The .goal often mentioned for Wellesley's program is 50 percent recycling, plus diver- sion ofcompostables, but Berdan says that he believes that a total of up to 85 percent of the waste stream can be diverted. "One man's trash might be another's treasure," he says. "Our job is to get the materials from those who don't want them to those who do." [] OCTOBER 1993 ITEM NO. 8a DATE' November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: REALLOCATION OF INTEREST INCOME AND DISTRIBUTION OF PERS SURPLUS This matter has been carried forward from the November 1, 1995 meeting. The City Attorney has requested that a Closed Session be held prior to any action being taken. The pertinent information remains the same as was presented previously. attached the November 1, 1995 Agenda Summary Report for details. Therefore, please find RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the reallocation of interest using the "All Funds Method" as proposed by staff. 2. Approve the distribution of the PERS reserve as proposed by staff. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Approve the reallocation of interest as identified in the "City Funds Method." 2. Approve an alternative method for reallocation of interest. 3. Approve an alternative method for the PERS reserve distribution. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.' Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A (if budge~te~) Prepared by: Gordon Elton, Finance Director Attachments: 1. Agenda Summary Report, dated November 1, 1995 4/lin:ASRPERS ITEM NO. DATE: 9C November 1, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJ'ECT: REALLOCATION OF INTEREST INCOME AND DISTRIBUTION OF PERS SURPLUS The disposal of investments in August 1995 requires certain adjustments in the accounting records, as of 6/30/95, to appropriately recognize the financial impact of the change in value. When assets are held to their maturity, variances between their book value and their market value at any interim point in time are not recorded in the accounting records. The recent disposition of certain investments prior to their maturity requires recognition of the difference between book value and market value of the investments sold. At June 30, 1995, the market value of investments subsequently sold, was less than their book value. Therefore, an adjustment must be recorded before the June 30, 1995 audited financial statements can be issued. Another generally accepted accounting principle says that transactions, occurring after the financial statements are issued for a fiscal year, will be recorded in the subsequent fiscal year unless they have a material affect on the preceding fiscal year. When such material effect is identified, a prior period adjustment is made to attribute the transaction(s) to the prior period. (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve the reallocation of interest using the "Ail Funds Method" as proposed by staff. 2. Approve the distribution of the PERS reserve as proposed by staff. ALTERNATE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Approve the reallocation of interest as identified in the "City Funds Method". 2. Approve an alternative method for reallocation of interest. 3. Approve an alternative method for the PERS reserve distribution. Prepared by: Attachments: Gordon Elton, Finance Director Distribution calculations GE: INVEST. AGN Interest reallocation and PERS distribution - Continued This means that since part of the difference between the book value and the market value was identified as of June 30, 1994, part of the adjustment should be attributed to fiscal year 1993/94. The remainder of the adjustment will be recorded as a fiscal year 1994/95 transaction. The following discussion reviews the assumptions and procedures used in calculating the entries to be recorded: INTEREST REALLOCATION There are certain basic assumptions upon which both distribution options are based: 1. The distribution will be based on the difference between book value and market value at June 30, 1994 and at June 30, 1995. 2. The amount to be distributed as of June 30, 1994, (for change in value prior to fiscal year 1994/95), is $876,762.17. The amount to be distributed as of June 30, 1995, (for change in value during fiscal year 1994/95), is $839,131.03. The amount of interest earned from pooled investments during the year, for fiscal years 1993/94 and 1994/95, by each fund will be compared to the total pooled investment interest to establish each fund's share of the distribution. The distribution to be recognized (no. 1 & 2 above) was determined by the auditors. The difference between the market value at the time of the sale of investments and the June 30, 1995 value will be adjusted as an FY 95/96 adjustment. The difference between market value and book value of similar investments not sold will not be recorded in the City's general ledger. The basis for this deferral is the expectation that all remaining investments will be held to maturity and the full principal amount will be received by that time. Any difference between market and book value prior to FY 93/94, of the investments sold, is negligible and is included in the loss distributed for fiscal year 1993/94. , · · o · · Page 1 presents the total distribution by Fund and by Fund Group for each of the two methods and shows the variance between the two methods. Pages 2 and 3 list the calculation of the "Ail Funds" method. This method includes all funds that shared in the interest income from the pooled investments, identifies the relationship of each fund to the total, and distributes the loss on the basis of this ratio. GE:INVEST.AGN Page 2 Interest reallocation and PERS distribution - Continued Page 2 details the interest earned for each year and the distribution allocated for each year, along with the combined total distribution allocated to each fund. Page 3 groups together the various funds that are part of a single function within the City and presents one total for each function. This schedule is intended to show the combined impact on the numerous operational areas of the City. Pages 4 and 5 ("City Funds" method) provide the same information as pages 2 and 3 with one difference. No distribution is made to those funds that are not specifically part of the City's funds. Three funds were identified for this exclusion: UVSD Capital Improvement Fund #650; REDIP Sewer Enterprise Fund #652; and MSWMA Fund #663. The exclusion of these three funds requires $119,420.77 to be redistributed to the funds remaining in the allocation. Neither method is inherently more correct than the other except to the obvious points that all funds shared in the previous interest distribution and the remaining funds are impacted adversely when any funds are excluded from the distribution. Whether all of the funds should share in the loss is a policy question that the City Council should ultimately decide. It is staff's recommendation that all funds share in the distribution in proportion to the way they shared in the prior interest allocations. Other alternatives may be available to be considered. The Council could determine that the City's General Fund should absorb some greater amount than the calculated distribution, or the City's General Fund should absorb the amount that would be otherwise distributed to the three non-City funds. GE:INVEST.AGN Page 3 Interest reallocation and PERS distribution - Continued PERS SURPLUS DISTRIBUTION This is a separate item that is presented for consideration at this time because of the positive potential affect this proposal has on some of the funds negatively affected by the foregoing proposal. During the budget workshops, the PERS surplus in Fund 940 (Payroll Posting) was identified for transfer to a separate Fund #915 (PERS Reserve). Additionally, there was discussion about returning these surplus funds to the operating funds from which they originated. Precise identification of the source funds of this surplus is not possible. Therefore the following methodology was developed: a. , C , PERS expense over several years time is an accurate reflection of the relative share that each fund contributed to PERS. Four years PERS expense would be totaled by fund. The ratio of each fund's expense to the total PERS expense would be the basis for distribution of the PERS surplus to the various funds. The amount to be distributed is the balance according to the June 30, 1995 Balance Sheet. This amount is $2,548,509.95. Page 6 of the attached schedules lists the distribution to each fund resulting from this calculation. This page is the summary of the page 7 detail. Page 7 lists the PERS expense for each of the four years (FY91/92 through FY94/95) by department and by fund along with the percent of the total that each represents. A "Comparison, By Fund, of PERS Distribution and Interest Reallocation" is contained on page 8. These two allocations are separate and unrelated to each other. At the same time, the surplus identified as PERS surplus in funds 940/915 is unrestricted money subject to use as the City Council may deem appropriate. Both the proposed PERS distribution and the Investment Loss allocation are of such significant proportions that a review of the potential combined impact on individual funds is appropriate. As you can see, many of the funds included in the Investment Loss allocation do not have direct PERS expense and therefore would not share in the PERS distribution. Due to the unrestricted nature of the PERS surplus account, the Council may determine an alternate distribution that would accomplish some other City objective (i.e. mitigate the negative impact of the Investment Loss on some or all funds). GE:INVEST.AGN Page 4 Interest reallocation and PERS distribution - Continued SUMMARY Interest Reallocation - The decision on how the City wishes to allocate the change in value of investments is a decision that must be made soon. The FY 1994/95 audit cannot be completed until this decision is made. Staff recommends that the "Ail Funds Method" for distribution of the change in investment value. This method is based on the ratio in which all funds were allocated interest during FY 93/94 and FY 94/95. The proposed adjustment is less than the interest allocated during the same time periods. PERS Surplus Distribution - The immediacy for a decision on the distribution of the PERS surplus exists on the same basis as the market value change for investments if we wish to have it effective as of 6/30/95. If this distribution is to be made, I recommend that it be made as of 6/30/95. The obvious benefit of this is that the positive impact of this distribution offsets, to some degree at least, the negative impact of the interest reallocation. Both of the proposed distributions have been reviewed by the City's independent auditors. They agree that these proposals are within generally accepted accounting principles. GE:INVEST.AGN Page 5 CITY OF UKIAH ALLOCATION OF MARKET VALUE CHANGE AS OF 6/30/95 INVESTMENTS SOLD 8/95 COMPARISON OF "ALL FUNDS" AND "CITY FUNDS" METHODS (With Variance between the two methods) Fund Name ,adc Number All Funds Method City Funds Metho~ Total by Total by Total by Total by Fund Fund group Fund Fund group General 100 Park Development 140 Museum Grants 141 Asset Seizure 200 'Parking Dist. O & M 220 Downtown Business 260 Signalization 270 2106 Gas Tax 300 2107 Gas Tax 301 2107.5 Gas Tax 302 2105 Gas Tax 303 Federal Emergency Shelter 332 C.D.B.G. 333 Community Development 335 Off-Systems Road 345 High School Park 361 Youth Community Services 405 Conference Center 410 Garage 575 Special Aviation 310 Airport 600 1957 Sewer Bond Redemption 500 Sewer 612 Special Sewer - Capital Repl. 620 U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement 650 REDIP Sewer Enterprise 652 Disposal Site 660 Landfill Postclosure 664 MSWMA 663 Refuse/Debris Control 665 Public Safety Dispatch 678 Golf 695 Billing Enterprise 697 Lake Mendo Bond Redemption 550 Lake Mendo Bond Reserve 555 Electric 800 Electric Revenue 801 Water 820 Water Capital Improvement 840 R.D.A. - Capital Improvement 965 . Total Regular Cash 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 500 500 5OO 5OO 5OO 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 5OO 5OO 500 500 500 50~ 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 452,397.33 452,397.33 3,246.12 3,246.12 693.49 693.49 826.99 826.99 10,557.99 10,557.99 331.31 331.31 2,175.77 2,175.77 49,232.52 52,477.73 330.36 15,633.42 117,674.03 306.43 306.43 57.65 57.65 6,378.20 6,378.20 1,597.24 1,597.24 176.72 176.72 444.66 444.66 120.29 120.29 4,722.15 4,722. ! 5 563.39 174.74 738.13 5,590.77 57,370.50 71,570.08 134,531.35 94,657.14 94,657.14 17,721.13 17,721.13 35,323.99 19,723.94 55,047.93 7,042.50 ?,042.50 440.86 440.86 210.16 210.16 7,243.16 ?,243.16 7,519.00 7,519.00 112,711.93 15,155.46 246,804.64 184,118.86 557,790.89 46,703.77 45,097.16 91,800.93 139,443.65 139,443.65 ~L~ 1.715.893.2~ 486,887.19 486,887.19 3,489.19 3,489.19 747.16 747.16 890.06 89O.O6 11,356.48 11,356.48 355.48 355.48 2,339.19 2,339.19 52,900.93 56,355.65 355.04 16,810.75 126,422.37 327.47 327.47 62.35 62.35 6,856.18 6,856.18 1,716.57 1,716.57 189.99 189.99 48O.74 480.74 128.53 128.53 5,047.08 5,047.08 609.04 186.84 795.88 6,010.16 61,633.88 76,973.20 144,617.24 0.00 o.oo 0.00 o.oo 37,968.68 21,324.59 59,293.27 0.00 0.00 474.84 474.84 224.63 224.63 7,818.03 7,818.03 8,099.48 8,099.48 121,152.67 16,316.14 262,714.85 199,060.34 599,244.00 50,200.94 48,483.67 98,684.61 149,345.19 149,345.19 1-715-893.29 1.715.893.2Q Variance Between Methods By Fund By Fund 34,489.86 34,489.86 243.07 243.07 53.67 53.67 63.07 63.07 798.49 798.49 24.17 24.17 163.42 163.42 3,668.41 3,877.92 24.68 1,177.33 8,748.34 21.04 21.04 4.7O 4.?O 477.98 4?7.98 119.33 119.33 13.27 13.27 36.08 36.08 8.24 8.24 324.93 324.93 45.65 12.10 57.75 419.39 4,263.38 5,403.12 10,085.89 (94,657.14) (94,657.14 (17,721.13) (17,721.13 2,644.69 1,600.65 4,245.34 (7,042.50) (7,042.50) 33.98 33.98 14.47 14.47 574.87 574.87 580.48 580.48 8,440.74 1,160.68 16,910.21 14,941.48 41,453.11 3,497.17 3,386.51 6,883.68 9,901.54 9,901.54 o.oo Q00 INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 1 Comparison CITY OF UKIAH ALLOCATION OF MARKET VALUE CHANGE AS OF 6/30/95 INVESTMENTS SOLD 8/95 Fund Name General Park Development Museum Grants Asset Seizure Parking Dist. O & M Downtown Business Signalization 2106 Gas Tax 2107 Gas Tax 2107.5 Gas Tax 2105 Gas Tax Special Aviation Federal Emergency Shelter C.D.B.G. Community Development Off-Systems Road High School Park Youth Community Services Conference Center 1957 Sewer Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Reserve Garage Sewer Special Sewer - Capital Repl. U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement REDIP Sewer Enterprise Disposal Site MSWMA Landfill Postclosure Refuse/Debris Control Public Safety Dispatch Golf Billing Enterprise Electric Electric Revenue Water Water Capital Improvement R.D.A. - Capital Improvement Total Regular Cash A/C Number 100 700 500 140 700 500 141 700 500 200 700 500 220 700 500 260 700 500 270 700 500 300 700 500 301 700 500 302 700 500 303 700 500 310 700 500 332 700 500 333 700 500 335 700 500 345 700 500 361 700 500 405 700 500 410 700 500 500 700 500 550 700 500 555 700 500 575 700 500 600 700 500 612 7O0 500 620 700 500 650 700 500 652 700 500 660 700 500 663 700 50O 664 700 500 665 70O 500 678 700 500 695 700 500 697 700 500 800 700 500 801 700 500 820 700 5O0 840 700 5O0 965 700 5OO 1993/94 Allocation Investment % of Of 1993/94 Earnings Total Loss 248,599.20 20.52019% 179,913.26 2,269.94 O. 18737% 1,642.79 298.32 0.02462% 215.86 457.34 0.03775% 330.98 6,509.29 0.53730% 4,710.84 311.39 0.02570% 225.33 1,471.80 0.12149% 1,065.18 36,546.48 3.01667% 26,449.02 42,588.14 3.51536% 30,821.35 237.56 0.01961% 171.93 10,224.74 0.84398% 7,399.70 0.00 000000% 0.00 423.39 0.03495% 306.43 0.00 0.oooo0% 0.00 4,440.23 0.36651% 3,213.42 1,146.58 0.09464% 829.77 126.86 0.01047% 91.80 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 166.18 0.01372% 120.29 3,843.33 0.3 i 724% 2,781.44 78,970.01 6.51844% 57,151.22 7,734.27 0.63841% 5,597.34 6,525.00 0.53859% 4,722.15 241.50 0.01993% 174.74 43,865.08 3.62077% 31,745.54 45,287.90 3.73821% 32,775.21 61,141.49 5.04682% 44,248.61 12,395.28 !.02315% 8,970.59 24,816.29 2.04842% 17,959.77 4,444.09 0.36683% 3,216.23 0.00 0.0000o% 0.00 196.58 0.01623% 142.30 290.44 0.02397% 210.16 1,446.27 O. 11938% 1,046.68 3,324.36 0.27440% 2,405.84 339,645.84 28.o3548% 245,804.64 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 32,750.07 2.70330% 23,701.51 30,558.94 2.52243% 22,115.71 158,191.58 13.05765% 114,484.54 1.211.485.76 ~9.99998'4 876.762.17 ALL FUNDS METHOD 1994/95 Investment % of Reallocation Earnings Total For 1994/95 410,054.96 32.47216% 272,484.07 2,412.78 0.19107% 1,603.33 718.80 0.05692% 477.63 746.44 0.05911% 496.01 8,799.18 0.6968 i % 5,847.15 159.52 0.01263% 105.98 1,671.27 0.13235% 1,110.59 34,286.34 2.71513% 22,783.50 32,590.18 2.58081% 21,656.38 238.40 0.01888% 158.43 12,390.75 0.98122% 8,233.72 847.78 0.06714% 563.39 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 86.78 0.0O687% 57.65 4,762.60 0.37715% 3,164.78 1,154.96 0.09146% 767.47 127.85 0.01012% 84.92 669.18 0.05299% 444.66 0.00 0.00ooo% 0.00 4,227.71 0.33479% 2,809.33 83,612.09 6.62122% 55,560.71 14,383.75 1.13905% 9,558.12 0.00 0OOOO0% 0.00 0.00 0.0O0O0% 0.00 38,562.40 3.05375% 25,624.96 58,381.47 4.62322% 38,794.87 75,858.70 6.00723% 50,408.53 13,168.47 1.04281% 8,750.54 26,131.01 2.O6931% 17,364.22 5,758.06 0.45598% 3,826.27 29,682.17 2.35052% 19,723.94 449.36 0.03558% 298.56 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 9,324.99 0.73844% 6,196.48 7,694.72 0.60934% 5,113.16 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 277,076.26 21.94161% 184,118.86 34,615.58 2.74120% 23,002.26 34,584.24 2.73872% 22,981.45 37,560.36 297440% 24,959.11 1.262.789.11 ~9.9999py~ ~ 876.762.17 839.131.03 Total Realiocaion 452,397.33 3,246.12 693.49 826.99 10,557.99 331.31 2,175.77 49,232.52 52,477.73 330.36 15,633.42 563.39 306.43 57.65 6,378.20 1,597.24 176.72 444.66 120.29 5,590.77 112,711.93 15,155.46 4,722.15 174.74 57,370.50 71,570.08 94,657.14 17,721.13 35,323.99 7,042.50 19,723.94 440.86 210.16 7,243.16 7,519.00 245,804.64 184,118.86 46,703.77 45,097.16 139,443.65 1.715.893.29 L715.893.2~ INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 2 All Funds , CITY OF UKIAH ALLOCATION OF MARKET VALUE CHANGE AS OF 6/30/95 INVESTMENTS SOLD 8/95 ALL FUNDS METHOD Fund Name General Park Development Museum Grants Asset Seizure Parking Dist. O & M Downtown Business Signalization 2106 Gas Tax 2107 Gas Tax 2107.5 Gas Tax 2105 Gas Tax Special Aviation Federal Emergency Shelter C.D.B.G. Community Development Off-Systems Road High School Park Youth Community Services Conference Center 1957 Sewer Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Reserve Garage Airport Sewer Special Sewer - Capital Repl. U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement REDIP Sewer Enterprise Disposal Site MSWMA Landfill Postclosure Refuse/Debris Control Public Safety Dispatch Golf Billing Enterprise Electric Electric Revenue Water Water Capital Improvement R.D.A. - Capital Improvement Total Regular Cash Number 100 . 700 .. 500 140 . 700 . 500 141 . 700 . 500 200 . 700 . 500 22O 7O0. 5O0 260 700 500 270 700 500 300 700 500 301 700 500 302 700 500 303 700 500 310 700 500 332 700 500 333 700 500 335 700 500 345 700 500 361 700 500 405 700 500 410 700 500 500 700 500 550 700 500 555 700 500 575 700 500 600 700 500 612 700 500 620 700 500 650 7OO 500 652 700 500 660 700 500 663 700 500 664 700 500 665 700 500 678 700 500 695 700 500 697 700 500 800 700 500 801 700 500 820 70O 500 840 700 500 965 700 500 Totalby Fund group 452,397.33 3,246.12 693.49 826.99 10,557.99 331.31 2,175.77 117,674.03 563.39 306.43 57.65 6,378.20 1,597.24 176.72 444.66 120.29 5,590.77 127,867.39 4,722.15 174.74 128,940.58 94,657.14 17,721.13 35,323.99 7,042.50 19,723.94 440.86 210.16 7,243.16 7,519.00 429,923.50 91,800.93 139,443.65 1.715.893.2Q Fund Group 100 140 141 200 220 260 270 300 300 300 300 600 332 333 335 345 361 405 410 612 800 80O 575 600 612 612 613 614 660 663 660 665 678 695 697 800 800 820 820 965 INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 3 All Funds CITY OF UKIAH ALLOCATION OF MARKET VALUE CHANGE AS OF 6/30/95 INVESTMENTS SOLD 8/95 Fund Name General 100 Park Development 140 Museum Grants 141 Asset Seizure 200 Parking Dist. O & M 220 Downtown Business 260 Signalization 270 2106 Gas Tax 300 2107 Gas Tax 301 2107.5 Gas Tax 302 2105 Gas Tax 303 Special Aviation 310 Federal Emergency Shelter 332 C.D.B.G. 333 Community Development 335 Off-Systems Road 345 Itigh School Park 361 Youth Community Services 405 Conference Center 410 1957 Sewer lloud Rcdcmplion 500 Lake Mendo Bond Redemption 550 Lake Mendo Bond Reserve 555 Garage 575 Airport 600 Sewer 612 Special Sewer- Capital Repl. 620 U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement 650 REDIP Sewer Enterprise 652 Disposal Site 660 MSWMA 663 Landfill Postclosure 664 Refuse/Debris Control 665 Public Safety Dispatch 678 Golf 695 Billing Enterprise 697 Electric 800 Electric Revenue 801 Water 820 Water Capital Improvement 840 R.D.A. - Capital Improvement 965 Total Regular Cash A/C Number 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 7O0 50O 700 500 700 500 700 5O0 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 700 500 1993/94 Investment Eam~gs 248,599.20 2,269.94 298.32 457.34 6,509.29 311.39 1,471.80 36,546.48 42,588.14 237.56 10,224.74 0.00 423.39 0.00 4,440.23 1,146.58 126.86 0.00 166.18 3,843.33 78,970.01 7,734.27 6,525.00 241.50 43,865.08 45,287.90 0.00 0.00 24,816.29 0.00 0.00 196.58 290.44 1,446.27 3,324.36 339,645.84 0.00 32,750.07 30,558.94 158,191.58 L133.504.90 % of Total 219319o% 0.20026% 0.02632% 0.04035% 0.57426% 0.02747% o. 12985% 3.22420% 3.75721% 0.02096% 0.90205% Q0O0OO% 0.03735% 0.39173% 0.10115% 0.01119% o.0o000% 0.01466% 0.339O7% 6.96689% 0.68233% 0.57565% 0.02131% 3.86986% 3.99539% 0.00000% 0.00000% 2. i 8934% 0.00000% 0.000oo% o.0 ! 734% o.o2562% o. 12759% 0.29328% 29.96421% 0.000o0% 2.88927% 2.69597% i 3.95597% CITY FUNDS METItOD Allocation 1994/95 Of 1993/94 Investment % of Reallocation Loss Earnings Total For ! 994/95 192,290.60 410,054.96 35.10733% 294,596.59 1,755.80 2,412.78 0.20657% 1,733.39 230.76 718.80 0.06154% 516.40 353.77 746.44 006391% 536.29 5,034.89 8,799.18 0.75335% 6,321.59 240.85 159.52 0.01366% 114.63 1,138.48 1,671.27 0.14309% 1,200.71 28,268.57 34,286.34 2.93546% 24,632.36 32,941.80 32,590.18 2.79025% 23,413.85 183.77 238.40 0.02041% 171.27 7,908.83 12,390.75 1.06085% 8,901.92 0.00 847.78 0.07258% 609.04 327.47 0.00 0.00O0O% 0.00 0.00 86.78 0.00743% 62.35 3,434.54 4,762.60 0.4o776% 3,421.64 886.84 1,154.96 0.09888% 829.73 98.11 127.85 0.01095% 91.88 0.00 669.18 0.05729% 480.74 128.53 0.00 0oo0oo% 0.00 2,972.84 4,227.71 0.36196% 3,037.32 61,083.06 83,612.09 7.15855% 60,069.61 5,982.41 14,383.75 1.23148% 10,333.73 5,047.08 0.00 0.0oo00% 0.00 186.84 0.00 0.0o0o0% 0.00 33,929.47 38,562.40 3.30156% 27,704.41 35,030.07 58,381.47 4.99840% 41,943.13 0.00 0.00 0.00o0o% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00OOO% 0.00 19,195.30 26,131.01 2.23724% 18,773.38 0.00 0.00 0.00000% 0.00 0.00 29,682.17 2.54127% 21,324.59 152.03 449.36 0.03847% 322.81 224.63 0.00 0.0o00o% 0.00 1,118.66 9,324.99 0.79837% 6,699.37 2,571.37 7,694.72 0.65879% 5,528.11 262,714.85 0.00 0.0o0o0% 0.00 0.00 277,076.26 23.72220% 199,060.34 25,332.03 34,615.58 2.96365% 24,868.91 23,637.25 34,584.24 2.96o97% 24,846.42 122,360.67 37,560.36 3.21577% 26,984.52 876-762-17 1.168.003.88 '~,9~P'6 839.131.03 876.762.17 839.131.03 Total Reallocation 486,887.19 3,489.19 747.16 890.06 11,356.48 355.48 2,339.19 52,900.93 56,355.65 355.04 16,810.75 609.04 327.47 62.35 6,856.18 1,716.57 189.99 480.74 128.53 6,010.16 121,152.67 16,316.14 5,047.08 186.84 61,633.88 76,973.20 0.00 0.00 37,968.68 0.00 21,324.59 474.84 224.63 7,818.03 8,099.48 262,714.85 199,060.34 50,200.94 48,483.67 149,345.19 1.715.893.2~ 1.715.893.20 INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 4 City Funds CITY OF UKIAH ALLOCATION OF MARKET VALUE CHANGE AS OF 6/30/95 INVESTMENTS SOLD 8/95 CITY FUNDS METHOD Fund Name General Park Development Museum Grants Asset Seizure Parking Dist. O & M Downtown Business Signalization 2106 Gas Tax 2107 Gas Tax 2107.5 Gas Tax 2105 Gas Tax Special Aviation Federal Emergency Shelter C.D.B.G. Community Development Off-Systems Road High School Park Youth Community Services Conference Center 1957 Sewer Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Redemption Lake Mendo Bond Reserve Garage Airport Sewer Special Sewer - Capital Repl. U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement REDIP Sewer Enterprise Disposal Site MSWMA Landfill Postclosure Refuse/Debris Control Public Safety Dispatch Golf Billing Enterprise Electric Electric Revenue Water Water Capital Improvement R.D.A. - Capital Improvement Total Regular Cash A/C Number 100 700 500 140 700 500 141 700 500 200 700 500 220 700 500 260 700 5O0 270 700 500 300 700 500 301 700 500 302 700 500 303 700 500 310 700 500 332 700 500 333 700 500 335 700 500 345 7O0 500 361 700 500 405 700 500 410 700 500 500 700 500 550 700 500 555 700 500 575 700 500 600 700 500 612 700 500 620 7O0 500 650 700 500 652 700 500 660 700 500 663 700 500 664 700 500 665 700 500 678 700 500 695 700 500 697 700 500 800 700 500 801 700 500 82O 7O0 500 840 700 500 965 700 500 Totalby Fund group 486,887.19 3,489.19 747.16 890.06 11,356.48 355.48 2,339.19 126,422.37 609.04 327.47 62.35 6,856.18 1,716.57 189.99 480.74 128.53 6,010.16 137,468.81 5,047.08 186.84 138,607.08 0.00 0.00 37,968.68 0.00 21,324.59 474.84 224.63 7,818.03 8,099.48 461,775.19 98,684.61 149,345.19 Fund Group 100 140 141 2O0 220 260 270 3O0 300 300 300 60O 332 333 335 345 361 405 410 612 8O0 80O 575 6O0 612 612 613 614 660 663 660 665 678 695 697 800 8OO 82O 820 965 INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 5 City Funds PERS DISTRIBUTION BY FUND Fund # 100 220 400 405 410 575 600 612 660 665 678 680 695 696 697 800 820 960 TOTAL Fund Name General Fund Parking District Recreation Youth Service Ukiah Conference Center Garage Airport Sewer Disposal Site Refuse/Debris Control Dispatch Ambulance Golf Purchasing Billing Electric Sewer RDA Total Distributed By Fund 1,580,828.45 24 014.20 10 O33.77 1 380.22 5 142.17 60 461.79 37 056.81 109 883.28 44.554.94 31 114.30 88,872.92 76,493.21 55,905.93 32,710.71 34,181.84 222,836.29 95,933.65 37,105.49 2,548,509.97 Percent 62.03% 0.94% 0.39% 0.05% 0.20% 2.37% 1.45% 4.31% 1.75% 1.22% 3.49% 3.00% 2.19% 1.28% 1.34% 8.74% 3.76% 1.46% loo.oooo% INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 6 PERS by Fund PERS PAYMENTS - FISCAL YEARS 1991-92 THROUGH 1994-95 ~~ .~_..~_..~.__1~~, ous. u~ I Fd Actual Actual Actual Actual Total % Of Amount Fund # De~ 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 Total Distributed Totals 100 100' $85 $310 $470 $456 $1,321 0.04% 945.68 100 1910 $987 $828 $1,253 $327 $3,395 0.10% 2,430.41 100 1201 $18,739 $12,774 $19,168 $26,877 $77,558 2.18% 55,522.22 100 1601 $4,735 $4,416 $6,451 $7,084 $22,686 0.64% 16,240.45 100 1905 $14,146 $14,994 $17,203 $19,688 $66,031 1.85% 47,270.27 100 1915 $3,250 $3,091 $4,175 $4,087 $14,603 0.41% 10,454.00 100 1945' $373 $508 $714 $826 $2,421 0.07% 1,733.15 100 130~ $46,110 $33,441 $26,465 $26,518 $132,534 3.72% 94,878.44 ~ 100 1504 $17,772 $18,626 $22,887 $25,954 $85,239 2.39% 61,020.90 100 2201 $9,552 $8,169 $10,589 $7,084 $35,394 0.99% 25,337.86 100 2001 $202,865 $211,649 $241,830 $210,692 $867,036 24.36% 620,693.75 100 2080 $8,915 $8,728 $9,201 $8,431 $35,275 0.99% 25,252.67 100 2101 $118,153 $121,030 $139,736 $124,570 $503,489 14.14% 360,437.71 100 300' $30,144 $29,058 $35,191 $36,047 $130,440 3.66% 93,379.39 100 3110 $20,776 $17,280 $21,361 $27,289 $86,706 2.44% 62,071.09 100 3150 $1,758 $1,264 $1,344 $507 $4,873 0.14% 3,488.48 100 3301 $272 $116 $27 $42 $457 0.01% 327.16 100 6001 $11,714 $11,759 $19,175 $19,568 $62,216 1.75%' 44,539.19 100 6110 $5,306 $4,702 $0 $0 $10,008 0.28% 7,164.53 100 6130 $503 $407 $678 $462 $2,050 0.06% 1,467.55 62.03% 100 6150 $14,250 $13,028 $17,536 $19,685 $64,499 1.81% 46,173.55 1,580,828 220 460' $8,536 $7,217 $8,433 $9,359 $33,545 0.94% 24,014.20 24,014.20 400 6110 $0 $0 $7,396 $6,620 $14,016 0.39% 10,033.77 10,033.77 405 6140 $0 $0 $0 $1,928 $1,928 0.05% 1,380.22 1,380.22 410 6190 $0 $0 $735 $6,448 $7,183 0.20% 5,142.17 5,142.17 575 5801 $21,498 $20,158 $20,788 $22,014 $84,458 2.37% 60,461.79 60,461.79 600 5001 $12,183 $10,682 $14,411 $14,488 $51,764 1.45% 37,056.81 37,056.81 612 3505 $8,728 $4,465 $8,270 $6,648 $28,111 0.79% 20,124.10 612 3510' $5,002 $4,061 $5,297 $10,542 $24,902 0.70% 17,826.84 4.31% 612 3580 $22,896 $19,770 $28,303 $29,512 $100,481 2.82% 71,932.34 109,883 660 340! $10,353 $9,269 $14,629 $27,987 $62,238 1.75% 44,554.94 44,554.94 665 3160 $5,701 $4,830 $6,249 $6,131 $22,911 0.64% 16,401.53 665 3170 $4,689 $4,071 $5,603 $4,140 $18,503 0.52% 13,245.93 1.22% 665 3180 $654 $326 $436 $633 $2,049 0.06% 1,466.84 31,114 678: 2040 $20,349 $24,668 $36,669 $42,459 $124,145 3.49% 88,872.92 88,872.92 680 5201 $19,854 $24,437 $34,785 $27,776 $106,852 3.00% 76,493.21 76,493.21 695 6120 $15,452 $16,749 $22,976 $22,917 $78,094 2.19% 55,905.93 55,905.93 696 1390~ $9,840 $9,468 $12,863 $13,522 $45,693 1.28% 32,710.71 32,710.71 697 1305 $0 $0 $24,068 $23,680 $47,748 1.34% 34,181.84 34,181.84 800 3642 $0 $315 $0 $35 $350 0.01% 250.56 800 3646 $5,255 $0 $1,504 $4,596 $11,355 0.32% 8,128.82 800 3650 $135 $168 $56 $0 $359 0.01%, 257.00 800 3728 $5,685 $13,289 $18,333 $21,318 $58,625 1.65% 41,968.47 800 3729 $6,119 $4,620 $8,234 $11,669 $30,642 0.86% 21,936.00 800 3733 $21,059 $29,915 $39,618 $37,489 $128,081 3.60% 91,690.63 800~ 3765 $8,641 $18,083 $23,885 $26,415 $77,024 2.16% 55,139.94 800 5536 $611 $551 $163 $234 $1,559 0.04% 1.,116.06 800 5538 $530 $776 $127 $0 $1,433 0.04% 1,025.86 800 5539i $0 $494 $63 $0 $557 0.02% 398.75 8.74% 800 5544 $461 $759 $63 $8 $1,291 0.04% 924.20 222,836.29 805 4001 $1,396 $1,126 $1,600 $670 $4,792 0.13% 3,430.50 820 3901 $0 $0 $0 $7,883 $7,883 0.22% 5,643.28 820 3908 $3,077 $2,494 $4,402 $9,307 $19,280 0.54% 13,802.17 820 3948 $18,234 $16,916 $22,538 $35,117 $92,805 2.61% 66,437.24 3.76% 820 3960 $4,110 $2,231 $1,213 $1,694 $9,248 0.26% 6,620.46- 95,934 960 5601 $3,089 $9,497 $.1.6,150 $23,096 $51,832 1.46% 37,105.49 37,105.49 $774,54~) $777,583 $985,31___.__~4 $1,022,529 $3,559,968 100.___:0_~0% 2,548,509.97 __2,548,509.97 INT-PERS.XLS 10/26/95 Page 7 PERS Dist. COMPARISON, BY FUND, OF INTEREST REALLOCATION AND PERS DISTRIBUTION FUND # General 100 Park Development 140 Museum Grants 141 Asset Seizure 200 Parking Dist. O & M 220 Downtown Business 260 Signalization 270 2106 Gas Tax 300 2107 Gas Tax 301 2107.5 Gas Tax 302 2105 Gas Tax 303 Federal Emergency Shelter 332 C.D.B.G. 333 Community Development 335 Off-Systems Road 345 High School Park 361 Recreation Enterprise 400 Youth Community Services 405 Conference Center 410 Garage 575 Special Aviation 310 Airport 600 1957 Sewer Bond Redemption 500 Sewer 612 Special Sewer - Capital Repl. 620 U.V.S.D. Capital Improvement 650 REDIP Sewer Enterprise 652 Disposal Site 660 Landfill Postclosure 664 MSWMA 663 Refuse/Debris Control 665 Public Safety Dispatch 678 Ambulance 680 Golf 695 Purchasing 696 Billing Enterprise 697 Lake Mendo Bond Redemption 550 Lake Mendo Bond Reserve 555 Electric 800 Electric Revenue 801 Water 820 Water Capital Improvement 840 R.D.A. 960 R.D.A. - Capital Improvement 965 TOTAL Net Reallocation Gain/Loss All Funds PERS to the Method Distribution Fund 452,397.33 1,580,828.45 1,128,431.12 3,246.12 (3,246.12) 693.49 (693.49) 826.99 (826.99 10,557.99 24,014.20 13,456.21 331.31 (331.31 2,175.77 (2,175.77 49,232.52 (49,232.52 52,477.73 (52,477.73) 330.36 (330.36) 15,633.42 (15,633.42) 306.43 (306.43) 57.65 (57.65 6,378.20 (6,378.20 1,597.24 (1,597.24 176.72 ( 176.72 0.00 10,033.77 10,033.77 444.66 1,380.22 935.56 120.29 5,142.17 5,021.88 4,722.15 60,461.79 55,739.64 563.39 (563.39) 174.74 37,056.81 36,882.07 5,590.77 (5,590.77) 57,370.50 109,883.28 52,512.78 71,570.08 (71,570.08) 94,657.14 (94,657.14) 17,721.13 (17,721.13) 35,323.99 44,554.94 9,230.95 19,723.94 (19,723.94) 7,042.50 (7,042.50) 440.86 31,114.30 30,673.44 210.16 88,872.92 88,662.76 0.00 76,493.21 76,493.21 7,243.16 55,905.93 48,662.77 0.00 32,710.71 32,710.71 7,519.00 34,181.84 26,662.84 112,711.93 (112,711.93) 15,155.46 (15,155.46) 245,804.64 222,836.29 (22,968.35) 184,118.86 (184,118.86) 46,703.77 95,933.65 49,229.88 45,097.16 (45,097.16) 0.00 37,105.49 37,105.49 139,443.65 (139,443.65) 1,715,893.20 2,548,509.97 832,616.77 Net Reallocation Gain/Loss City Funds PERS to the Method Distribution Fund 486,887.19 1,580,828.45 1,093,941.26 3,489.19 (3,489.19 747.16 (747.16 890.06 (890.06 11,356.48 24,014.20 12,657.72 355.48 (355.48) 2,339.19 (2,339.19) 52,900.93 (52,900.93) 56,355.65 (56,355.65) 355.04 (355.04 16,810.75 (16,810.75 327.47 (327.47 62.35 (62.35 6,856.18 (6,856.18 1,716.57 (1,716.57 189.99 (189.99 0.00 10,033.77 10,033.77 480.74 1,380.22 899.48 128.53 5,142.17 5,013.64 5,047.08 60,461.79 55,414.71 609.04 (609.04 186.84 37,056.81 36,869.97 6,010.16 (6,010.16) 61,633.88 109,883.28 48,249.40 76,973.20 (76,973.20) 0.00 _ 0.00 _ 37,968.68 44,554.94 6,586.26 21,324.59 (21,324.59) 0.00 _ 474.84 31,114.30 30,639.46 224.63 88,872.92 88,648.29 0.00 76,493.21 76,493.21 7,818.03 55,905.93 48,087.90 0.00 32,710.71 32,710.71 8,099.48 34,181.84 26,082.36 121,152.67 (121,152.67) 16,316.14 (16,316.14) 262,714.85 222,836.29 (39,878.56) 199,060.34 (199,060.34) 50,200.94 95,933.65 45,732.71 48,483.67 (48,483.67) 0.00 37,105.49 37,105.49 149,345.19 (149,345.19) 1,715,893.20 2,548,509.97 832,616.77 INT-PERS.XLS Page 8 PERS Dist & Int. Realloc ITEM NO. ~h DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: IDENTIFICATION OF COUNCIL DESIRED TOPICS FOR THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL / PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SUMMARY: As the City Council is aware, the Planning Commission requested a joint meeting between the Council and Commission to discuss planning matters, and to establish a meaningful dialogue between the two decision-making bodies in regards to City goals and objectives. The Council acted on this request and established November 29, 1995, to conduct such a meeting. Staff is now seeking input from the Council on topics, subject matter, or projects it would like to discuss with the Planning Commission so that a constructive and (Continued on page 2) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Identify topics the Council desires to be included on the agenda for the joint Planning Commission / City Council meeting. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine Commission items are adequate and close agenda with those topics. Appropriation Requested: N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Planning Commission Prepared by: Robert Sawyer, Planning Director Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Mike Harris, Assistant to the City Manager Attachments: None Can~--~ace Horsley, C'it-y Man~g organized agenda can be developed. The Commission recently discussed topics it would like to discuss with the Council, and the following agenda items evolved from the discussion: · Implementing the new General Plan - Consider developing a strategy and establishing priorities for implementing the new General Plan. (Commissioner Pruden) · The Commission's role in redevelopment projects - Explore ways in which the Commission can become more involved in the process. (Commissioner Pruden) . "Conditions of Approval" and affordable housing projects - Consider ways to relax approval conditions so that the cost of building houses may be reduced. (Commissioner Baker) · "Up-front" costs associated with Iow and moderate housing - Explore ways to entice developers to build Iow and moderate income housing· (Chairman Ashiku) . Outdoor display of merchandise on public sidewalks - Consider amending the municipal code to permit the use of public sidewalks for the display of merchandise by store owners· (Chairman Ashiku) · Planning permit fees - Discuss the need to raise planning permit fees in order to recoup the costs associated with planning permit processing. (Chairman Ashiku) · Appeals of Planning Commission decisions to City Council- Consider amending the appeal fee schedule, as well as establishing criteria for receiving and accepting appeals in order discourage frivolous appeals. (Commissioner Pruden) . Use Permit limits - Consider initiating a review of the various zoning district provisions to narrow the variety of uses currently permitted by approval of a Use Permit. (Commissioner Larson) Item No. Date: 9a 11/15/95 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: Authorize the Public Utilities Director to Transfer $9,510.52 from the City of Ukiah's General Operating Funds for Payment of Work Performed by the Northern California Power Agency at the Lake Mendocino Hydro Project. REPORT: The Council at their meeting of September 20, 1995, authorized the expenditure of $10,065, which represents the balance of funds for completion of maintenance work at the Hydro Plant and for the development of a maintenance schedule and maintenance check list for the plant. This transfer represents the final payment and completion of the work relative to maintenance on the generating and electrical systems. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Public Utilities Director to Transfer $9,510.52 from the City of Ukiah's General Operating Funds for Payment of Work Performed by the Northern California Power Agency at the Lake Mendocino Hydro Project. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: Deny Authorization and Direct Staff as to Method of Payment. Requested by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Prepared by: Darryl L. Barnes, Director of Public Utilities Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachment:l) Invoice NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY >>>MISCELLANEOUS BILL<<< VENDOR: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Attention: Utility Director BILL NO.: 06102-105051 BILL DATE: 19-Oct-95 TERMS: Due Upon Receipt REMIT TO: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY 180 Cirby Way Roseville, CA 95678 Attention: Accounts Receivable DATE September 1995 DESCRIPTION Mcndicino Hydro Project Maintenance Labor and related costs Misc. materials and supplies TOTAL DUE - PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT AMOUNT 8,858.00 652.52 $9,510.52 LATE PAYMENT PENALTY: PAYMENTS NOT MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE DU DATE SHALL BEAR INTEREST AT THE PRIME RATE OF THE BANK OF AMERICA, NT & SA, THEN IN EFFECT COMPUTED ON A DALLY BASIS PLUS TWO PERCENT UNTIL PAID. CO. 03 G/L DR 143-22-000 CR 456-22-000 200-2-70-00 $9,510.52 $9,510.52 SUBJECT: ITEM NO. 9b DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS FOR REVENUE ENHANCEMENT SERVICES FOR BUSINESS LICENSE INFORMATION AND TRANSFER TAX, FRANCHISE FEES, AND PROPERTY TAX Since 1992 Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) has provided Sales Tax Audit and Information Services to the City of Ukiah, being compensated by a percentage of new revenues received by the City. This service insures the City is receiving all of the sales tax it is entitled to through local research and communication with the State Franchise Tax Board. Recently there have been concerns expressed regarding Business License revenues as well as a better understanding of other general fund revenue sources. MRC has a program to address these issues and has worked with the State of California to fund this process. This proposal before the City Council is to amend MRC's current contract to include these services. Revenue enhancement and audits are conducted by a very limited number of consultants within the State. MRC presents the most comprehensive approach to this issue and in fact has developed such a system that the State Franchise Tax Board is looking to them to assist their efforts in developing better business tax information statewide. Staff did however secure a proposal from The HdL Companies, who also provide tax services to local governments. The proposal was solely for property and documentary transfer taxes, no franchise fee or business license services. The compensation called for hard costs of $7,200 in addition to a percentage of the net revenues received by the City. Since the MRC program encompasses more topics, is completely self funding, and includes efficiency credits toward the current sales tax audits, staff is recommending the MRC program. RECOMMENDED ACTION' (Continued on page 2) Authorize Mayor to execute amendment to Consultant Services Aqreement with Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) for revenue enhancement and audit services. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine modifications are necessary to the proposed services, identify the changes, and authorize execution of revised amended agreement. 2. Determine increased services are not necessary and do not authorize agreement amendment. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: NA Appropriation Requested' N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA . ~, - .... ~ Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant to the City Manager ~_.~it,,.~,,,. ~ ~ Coordinated with' Gordon Elton, Finance Director, and Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments' 1. Proposed Amended Consultant Services Agreement, pages 1-17. 2. MRC propos,.a.i~ransmittal letter and executive summary, pages 18-22. (~&"~e H°~ley, City Mana~ger AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT WITH MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS NOVEMBER 15, 1995 PAGE 2 MRC has several programs available to cities. As noted above Ukiah is currently taking advantage of one of these, i.e. sales tax audits. The other programs are: 1) property and documentary transfer taxes, and franchise fees [REAP], 2) business licences [BLIS], and 3) geo based inventories [GRIPS]. Items 1) and 2) are self funding either through net revenues or reimbursements from the State, while the third service is a direct fee. Staff is recommending the City contract with MRC for the first two [BLIS and REAP] because they have no negative impact on the budget. There are two bonuses relative to MRC's participation. The first is that MRC will assist the City in completing the necessary SB90 State reimbursement documentation for these costs. SB90 claims are made by cities and counties to be reimbursed for costs incurred in completing mandates imposed by the State; business tax information is one of those mandates. This must occur prior to November 30 and thus staff is recommending action be taken at this meeting. The second is "leveraged efficiencies". MRC has developed its services in a progressive fashion utilizing common data bases and integrating several components so each program does not have to be created anew. This process results in savings for both MRC and the client. With each use of a new MRC service a credit is given to the client to reflect these savings. Ukiah's use of BLIS and REAP will produce $5,000 in "efficiency credits" applied toward our current sales tax service. The business license issue is one which Staff and the Council have been concerned about for some time. Limited staff and computer resources have not allowed us to pursue billings, collections, auditing, and general administration in the most efficient and effective manner. As noted in MRC's materials, they would provide significant assistance. Staff training would allow our employees to follow through with the project as new personnel (Customer Services Supervisor, Controller) are added. The State Franchise Tax Board has determined that the data generated at the local level by these types of efforts are of such value that they will reimburse local governments for the costs associated with these programs. This reimbursement is through the SB90 process and payment is not made to MRC until reimbursement is received by the City. If for some reason the State does not reimburse for these costs, the City is not obligated to MRC. The property and documentary transfer tax and franchise fee portion of the proposal should generate new revenue to the general fund. The property tax issue is the most significant segment of this service as it will include redevelopment, as well as city, issues. Again the services are compensated through a percentage of the new revenue generated; if none is realized, there is no charge. Staff believes these services will be very beneficial to the City, particularly with the compensation provisions which will have no negative impacts on the City's finances. Staff strongly recommends the amendment to the agreement with MRC for revenue enhancement and information services be authorized. mfh:asrcc mrcamdl 11595 AMENDED CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at Ukiah, California, as of _1995, by and between the Ci,ty of Ukiah, a municipal corporation (hereafter referred to as "City") and Municipal Resource Consultants (hereafter referred to as "Consultant" or "MRC"), who agree as follows: 1. Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City the services described in Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" (the "Exhibits".) Consultant shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in the Exhibits. Consultant shall not be compensated for services outside the scope of the Exhibits. 2. Payment. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in the Exhibits. The payments specified in the Exhibits shah be the only payments to be made to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, unless the Ci,ty approves additional compensation for additional service. Consultant shall submit all billings for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement to City in the manner specified in the Exhibits. 3. Facilities and Equipment. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for fumis~g services pursuant to this Agreement, with the exception of the computer equipment specified in the Exhibits. 4. Exhibits. All Exhibits referred to herein' are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein. EXECUTED as of the day and year first above stated. CITY OF UKIAH By:_______ Title: Date: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS PARTNER: JOHN T. AUSTIN, INC. By:~  jonn 1'. Austin Title: President Date: October 13, 1995 EXHIBIT A BUSINESS LICENSE INFORMATION SERVICE Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) proposes to provide to the City of Ukiah (City) a Business License Information Service (BLLS) that is comprised of two individual services: 1) a business inventory management service; and 2) an optional business license administration service. The objectives, scope, procedures, system requirements, custom specifications, software license, timing, support and compensation are set forth as follows: lo BACKGROUND In 1984 the state legislature enacted Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19556 ~ requiring most California cities to furnish the state Franchise Tax Board (FTB) specific business tax information each year. In this regard, Government Code Section 17561 2 provides for reimbursement to cities for certain costs incurred from state-mandated local programs; also known as SB 90 reimbursemenL The FTB utilizes the cities' business community data to monitor compliance with the State Income Tax, and Bank and Corporation Tax. This program has proven to be successful in allowing the FTB to increase state revenue, but it has become apparent to the FTB that there is a strong correlation between the quali ,fy and frequency of the data received and the amount of the revenue that could be raised for the State. Furthermore, research has shown that cities throughout California experience changes in their business base at an average rate exceeding 20% per year - due to business openings, closings, expansions, consolidations, relocation, mergers, acquisitions and other events. Given this situation, a valid listing of a ci ,ty's businesses typically does not exist. As a result, much of the data received by the FTB is not of the desired quality, frequently in the wrong format, missing important data (e.g. SIC codes), not standardized as to address and name, includes closed businesses not purged from city fries, missing many new businesses and it is received only once a year. 1 Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19556 requires any Califomia city which maintains or has access to a computerized recordkeeping system, and which assesses a business tax, to annually fumish the Franchise Tax Board specified business tax information on all businesses subject to the tax in the preceding fiscal year. The Government Code further specifies that access to the business tax information is to be kept confidential and shall be disclosed only to the FTB. 2 Government Code Section 17561 provides for the State Controller's Office to reimburse cities for certain cost incurred for state-mandated local programs. City-incurred costs that are eligible for such reimbursement include administrative, operational and related costs which are reasonably necessary to implement and maintain an FTB compliance program. This includes costs for staff, independent consultants, automated and manual system modifications, data collection and reasonable allocation of overhead expenses. o MRC's BLIS business inventory management service creates and maintains a comprehensive and valid inventory of current businesses operating within the City's boundaries. The inventory is created by combining MRC's geobased data integration technology, which extracts relevant business data from a large variety 'of data sources (including the City's existing business license records), and physical canvassing of the City which captures those firms that elude electronic data sources. The combined data is corrected, standardized and enhanced (e.g. business name, address, SIC code) and formatted according to FTB requirements. Each month the data is updated and delivered to the FTB and the Ci,ty. The business inventory provided to the City is placed on a personal computer designated by the City and is accessible through MRC's proprietary, compliance software. The optional BLIS business license administration service provides the City with MRC's proprietary, business license administration software. This service greatly increases the efficiency of the registration, renewal, billing, collection, data entry and overall administration of a city's business license operation. It is adaptable to existing business license forms, is compatible with all standard accounting packages and can operate through most computer systems or platforms. BLIS is eligible for State reimbursement. OBJECTIVES MRC's BLIS is designed to assist the City achieve the following objectives: Build and Maintain an Accurate Business Inventory Produce State-Mandated Business Tax Information that Qualifies for State Reimbursement Increase License Registration and Renewal Efficiency (optional service) Reduce Data Entry Errors, Processing Time and Costs (optional service) 11 e 4~ SCOPE OF SERVICE MRC shall provide the City with a Business License Information Service which includes: Creation and maintenance of a comprehensive and valid inventory of the City's businesses that is continuously updated Monthly progress reports to the City on the status of the business inventory which shall include the current business inventory Production of business inventory data on appropriate media and in appropriate format provided to meet the mandate reporting deadline of March 31 each year License to use MRC's proprietary business inventory management software License to use MRC's proprietary business license administration software Ongoing software upgrades, training and support Assistance with Franchise Tax Board (FTB) reporting and SB 90 reimbursement claims PROCEDURES MRC responsibilities: Review the City's business license tax ordinance for enforceability, coverage, billing and collection efficiency Review the City's business license forms for opportunities to simplify taxpayer reporting, capture economic development data (number of employees, building space, etc.) and FTB-mandated information, and increase processing efficiency Secure from the City on electronic media a current listing of all businesses registered with the City, and convert the data to a BLIS-readable format 3 Develop and maintain a computerized inventory of businesses operating in the City by: o Physically canvassing every street and commercial/industrial facility within the City's borders o Preparing an aggregated l/st of business entities on electronic media; this list is derived from multiple private and public hard copy and electronic sources, including specialized business listings and directories, and the City's business tax and other confidential revenue payment files o Cleaning and standardizing, in address-order, each entity's business name, address, and payment file information to eliminate redundancies Provide monthly data cleaning, standardization and multiple source integration using MRC's proprietary software for compliance and enforcement Install the BLIS software, provide ongoing software upgrades, training and support Assist City and/or the City's consultant in preparing the claim for state reimbursement by providing the substantiating documentation and rationale to support the SB 90 claim and represent same with the FTB and the State Controller's Office City staff responsibilities: Establish a record for each registered business to include FTB-mandated information; Each month provide MRC with a current listing of all businesses registered with the City on electronic media; Submit to the appropriate State agency an estimated claim for BLLS reimbursement by the deadline for submitting estimated claims for compliance with State mandates each year (November 30 of the fiscal year in which the expense is incurred, or other deadline as may be established by the State); and Submit to the appropriate State agency a claim for actual expenses incurred for BLIS by the deadline for submitting claims for reimbursement of State mandated local programs (November 30 following the fiscal year in which the expense is incurred, or other deadline as may be established by the State). 4 e e SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS The BLIS software component requires the following hardware: o Any 486 based IBM or compatible PC with 4 MB RAM o Hard disk with a minimum free space of 1 MB per 1,000 licenses o 3.5" disk drive (1.44 MB) o SVGA or VGA monitor o Parallel (Centronics compatible) printer interface o Any Centronics-compatible parallel printer o Modem (min. 14.4 baud rate 28.8 preferred) and dedicated telephone line Software required includes: o MS or PC DOS version 5.0 or later o Communications software for the modem (PC Anywhere recommended) o Word processing software with mail merge capability, i.e., WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, etc. for optional business license administration service Should the City desire, MRC will assist in evaluating and procuring the necessary hardware and/or software. CUSTOM SPECIFICATIONS The BLIS business license administration software can be customized to fit the City's specific needs. The basic software includes the required state-mandated fields, state tax report and standard revenue reports. Additional fields, reports and other detailed specifications can be added on a pre-quoted time and materials basis. SOFYWARE LICENSE, TIMING AND SUPPORT BLIS includes the attached software license and maintenance agreement (see Attachment A-l). Within 60 working days of contract authorization and receipt of necessary information, MRC shall: Install BLIS software on City hardware Provide staff with up to 16 hours of training with easy-to-use operaHng manuals MRC shall also provide ongoing software and documentation upgrades, data updates, and up to 12 hours of annual support onsite or remotely by telephone and/or modem on an as-needed basis. COMPENSATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 17561, MRC's fees for BLLS are eligible for reimbursement by the State. To make BLIS entirely self-funding for the City, MRC's compensation is payable only after MRC has installed the BLIS software on City computer system, has trained City personnel on the use of the software, has produced the business license inventory in the appropriate format and on appropriate media and delivered same to the FTB to meet the State reportfing mandate, an_~_d the City has been paid on its estimated claim for State reimbursement for BLIS. MRC's fee for BLIS is due within ten days thereafter. In the event that the State Controller's office should make incremental payments to the City for its SB 90 claim, the amount due MRC from each payment shall be in proportion to the cost of BLIS as it relates to the total amount of the City's business license mandate claim. If the State does not fully reimburse the City for BLIS, the amount not reimbursed is not due MRC until the State has reimbursed it to the City. The annual Business Inventory Management Service is provided for a fee of $30,000, and the optional Business License Administration Service shall be provided for a one-time fee of $15,000, and an annual maintenance fee of $2,000 starting in the second year. MRC shall assist the City and/or the City's consultant in preparing the necessary claim for state reimbursement by providing the substantiating documentation, rationale, and cost breakdown to support the SB 90 claim and represent same with the FTB and the State Controller's Office. AUTHORIZATION The City of Ukiah hereby authorizes MRC to provide the following BLIS service(s): Business Inventory Management Service Business License Administration Service (Optional) EXECUTED as of this day ["] Authorized f-] Not Authorized CITY OF UKIAH BY: Title: Date: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS PARTNER: JOHN T. AUSTIN, INC. Date: October 13~ 1995 6 i! . . Attachment A-1 LICENSING AGREEMENT for BUSINESS LICENSE INFORMATION SERVICE (BLIS) This Agreement is made at Ukiah, California, as of 1995, by and between the City of Ukiah, a municipal corporation (hereafter referred to as "City") and Municipal Resource Consultants (hereafter referred to as "MRC"), who agree as follows: le License. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, MRC shall provide to the City a license to use MRC's software, database, and other property (hereafter referred to as "Property") as further described in Exhibit "A". MRC shall provide said Property at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Exhibit "A". MRC shah not be compensated for property outside the scope of Exhibit "A". Restrictions. Said Property shall only be used by the City. The City shall not sublet, duplicate, or modify said Prop~erty. Said Proper ,ty may only be used for the purposes described in Exhibit "A". Said Property shall be returned to MRC at the time the license expires. MRC may terminate the license, at its sole option, if City violates any of the stated restrictions. The Property remains the sole and exclusive property of MRC. The license granted hereunder shall not imply ownership by City of said Proper ,ty, rights of City to sell said Property, or rights to use said Property for the benefits of others. This license is transferable only with MRC's written consent. PavmenL Ci.ty shall pay MRC for license rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A". The payments specified in Exhibit "A" shall be the only payments to be made to MRC for license rendered pursuant to this agreement, unless the City approves additional compensation for additional property. MRC shall submit all billings for license rendered pursuant to this Agreement to City in the manner specified in Exhibit "A". 7 4, . . . . Attachments and Exhibit~. All Attachments and Exhibits referred to herein are appended hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein. P~roprietarv Information. As used herein, the term "proprietary information" means any information which relates to internal controls, computer, or data processing programs; data that has been modified by MRC proprietary techniques resulting in standardized, specifically correlated, or integrated information; electronic data processing applications, routines, subroutines, techniques, or systems; or business affairs and methods of operation or proposed methods of operation of MRC, except such information which is not obtained through this Agreement or which is in the public domain at the time of its disclosure to the other party. City shall hold in confidence using levels of effort consistent with its own policies applicable to its confidential information and shall not disclose to any other party any MRC proprietary information (as such term is herein defined) which may be disclosed to City by MRC in connection with this Agreement or otherwise learned or obtained by City in connection with this Agreement. The parties further agree not to take any other action inconsistent with the confidential nature of MRC proprietary information. The obligations imposed by this Paragraph shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. ~Waiver. No waiver of any breach or failure or delay in exercising any right, power, or remedy shall constitute a waiver of same or of any provision hereof and no waiver shall be effective unless in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement of such waiver is sought. Severabilitv. The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and the unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the enforceability of this Agreement or any other provision hereof. In addition, in the event that any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court to be unenforceable as drafted, the parties acknowledge that it is their intention that such provision be construed in a manner designed to effectuate the purposes of such provision to the fullest extent enforceable under applicable law. Taxes. City shall be responsible for the payment of any applicable taxes in connection with the Agreement, except for any tax based on MRC's net income. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction hereof. 8 10. Remedies Cu_rnulative. All remedies in this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in lieu of, any other remedies a party may have at law or in equity. 11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the Exhibits hereto, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the entire agreement between City and MRC with respect to its subject matter, shall supersede all prior agreements and understandings, if any, between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof and may be modified only by written agreement of the parties. EXECUTED as of the day and year first above stated. CITY OF UKIAH By: Title: Date: MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS PARTNER: JOHN T. AUSTIN, INC. By: Title: Pre.___sident Date: October 1.~_3 1995 REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AUDIT PROGRAM EXHIB IT B Municipal ResoUrce Consultants (MRC) presently provides to the City of Ukiah (City) a Revenue Enhancement Audit Program (REAP) to assist the City in realizing all of'the revenue to which it is entitled from sales/use tax, and agrees to amend the scope to include documentary transfer tax, franchise fees and property tax (including RDA tax increment. The purpose, scope, procedures, timing, reports and compensation are set forth as follows: 1. BACKGROL~/D Many CaLifornia cities are not realizing all of the revenue to which they are entitled from existing tax sources due to administrative errors and omissions by businesses and third-party intermediaries (such as the state, counties, and utility companies) responsible for collecting the revenue and remitting it to the cities. Administrative errors and omissions are inevitable given the non-standard, complex nature of state and local taxes with regard to applicability, rates, exceptions, exemptions, quirks and inconsistencies. Rapidly changing technology, deregulation, human fallibility, fragmented responsibilities and employee turnover further compound the problem. Because there are time limitations on a government agency's ability to recover revenue to which it has been deprived, it behooves the ~ity to have revenue enhancement audits conducted as thoroughly and rapidly as possible. PURPOSE & SCOPE The purpose of MRC's revenue enhancement audits is to assist the City in recovering all of the revenue to which it is entitled from the following sources: Documentary Transfer Tax Franchise Fees Property. Tax (including RDA tax increment) MRC's Revenue Enhancement Audit Program results in the detection, documentation and correction of errors and omissions causing deficiencies and thereby produces new revenue that would not otherwise have been realized by the City. e e PROCEDURES In providing the revenue enhancement audit service, MRC shall: Gl Meet with City's designated staff to review service objectives, scope, Workplan schedule, public relations and logistical matters; MRC will also establish an appropriate liaison with the City's coordinator and logical checkpoints for reviewing progress Note: With the exception of this initial meeting, MRC's revenue enhancement audit service requires minimal time and effort on the part of City staff Gl Review applicable provisions of the City's municipal code and ordinances adopted by the City Gl Represent the City for purposes of examining records pertaining to the revenue sources listed above (see Section 2) to identify and confirm any errors/omissions that are resulting in deficient payment to the City For each error/omission identified and confirmed, prepare documentation to substantiate and facilitate recovery of revenue due from prior periods (plus applicable interest and penalties) Prepare and forward to the appropriate parties "date of knowledge" requests for corrective action and revenue recovery Meet with designated City official(s) as necessary to review our findings and recommendations Provide additional assistance as necessary to support the City in recovering and preventing tax deficiencies MRC's detailed procedures for auditing each revenue source shall be provided on request. 2 0 TIMING & REPORTS MRC shall commence the revenue enhancement audits within 10 working days of authorization with the objective of delivering the initial audit reports within 90 to 120 working days after receiving the necessary data. Thereafter, MRC shall provide the City with audit progress reports to include, but not be limited to, the following: Status of work in progress, including copies of reports provided to taxpayers/intermediaries addressing each report/ng error/omission individually, including where applicable the business name, address, telephone number, account identification number, individuals contacted, date(s) of contact, nature of business, reason(s) for error/omission and recommended corrective procedure Actual revenue produced for the City by MRC's service on a quarterly and cumulative basis Projected revenue forthcoming to the City as a result of MRC's audit service, specified according to source, timing and one-time versus ongoing Alphabetical listing of all errors/omissions detected for the City by MRC including, for each, the account number, correction status, payment amount received by the City, period to which payment is related and payment type (e.g., reallocation, deficiency assessment, etc.) 3 ,-iq- e COMPENSATION & EXPENSES To make MRC's service self-funding for the City and its Redevelopment Agency (Agency), MRC's compensation for providing the Revenue Enhancement Audit Program (RE,~kP) shall be entirely predicated and contingent upon the audit(s) producing new revenue that would not otherwise have been realized by the City/Agency. Under this arrangement, the City/Agency agree(s) to pay MRC an amount equal to 25% of the deficiency recoveries from eligible prior periods (plus associated charges for penalties and interest). Said recoveries include amounts recovered, refunded, credited, or any other consideration received by the City/Agency in lieu or as a result of the audit findings. When MRC's audits result in the detection and correction of errors/omissions that the City/Agency and MRC mutually agree will produce ongoing (rather than one-time) benefits, MRC's compensation shall be 25% of the incremental revenue realized by the City/Agency during the first twelve consecutive quarters following correction. In this regard, the City/Agency agree(s) to: o Invoice the responsible party for tax deficiencies (plus associated charges for penalties and interest) identified and confirmed by MRC within 30 days following receipt of MRC's report; and o Noti,fy MRC within 10 days following receipt by the City/Agency of payments (cash payments, installment payments, or other compensation directly benefiting the City/Agency) resulting from MRC's audit service. Upon being notified of receipt of payment(s), MRC will then invoice the Cit}'/Agency. Earned compensation is due and payable upon receipt of invoices. All expenses incurred by MRC in providing the revenue enhancement audits and information services are absorbed by MRC. These expenses include items such as employee salaries and benefits, insurance, airfare, auto rentals, meals, lodging, keypunching, computer processing, clerical meetings, telephone, mail, etc.) photocopying, overhead and miscellaneous out-of-pockets for consumable supplies and research materials such as maps, directories, etc. 4 5.1 MRC AUDIT EFFICIENCY CREDITS Efficiencies are realized by MRC from common tasks accomplished and data developed in providing multiple revenue audit services and GRIP. In this regard, MRC proposes to offer to the City, in the form of Audit Efficiency Credits, an opportunity to reduce the compensation paid MRC as follows: First Tier Audit Efficiency Credits - the City can qualify for First Tier Audit Efficiency Credits fi, in addition to BLIS, the City elects to utilize MRC's REAP and GRIP services. This will provide a credit of $10,000, which may be used to reduce MRC earned compensation from REAP and/or GRIP services for the period described below each year commencing July 1, 1996. . Second Tier Efficiency Credits - the City can qualify for Second Tier Audit Efficiency Credits if, in addition to BLIS, the City elects to utilize MRC's REAP service (but not GKIP). This will provide a credit of $5,000, which may be used to reduce MRC earned compensation from the REAP service for the period described below each year commencing July 1, 1996. In addition, to qualify for Audit Efficiency Credits, the City musk ~ Authorize MRC to proceed with the appropriate services for the Tier of Audit Efficiency Credits sought; ~1 Submit to the appropriate State agency an estimated claim for BLIS reimbursement by the deadline for submitting estimated claims for compliance with State mandates each year (November 30 of the fiscal year in which the expense is incurred, or other deadline as may be established by the State); and . ~l Submit to the appropriate State agency a claim for actual expenses incurred for BLIS by the deadline for submitting claims for reimbursement of State mandated local programs (November 30 following the fiscal year in which the expense is incurred, or other deadline as may be established by the State). Audit Efficiency Credits are granted July 1 of each year and are applied to MRC billings between that July 1 and the following June 30 to reduce the amount due MRC as earned compensation for providing REAP and/or GRIP services. Audit Efficiency Credits may not be carried over beyond June 30 of any year. As stated above, MRC's revenue audit and information services are being provided as a package. Should the City elect to terminate any of the services provided by MRC, or should there be a fundamental change in the funding or administration of any of the revenue sources subject to MRC services, or should the State cease to mandate and/or fund the city business license reporting program, the Compensation and Audit Efficiency Credits sections of the package 5 e BACKSTOP AUDIT PROGRAMS MRC's revenue enhancement and information services described in this and the following exhibit are to be provided on a self-funding basis without creating an expenditure impact on the City's budget. Accordingly, if the City has an additional ("backstop") revenue enhancement audit program (staffed by internal or external personnel), it is understood and agreed that those personnel must detect and document in writing (on behalf of the City) to the taxpayer and/or responsible intermediary (e.g., state, utility company, etc.) each individual error/omission at least one full calendar quarter prior to MRC doing so. Otherwise, MRC shah be entitled to receive compensation for detecting and documenting any such error/omission which has resulted in deficient payment to the City. For this purpose, the City and MRC shall provide copies to each other of notices submitted to taxpayers and/or intermediaries (state agencies, county, utility service providers, etc.). 6 MUNICIPAL RESOURCE CONSULTANTS A partnership of John T. Austin, Inc. & Allen W. Charkow, Inc. Tustin Madera San Ramon Sacramento (714) 258-3000 (209) 432-6039 (510) 838-1115 (916) 971-4732 32107 W. Lindero Canyon Road Suite 233 Westlake Village, CA 91361 (818) 991-5220 Fax: (818) 991-5365 October 13, 1995 Mr. Michael Harris Assistant City Manager City of Ukiah 300 Seminary, Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Re: Revenue Enhancement/Information Dear Mr. Harris: Enclosed you will find a proposal/agreement for MRC to amend the scope of revenue enhancement and irrformation services presently provided to Ukiah to include additional sources of revenue. ' MRC proposes to provide the amended services on a self-funded basis without creating an expenditure impact on the City's budget. Under this plan, the amended services are entirely funded by: New revenue generated by MRC's services State reimbursement for the cost of complying with mandated reporting of business license information In this regard, enclosed please find the following: Executive Summary Amended Consultant Services Agreement Brochure describing MRC's Business License Services Brochure describing MRC's Progressive Revenue Services If you have any questions or would like to discuss how the services could be further tailored to the ~itv's needs, please call me at (408) 954-8150. Sin~gr~ly, W , LT:kg Enclosures EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Municipal Resource Consultants (MRC) agrees to amend the scope of revenue enhancement and information services presently provided to the City of Ukiah (City) to include additional sources of revenue. MRC's amended services are to be provided on an entirely self-funded basis without creating an expenditure impact on the City's budget. SALES TAX AUDIT & INFORMATION SERVICES Since May 1992, MRC has provided the City with sales tax audit and information services. As of the first quarter of 1995, MRC's sales tax audit service produced $108,949 of net new revenue for the City, for a return on the City's investment of 439%. In conjunction with the audits, each quarter MRC provides the City with a Sales Tax Analysis and Reporting Service (STARS) which consists of a quarterly updated onsite Query System and bound Digests. The STARS Query System includes confidential data on all the City's sales tax generators. The STARS Digests reflect MRC's monitoring and analysis of the City's sales tax revenue and generators, to identify revenue performance, trends, gains, declines, projections, issues and opportunities. PROGRESSIVE REVENUE SERVICES Business License Information Service (BLIS) is comprised of two individual services: 1) a business inventory management service; and 2) an optional business license administration service. BLIS establishes and maintains a current, comprehensive and valid inventory of all the City's businesses. BLLS includes: MRC's proprietary software; physical canvassing of every street and commercial/industrial facili,ty within the City's borders; continuous development of the business inventory using MRC's geobased data integration technology; increased efficiency in registration, renewal, billing, collection, data entry and overall City business license administration; ongoing software/data maintenance, training and support as described in Exhibit "A." MRC shall install the software on a City computer and train staff within 45 working days of receipt of the amended agreement approved by the City. Each month MRC shall update the City's business inventory database and provide the Franchise Tax Board (FI'B) with corrected, standardized, enhanced and properly formatted (according to FTB requirements) business license tax information. MRC's Business License Information Service is eligible for State reimbursement. Revenue Enhancement Audit Program (REAP) is designed to assist the City in realizing all of the revenue to which it is entitled, but may not be receiving, from the following sources - documentary transfer tax, franchise fees and property tax (including RDA tax increment- as described in Exhibit "B." MRC's REAP service results in the detection, documentation and correction of errors and omissions causing deficiencies and thereby produces new revenue that would not otherwise have been realized by the City. MRC shall commence the REAP service within 10 working days following receipt of the amended agreement. Geobased Revenue Information Program (GRIP) includes a computerized database of all the City's land parcels, major buildings and users (commercial, industrial, institutional, governmental, residential), and major sources of general revenue including, but not limited to, business license tax, franchise fees, proper.ty tax, sales/use tax, state subventions and transient occupancy, as described in Exhibit "C." Quarterly, MRC shall update the GRIP database, train authorized staff in the use of the GRIP Query System, and review with designated City personnel the GRIP Digest with regard to revenue performance, trends, gains, declines, projections, issues and opportunities and provide the City with hardcopy analysis of the City's revenue generators and sources. LEVERAGED EFFICIENCIES MRC has developed a unique package of revenue audit and information services that progressively build on each other to capitalize on the common tasks accomplished, data developed and results produced. MRC calls this "leveraged efficiencies." MRC's Progressive Revenue Services capitalize on these leveraged efficiencies to maximize client revenues, cost savings and return on investment. MRC is thus able to provide the City with a comprehensive package of extremely valuable, unique services that are entirely seLf-funding. ii SELF-FUNDING COMPENSATION MRC has structured the BLIS, REAP and GRIP services to be entirely self-funding for the City, as follows: Business License Information Service (BLIS) - is entirely eligible for SB 90 reimbursement and MRC's compensation is not payablg until the City has received the service ~and the State has reimbursed the City for BLIS. In the event the State does not fully reimburse the City for BLIS, the amount not reimbursed by the State is not due to MRC until the City has received full reimbursement from the State. The Business Inventory Management Service shall be provided for an annual fee of $30,000, and the optional Business License Administration Service shall be provided for a one-time fee of $15,000, and an annual maintenance fee of $2,000 starting in the second year. Revenue Enhancement Audit Program (REAP) - shah be provided on a self-funded basis, whereby MRC's compensation is entirely predicated and dependent upon the results produced for the City. MRC's compensation is 25% of the deficiency recoveries from eligible prior periods. When MRC's service results in the detection and correction of errors/omissions that the City and MRC mutually agree will produce ongoing (rather than one-time) benefits to the City, MRC's compensation is 25 % of the incremental revenue realized by the City during the first twelve quarters foil. owing correction. Geobased Revenue Information Pro. g!M~ (GRIP) - compensation for the initial development and implementation of the GRIP database is $16,000. The monthly fee for the ongoing service is $1,000. MRC's compensation for providing the initial and ongoing GRIP service is payable after the City has received the services being invoiced and has sufficient funds to cover the charges from accrued Audit Efficiency Credits (see below) and/or the City's share of new revenue produced from MRC's revenue enhancement audits. MRC Audit Efficiency Credits - Efficiencies and savings are realized by MRC from common tasks accomplished and data developed in providing the REAP and GRIP services. In this regard, MRC proposes to offer to the City, in the form of Audit Efficiency Credits, an opportunity to reduce the compensation paid MRC by the City. These are detailed in Exhibit B, Section 5.1. iii EXAMPLE OF SELF-FUNDING AND USE OF AUDIT EFFICIENCY CREDITS The following illustrates a hypothetical example using new revenue generated by M2RC's audit services, and state reimbursement to fund services provided during the first year of the amended agreement. BLIS reimbursement to City from State Less: business inventory management service Less: business license administration service New revenue to City from MRC's REAP services (including sales/use tax audits) Less: MRC compensation at 25 % GR~ service charge for first full year ($16,000 initial & 6 months @ $1,000) (second year total cost- $12,000) S45,000 <30,000> <15,000> $40,000 10,o00 22,000 MRC Audit Efficiency Credits Net Cost to Ci.ty for MRC Services $22,000 City may apply Audit Efficiency Credits to MRC's audit fees and GRIP. iv ITEM NO. 9c. DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF 1996-97 BUDGET SCHEDULE AND SE I lING OF DATE FOR COUNCIL/STAFF GOAL SETTING/STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION A schedule for the annual City of Ukiah Budget Process is to be adopted by the City Council. The proposed calendar identifies the key elements and time frames of the program. As in previous years, a Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session with Staff and Council is included in the process to provide an opportunity to review the progress made relative to last year's City Council goals and objectives and discuss new directions and policy issues to be addressed in the upcoming fiscal year. This year we are recommending a greater emphasis be placed on joint strategic planning for the next year and beyond. Last year's workshop was completed in a day, and we recommend a full day again be devoted to this important part of the process. It is proposed this meeting be held as early in the process as possible to insure each department has the opportunity to respond to the Council's concerns and desires in their proposed budgets. It is suggested that a specific day and time during the week of January 16-19 be set for this function. The actual budget hearings and adoption are proposed during the week of June 17-21 to coincide with the regularly scheduled City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings. Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed schedule and set the date for the Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Review and approve the Schedule for Fiscal Year 1996-97 Budget process. 2. Set time and date for Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS' 1. Revise proposed schedule as desired and approve amended budget schedule. 2. Determine schedule is not necessary and do not approve any budget schedule. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.' NA Appropriation Requested' N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA · ' i "r ¢ . Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant to the C,ty Coordinated with: Gordon Elton, Finance Director, and Candace Horsley, City I~lanager Attachments: 1. Fiscal Year 1995-96 Budget Schedule, pages 1-2. ~O'~ar~dace Horsley, City Manager mfh:asrcc BUDSCH9596 DATES November 15, 1995 December 5 December 19 January 9, 1996 January 16-19 February 8 February 9-15 February 20-29 March 1-11 March 12-14 March 18-28 April 1-5 April 8-11 April 15-25 April 29-May 2 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 BUDGET SCHEDULE DRAFT - OCTOBER 18, 1995 ACTION City Council review and approval of fiscal year 1996-97 Budget Schedule and set date for City Council/Staff Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session. Staff workshop to discuss basis of allocated costs (direct charges, internal service fund charges, indirect charges, "reimbursable credits"), asset acquisition, capital/operating budgets, etc., and initial discussion of department goals and objectives for 1996-97. Staff workshop to finalize discussion of allocated costs and secure understanding and buy off of process. Subsequent discussion and finalization of department goals and objectives. Department head meeting to prepare for Council worksheets (including payroll figures, allocated projections, etc.) distributed to Departments. session. Budget charges, revenue City Council/Staff Goal Setting session (one or two day meeting). Departments submit proposed budgets to Budget Team (Assistant to the City Manager and Director of Finance). Review of Department budget submittals by Budget Team. Initial individual Departmental Budget reviews with Budget Team. Review of total budget requests by Budget Team. Review of initial department budget proposals by City Manager and Budget Team. Individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Proposed draft budget figures and calculations completed by Budget Team. Recommended budget numbers finalized by Budget Team and City Manager. Final individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Recommended budget figures finalized by City Manager and Budget Team. May 6-9 May 13 May 14 May 15-20 May 21-23 May 24 May 28-30 May 31 June 1 June 3 June 5 June 17-19 mfh:9697budget BUDSCH Budget message and document word processing completed. Final draft proposed budget completed and ready for staff review. Final draft proposed budget copied and distributed to departments for final review and comment. Departments complete review of final draft proposed budget and return comments to Budget Team. Final department comments considered by Budget Team. Final document completed and ready for production. Final document produced for City Council, City staff, and Public distribution. Proposed budget submitted to City Council with Agenda Packet. Proposed budget available for public review at Library. Proposed budget available for public review at Civic Center counter. City Council set specific dates and times for Budget Hearings. Three days of City Council Budget Hearings held and Bud~Tet Adopted. November 15, 1995 December 19 January 9, 1996 January 23 January 29- February 2 February 22 February 23- March 1 CITY OF UKIAH FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 BUDGET SCHEDULE DRAFT - NOVEMBER 15, 1995 ACTION City Council review and approval of fiscal year 1996-97 Budget Schedule and set date for City Council/Staff Goal Setting/Strategic Planning Session. Staff workshop to discuss basis of allocated costs (direct charges, internal service fund charges, indirect charges, "reimbursable credits"), asset acquisition, capital/operating budgets, etc., and initial discussion of department goals and objectives for 1996-97. Staff workshop to finalize discussion of allocated costs and secure understanding and buy off of process. Subsequent discussion and finalization of department goals and objectives. Department head meeting to prepare for Council worksheets (including payroll figures, allocated projections, etc.) distributed to Departments. session. Budget charges, revenue City Council/Staff Goal Setting session (one or two day meeting). Departments submit proposed budgets to Budget Team (Assistant to the City Manager and Director of Finance). Review of Department budget submittals by Budget Team. March 4-14 March 15-22 March 25-29 April 1-12 April 15-19 April 22-26 April 29-May 10 Initial individual Departmental Budget reviews with Budget Team. Review of total budget requests by Budget Team. Review of initial department budget proposals by City Manager and Budget Team. Individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. Proposed draft budget figures and calculations completed by Budget Team. Recommended budget numbers finalized by Budget Team and City Manager. Final individual Department Budget reviews with City Manager and Budget Team. May 13-17 Recommended budget figures finalized by City Manager and Budget Team. May 20-23 Budget message and document word processing completed. May 24 Final draft proposed budget completed and ready for staff review. May 28 Final draft proposed budget copied and distributed to departments for final review and comment. May 29-31 Departments complete review of final draft proposed budget and return comments to Budget Team. June 3-5 Final department comments considered by Budget Team. June 6-7 Final document completed and ready for production. June 10-13 Final document produced for City Council, City staff, and Public distribution. June 14 Proposed budget submitted to City Council with Agenda Packet. June 15 June 17 Proposed budget available for public review at Library. Proposed budget available for public review at Civic Center counter. June 19 June 24-26 City Council set specific dates and times for Budget Hearings. Three days of City Council (including Redevelopment Agency and Ukiah Valley Sanitation District) Budget Hearings held and ,Budget Adopted. mfh:9697budget BUDSCH ITEM NO. 9d DATE: November 15,1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY OF UKIAH AND UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT NO. 94-EDBG-333 On July 6, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 95-4, authorizing the submittal of an application for economic development allocations from the State CDBG Program. That resolution further identified the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency as the responsible party for administration of the grant should the application be successful. In May, 1995, the City of Ukiah was awarded a CDBG Grant, in the amount of $151,519, to establish a small business development revolving loan program. At this time it is appropriate to formally approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ukiah and Ukiah Redevelopment Agency to allow the Agency to provide grant administration for the Grant. The Memorandum of Understanding will be forwarded prior to the meeting. A like proposal has been agendized for Redevelopment Agency subsequent to Council approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: City Council approve Memorandum of Understanding with Ukiah Redevelopment Agency to provide Grant administration of Economic Development Block Grant No. 94-EDBG-333, and authorize City Manager to execute MOU. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Appropriation Requested' N/A Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: Prepared by' Larry DeKnoblough, Assistant Redevelopment Director Coordinated with' Candace Horsley, City Manager Madelin Holtkamp, Ukiah Business Development Center Attachments: 1. Resolution No. 95-4 APPROVED: R:4/CM ASRGrant 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 95-4 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UKIAH AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION OF THE STATE CDBG PROGRAM AND IDENTIFYING THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ukiah as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves an application for CDBG funding of up to . $500,000 revolving loan program. '~ SECTION 2. The City Council has reviewed and hereby agrees to comply with all assurances executed in connection with the application and, if awarded, the grant. SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and understands its obligation to repay CDBG funds in the event that this activity is determined to be ineligible. SECTION 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to act on the City Councirs behalf in all matters pertaining to this application, including submittal of the application, execution of the grant agreement, drawdown of funds, submittal of amendment requests, and execution of grant amendment documents. Additionally, the City Manager shall be the party responsible for grant administration and execution of all documents including grant amendments. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 1994, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Mastin, Malone, Wattenburger, Shoemaker and Mayor Schneiter NOES: None ABSENI: None Cathy I~1~ R:4:Res.'cdbg Fred' Schneiter,'~layor ITEM NO. 9f~ DATE: .NOVEMBER 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF FORMATION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY INLAND WATER AND POWER COMMISSION The Mayor and City Attorney have been monitoring the activities of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District relative to the Eel River/Russian River issue. Both have, on several occasions, reported on the various meetings. The latest proposal is the creation of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The Mayor has requested this matter be agendized, allowing the Council to discuss his issue and make recommendations as desired. Attachment 1 is the latest draft (No. 5) of the proposed JPA between the Flood Control District, Redwood Valley County Water District, and the Potter Valley Irrigation District. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the proposed Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Joint Powers Agreement. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Determine discussion is not necessary and delete item from the agenda. 2. Determine additional information is necessary before discussion and continue the matter to a future Council meeting. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: NA Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: NA Requested by: NA Prepared by: Michael F. Harris, AICP, Assistant to the City Manager Coordinated with: David Rapport, City Attorney; Candace Horsley, City Manager, and Fred Schneiter, Mayor. Attachments: 1. "Draft 5" of proposed Mendocino County Inland Water and Power Commission Joint Powers Agreement, pages 1-28. 2. Notice of next ad hoc committee meeting, page 29. '~andace Horsley, City Man~ger mfh:asrcc mciwpcl 11595 JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE FO~TIONitND IMPL~ATION OF THE MENDOCINO COUNTY INLItNDW'ATERAND POWER- COMHISSION (COMMISSION) THIS JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and between the following Public Agencies within the State of California, that is, the County of Mendocino (County), Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control & Water Conservation Improvement District (Flood Control), Redwood Valley County Water District (Redwood), and the Potter Valley Irrigation District (PVID). The foregoing parties are collectively referred to herein as "the signatories". RECITALS: This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts: (a) WHEREAS, the Russian River and its tributaries are valuable resources vital to economic development, environmental quality and general well being of the signatories and their constituents. (b) WHEREAS, the Eel River diversions into the Russian River Watershed are absolutely vital to that economic development, environmental quality and general well being; (c) WHEREAS, .the signatories recognize that a united voice is required of all of the signatories when it comes to issues relating to (1) the continued Eel River Diversion, (2) the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project, (3) the potential sale by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) of the Potter Valley Project, (4) to conduct negotiations and enter into agreements with agencies and entities located outside Mendocino County and with the State and Federal Government respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters. (d) WHEREAS, this Commission will require financial resources to pay the costs of administration thereof and the cost of acquisition of water works, power works and related assets, as may from time to time become necessary. (e) WHEREAS, Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the joint exercise by agreement of two or more public agencies of any power common to them. (f) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 25680 et seq. of the Government Code, the parties hereto possess in common the power to study, discuss, formulate and recommend policies, action plans, and procedures for (1) the acquisition of water works and power plants and related assets and rights; (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; and (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters. (g) WHEREAS, the parties hereto recognize that the exigencies of the problems in this area and within their respective jurisdictions require that they unify and coordinate their efforts in solving said problems by entering into this agreement to provide for the joint exercise of their said powers in aiding and assisting in (1) the acquisition of water works and power plants and related assets and rights; (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting, Eel River and Russian River Waters; (6) to formally establish a joint powers agreement to aid ~-~ --~~-~ ~- ~- formulate, imp1 pl ................. ement and exeoute such & an, and to officially establish and structure the Board of Directors of said Joint Powers Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits, covenants and agreements set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I - AUTHORITY SECTION 1.01. Legal Authority. This Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement is made.under the authority of Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State of California. ARTICLE II - DEFINITIONS SECTION 2.01. General, Unless the context otherwise requires, the words and terms defined in this Article II shall, for the purposes hereof, have the meaning specified below: SECTION 2.02. Act. "Act" means Title I, Division 7v Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500) of the Government Code of the State. of California. SECTION 2.03. Commission, "Commission" means the Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission created pursuant to this agreement. SECTION 2.04. Fiscal Year. "Fiscal_ Year" means the period from July I to and including the following June 30. SECTION 2.05. Board of Directors. "Board of Directors" means the governing board of the Commission established pursuant to this agreement. SECTION 2.06. State. "State" means the State of California. SECTION 2.07. Administrative Expense. "Administrative Expense" means those sums of money required to be expended by the Commission from an administrative expense fund, to be established and maintained by the Commission, to finance those costs of administering this agreement and for carrying out the powers and functions authorized in this agreement which are not payable from the proceeds of either State or Federal grants. SECTION 2.08. Member. "Member" means a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission and includes an alternate member. "DRAFY #5" SECTION 2.09. Eel River and Russian River Waters. "Eel River and Russian River_Waters" means any water originating in, or flowing through the territory of this commission in the Eel River or Russian River watersheds. SECTION 2.10. Potter Valley Project. "Potter Valley Project" means all of the real and personal property and other assets and works operated by Pacific Gas & Electric Company in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Project No. 77. ARTICLE_III - PURPOSE SECTION 3.01. Purpose. It is the purpose of this agreement to provide a united, coordinated, orderly, positive and more effective means for the following purposes: ~4 .... ~ ......... ~ ... (1) the acquisition of water works and power plant and related assets and rights; (2) to lobby for preservation of the continued Eel River diversions into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters; and (6) to create sink funds, and; (7) to raise the funds necessary to support the administration of the commission by taxes, bonds, benefits of assessment, user fees and by all other legalmeans and to otherwise support the purposes of this_ agreement for the general benefit of all the citizens of the signatories by (8) establishing a separate Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission; and (9) by vesting this Commission with power (a) to effectively coordinate the formulation, administration and implementation of the purposes of this agreement; (10) to establish appropriate operating and advisory committees to conduct public hearings, to assist the Commission in carrying out the foregoing purposes and to assist the Commission in the implementation of projects and programs to carry out the purposes of this agreement. ARTICLE IV - FORMATION AND ORGANIZATION SECTION 4.01. Creation of Commission. Pursuant to the Act, there is hereby created a public entity to be known as the "Mendocino Inland Water and Power Commission", herein called "Commission." The Commission is a public entity, separate and apart from the parties to this agreement and said Commission shall administer this agreement. SECTION 4.02. Governing Board. The Commission shall be governed by a Board of Directors composed of members from the governing board of each of the following public entities (1) the County two members, (2) PVID one member, (3) Redwood one member, and (4) Flood Control one member. At least one of the board members selected by the County must be supervisors whose constituency includes the watershed of the Russian River, that is to say 50% or more of the votes of that Supervisor's District reside within the Russian River Watershed. SECTION 4.03 Alternates. The County, PVID, Redwood, and Flood Control shall also appoint from its respective governing board, one alternate member of the Board of Directors. The alternate may attend and participate in, but not vote, at any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Commission. The alternate may take the seat of the regular member at the commission table and may vote at any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Commission at which the regular member from the alternate's public entity is absent. BECTION 4.04 Membership? (&) Each member (and alternate member) shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing public entity. If a person serving as a member (or alternate) ceases to be a member of the governing board of the public entity that appointed such person to serve as a member (or alternate) on the Board of Directors of the Commission, he or she shall at the same time cease to be a member (or alternate) of the Board of Directors of the Commission. Such public entity shall proceed without undue delay to appoint a new member (or alternate) as the case may be. (b) Ail voting power of the Commission shall reside in the Board of Directors. (~) A member of the governing board of the public entity that appointed such person as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission may serve simultaneously as a member of the governing board of such appointing public entity and as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission. (d) No person while serving as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall be eligible to be appointed to any salaried office or emplOyment in the service of the Commission nor shall he or she become eligible for such appointment within one year after he or she has ceased to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission. (e) The members of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall serve without compensation. This shall not affect in any way remuneration received by a local public official who, in addition to his responsibilities as a local public official, serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the Commission. All members of the Board of Directors of the Commission may be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as such members. Reimbursement of expenses shall be subject to approval of the Board of Directors of the Commission. SECTION 4.05. Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors shall provide for its regular meetings. The date, hour, and place of the holding of regular meetings shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors, and a copy of such resolution shall be filed with each party hereto. SECTION 4.06. Ralph M. Brown Act. All meetings of the Board of Directors, including, without limitation, regular, "DRAFI' #5" adjourned regular and special meetings, shall be called, noticed, held and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California). SECTION 4.07. Minutes, The secretary of the Commission shall_ cause to be kept minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Board of Directors and to each public entity that is a party to this agreement for approval at the next regular meeting of the Commission. SECTION 4.08. Ouorum. Three (3) members of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum may adjourn, from time to time. An affirmative vote of at least three (3) members of the Board of Directors shall be required to take action on all matters. SECTION 4.09. Rules, The Board of Directors of the Commission may adopt, from time to time, such by-laws, rules and regulations for the conduct of its meetings and affairs as are necessary for the purposes hereof. SECTION 4.10. Office. The Board of Directors of the Commission may establish and maintain an office within the territory encompassed by the Commission as it deems will best facilitate the accomplishment of the objectives and purposes of the Commission. SECTION 4.11. Boundaries. The Commission shall encompass (1) all of the territory within_ and between the geographical boundaries of PVID, Redwood and Flood Control; and (2) it shall include all real property located in Mendocino County within the watershed of Eel River from the Mendocino County/Lake County Line on the East to the toe of Cape Van Horn Dam on the West; and (3) the Potter Valley Project tunnel from Van Arsdale Reservoir on the North to the PG&E Power House in Potter Valley on the South. The exterior boundaries of the Commission territory are more particularly described as follows: (metes and bounds description). Immediately after the Commission is created and the first Board appointed the Board shall instruct its engineer to prepare a map showing the exterior boundaries of the Commission boundaries. The Commission may expand those boundaries as the Commission may from time to time see fit. If the boundaries of a signatory (other than the County) expand by annexation or merger beyond the original boundaries of the Commission boundaries then the Commission boundaries will automatically extend to the signatories new boundary. ARTICLE V - OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SECTION 5.01. Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Secretary. The Board of Directors shall elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among its members at its first meeting. Thereafter at its first meeting in each succeeding calendar year, the Board of Directors shall elect a Chairman and Vice Chairman. Each officer 10 shall assume the duties of his office upon election. If either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman ceases to be a member, the resulting vacancy shall be filled at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors held after such vacancy occurs. The Chairman shall preside-at and conduct all meetings of the Board of Directors. A. The Board of_ Directors shall select a Secretary who may, but need not, be a member of the Board of Directors. The Secretary shall serve att he pleasure of the Board of Directors and shall perform those duties and functions customary to the office of Secretary of a public entity. B. The Chairman shall sign all contracts on behalf of the Commission and perform such other duties as may be imposed by the Board of Directors; and C. The Vice Chairman shall act, sign contracts, and perform all of the Chairman's duties in the absence from the County of Mendocino of the Chairman and in the event the Chairman is not able to so act due to reasons of illness, disqualification, or conflict of interest. SECTION 5.02. Treasurer. The Treasurer-Tax Collector of the County of Mendocino is hereby designated as the Treasurer of the Commission and as the depositary to have custody of all the money of the Commission. from whatever source. The Auditor- Controller of the County of Mendocino is hereby designated as the Auditor-Controller of the Commission° The Treasurer-Tax Collector and the Auditor-Controller shall have the duties and obligations 11 set forth in Section 6505 and 6505.5 of the Act and shall assure that there shall be strict accountability of all funds and report of all receipts and disbursements of the Commission. The governing board may select another treasurer or auditor controller after adoption of this Joint Powers Agreement. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino shall determine the reasonable charges to be made against the Commission for the services of the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor- Controller, such charges not to exceed the actual cost to the County of such services. SECTION 5.03. Bonding persons Having Access to Property. From time to time, the parties hereto shall designate the public officers or persons, in addition to the Treasurer-Tax Collector and Auditor-Controller, having charge of handling or having access to any property of the Commission, and shall further designate the respective amounts of the official bonds of the Treasurer and Auditor-Controller and such other persons pursuant to Section 6505.1 of the Act. SECTION 5.04. Engineering and Legal Advisors. The Board of Directors may select, appoint, employ and retain engineering and legal advisors of the Commission, who shall perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors. The Board may select an engineer or legal advisor of one of the signatories to serve in these capacities. SECTION 5.05. Other Employees. The Board of Directors 12 shall have the power to appoint and employ such other officers, employees, and may contract with consultants and other professional persons or firms as it considers necessary for the purposes hereof. SECTION 5.06. ComDensation~ The Board of Directors shall determine the compensation of, and pay from Commission funds (including payment from funds which the Commission may receive from time to time in the form of federal and state grants) the salaries, wages, fees and other compensation of such planning, engineering, legal, financial, or other technical and professional personnel, consultants, and other employees of the Commission. SECTION 5.07. Non-Civil Service~ Nothing herein contained shall be construed as making the Commission a department of any party to this agreement or as placing any of the officers, counsel, personnel, or employees of the Commission under any other form of specially protected employment right or status. ARTICLE VI'- POWERS SECTION 6.01. Subject to the limitations on the commissions powers set forth in Section 7.01 of this agreement, the Commission is hereby authorized, in its own name, to do all acts necessary for the exercise of the foregoing powers to accomplish the purposes of this agreement including, but not limited to, any or all of the following: A. As provided in the Act, the Commission shall be a public entity separate from the parties hereto. The Commission shall have the power to aid and assist in the formulation, 13 #5" administration and implementation of: (1) to acquire ~ ..... :-~'~'-- of~ water works and power plants and related assets and rights; (2) to lobby for the preservation of the continued Eel River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobby for the maintenance of the viability of the PG&E Potter Valley Project; (4) to purchase or otherwise acquire the same; (5) to conduct negotiations and enter agreements with persons, agencies and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Governmental agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Waters; (6) to 4evelop other sources of water for the benefit of the commission's constituents either alone or in conjunction with other agencies. ~6~ (7) to raise the funds necessary to support the administration of the Commission and the purpose of this agreement by (a) imposing taxes, (b) incurring bonded indebtedness and issuing bonds, (c) by levying benefits of assessment, (d) by imposing user fees, and (e) by securing grants and loans from government agencies and others. ~ -z ........... ~-~ .-..aanu tJ 14 (S) to establish appropriate operation and advisory Committees to conduct public hearings, to assist the Commission in carrying out the purposes of the Commission, and to assist the Commission in the implementation of projects and programs to carry out the purposes of the Commission; and (9) to further administer, coordinate, promote, carry out and implement the purposes of this agreement as referred to in Section 3.01 of Article III. hereof. B. To make and enter into contracts; C. To employ agents, employees, consultants, and independent contractors; D. To acquire, hold or dispose of real, personal and intangible property, or any interest therein, by deed, purchase, lease, contract, gift, devise, or otherwise. E. To sue and be sued in its own name, except as otherwise provided by law. An action to determine the validity of any contract may be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) Title 10, Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. F. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations, provided that no debt, liability or obligation shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any of the separate public entities that are parties to this agreement; provided that the total debts, liabilities or obligations incurred in any fiscal year do not 15 "DRAFt-#5" exceed the revenue received in the same fiscal year, unless in the form of a bond properly issued by the Commission. G. To apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other financial assistance from any agency of the United States of America or of the State of California, or from any other public agency or from other sources, public or private, and expend such funds for the purposes set forth in this agreement; H. To invest any money, that is not required for the immediate necessities of the Commission, as the Commission determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as apply to local agencies, pursuant to Section 53601 of the Government Code of the State of California; I. To carry out and enforce all the provisions of this agreement; J. To contract for and obtain insurance against any insurable risk reasonably anticipated to result from the exercise of any powers or functions of the Commission or the performance of any duties by the officers and employees of the Commission; K. To make, adopt, amend, and repeal its by-laws, rules, ordinances, resolutions and procedural regulations not inconsistent with, and to carry into effect, the powers granted in and purposes of this agreement; L. To perform such duties and functions as may be necessary or appropriate for the coordination of federal or state assisted programs and projects within the geographical boundaries 16 of the Eel and Russian River watersheds; M. To do and perform any and all acts necessary to participate in federal or state assisted projects within, or without, the j urisdict iona 1 boundaries of the Co~ i s s ion, including, without limitation, applying for, accepting and administering grants or other financial assistance from the federal government, the state, or other public agencies, or from any other sources, public or private, for such projects; to sue and expend such funds for any of the purposes as described or referred to in this agreement; and to enter into and carry out contracts or agreements in connection therewith which are not inconsistent with the purposes and powers of the Commission as set forth in this agreement; and N. To aid and assist member entities and other public agencies in the application for economic support of appropriate projects and programs. O. To adopt a seal and alter it at its pleasure. -LV -LVJ~IfJ~'~.&V 'Io'V'L , &a~q~l~V ~l'.b~&qlipq~, Ibl.&&~14. V VM.&&~-L VW J-~ q~d.~l~qld.~L 17 domain. "DRAFT #5" R.P. To acquire property through the power of eminent SECTION 6.02(A). Delegated Powers. The signatories delegate to the Commission the right to act on behalf of any and all of the signatories in the following areas: (1) to negotiate for and to purchase or otherwise acquire the Potter Valley Project from PG&E; (2) to lobb~ for the preservation of the oontinue~ Be1 River diversion into the Russian River watershed; (3) to lobb~ for the maintenance of the viabilit~ of the PG&B Potter Valley Projeot~ ~ (4) to lobby for and negotiate and otherwise deal with persons, agencies, and entities located outside of Mendocino County and with State and Federal Agencies respecting Eel River and Russian River Water supply issues (as defined in S2.09). (5) to appl~ for and otherwise develop water and water rights for the benefit of the territor~ of the Commission. It is the intent of this provision that the signatory agenoies will not appl~ for a~itional water rights or otherwise develop new water and users for users vithin their territory alone unless and until the~ have presente~ a particular project to the Commission and the Commission has rejected the proje=t. (6) &11 future water applied for by the various 18 "DRAF #5" agencies will be applied for by the agency and apportioned upon SECTION 6.03 Claims. Ail claims and actions for money or damages against the Commission and its officers and employees are governed by Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. The Commission shall be deemed a "public entity" within the meaning of Division 3.6 of Title I of said Government Code. SECTION 6.04. Interests in Contracts. The provisions of Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090), Article 4.5 (commencing withSection 1100), and Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1120), Chapter 1, Division 4, Title I, and Sections 87100 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California prohibiting certain financial interests in public contracts and pertaining to conflicts of interest shall apply to the officers, directors, and employees of the Commission. SECTION 6.50. Enforcement by Commission. The Commission is hereby authorized to take any or all legal actions necessary and permitted by law to enforce this agreement. ARTICLE VII - RESTRICTIONS ON POWERS SECTION 7.01. .Specific Restrictions. The following specific restrictions on the powers and functions of the Commission shall apply and be observed by the Commission: A. The Commission shall not interfere in the internal 19 affairs of a member entity. B. The Co~mission shall have no veto power over grant applications submitted to state or federal agencies by a member entity. C. The Commission shall not have the power to acquire, by eminent domain or otherwise, the water or water rights of a signatory hereto nor of any private water rights owners within the Commission's territory. 999 D. Additional Limits on User Fees. 9999 E. The signatories do not delegate to the Commission their respective water, water rights, contracts with third parties cr between signatories, nor the right to perform, enforce or negotiate with respect to the same. ARTICLE VIII - METHOD OF PROCEDURE SECTION 8.01. Assumption of Responsibilities. Upon completion of the initial organization of the Commission and the selection of a Chairman and Vice Chairman, and the appointment of the Secretary and Engineering and Legal Advisor, the Commission shall proceed to carry out its duties and responsibilities as set forth in this agreement. ARTICLE IX - FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS SECTION 9.01. Fiscal Year, The fiscal year of the commission shall be from July i of each year to and including June 30 of the following year. SECTION 9.02 Insurance . The Commission shall secure and 20 maintain insurance for personal injury in the amount of $ per person and $ per incident, or more, and for damage to property of the Commission and others in the amount of $ per incident, or more. SECTION 9.03. Contributions. The parties hereto shall each contribute to the Commission on or before , 19 , the sum set forth opposite their respective names as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Any financial contributions other than set forth above shall be made only upon official action by the governing board of such party hereto as may desire to make any further or additional contribution to the Commission. The expenditure of funds contributed to the Commission by the parties hereto shall be used only for ordinary administrative and operating expenses of the Commission and for payment of fees and costs incurred or to be incurred by the Commission in connection with the execution of its purpose. SECTION 9.04. Annual Budget~ A. The Board of Directors of the Commission shall, on or before February 1 of each year, prepare and submit to each party hereto a budget estimate of the expenses of conducting the Commission for the ensuing year. B. The budget estimate shall be in such form as the Board of Directors may prescribe using the guidelines of the 21 "DRAFI'- California State Controller. The budget estimate shall contain a summary of the fiscal policy of the Commission for the budget year and shall include data showing the relation between the total proposed expenditures and the total anticipated income or other means of financing the budget for the ensuing year, contrasted with the corresponding data for the current year. The budget estimate may include an unappropriated balance item to be available for appropriation in the ensuing fiscal year to meet contingencies other than contingencies resulting from temporary insufficiencies in the revenues of the Commission. C. After submission of the budget estimate, the Board of Directors shall fix a time and a place for hearing by the Board of Directors thereon. At the budget hearing the Board of Directors may increase or decrease any item in the budget estimate and may delete any item therefrom or add any new item thereto. Upon the conclusion of the budget hearing and not later than March i of each year the Board of Directors shall approve the budget estimate as submitted to the parties hereto or as revised by the Board of Directors, and thereupon the same shall constitute the final budget for the ensuing fiscal year. The several items of the final budget shall be deemed appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year in the amounts and for the purposes specified in the final budget. SECTION 9.05. Records and Accounts, The Commission 22 "DRAFI'-#5" shall cause to be kept accurate and correct books of account, showing in detail the costs of admin±stration, bond interest, bond redemption, operation and maintenance, and all financial transactions of the Commission. Said books of account shall be open to inspection at all time during normal working hours by the public or any representative of any of the parties hereto, or by and accountant or other person authorized by any party hereto to inspect said books of account. The Auditor-Controller shall, in accordance with Section 6505 of the Act, cause the books of account and other financial records of the Commission to be audited annually. ARTICLE X - TERMINATION SECTION 10.01. Term. This agreement shall be effective , and shall continue until rescinded or terminated by agreement of all the parties hereto, provided that termination shall not occur less than six months before the end of the fiscal year. SECTION 10.02. Disposition of Assets.~ On the termination of this agreement, surplus money of the Commission shall be returned to the respective parties hereto in the same proportions that the total of all contributions paid by each party pursuant to Section 9.02 hereof during the term of this agreement bears to the total of such contributions paid by all the parties hereto. Onthe termination of this agreement, all property of the Commission, both real and personal, shall be divided among the 23 parties hereto in such manner as shall be agreed upon by the parties hereto and, until such division is agreed upon shall, be held in trust by the Commission for all the parties hereto. ARTICLE XI - MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS SECTION 11.01. Notices. Notices hereunder shall be sufficient if delivered to: The Chief Administrative Officer of each party hereto or to such other person and address as a party hereto may request in writing to the Commission from time to time. Notice to the Commission shall be sufficient if divided to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission. SECTION 11.02. Amendment of Agreement. This agreement may be amended only by an agreement approved by all of the then participating public entities. Approval of the Board of Directors of the Commission shall not be required for amendment of this agreement. SECTION 11.03. Partial Invalidity, If any one or more of the terms, provisions, sections, promises, covenants, or conditions of this agreement shall to any extent be adjudged invalid, unenforceable, void or voidable for any reason whatsoever, by a court of competent jurisdiction, each and all of the remaining terms, provisions, promises, covenants and conditions of this agreement shall not be affected thereby, and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extend permitted by law. SECTION 11.04. Withdrawal of Member. Any party hereto may withdraw as a party to this agreement at any time upon the 24 "DRAFI' #5" giving to the Commission six months prior vrcitten notice of its intent to withdraw. The withdrawin~ party shall be entitled to reimbursement o~ its pro rata share of the balance of any monies contributed by member from local funds which are not encumbered by obligations of the Commission when notice of withdrawal is received by the Commission. Likewise, the withdrawing party shall be entitled to its pro rata share of the proceeds from sale of any property or equipment which was purchased with local funds contributed bythe members and shall be responsible for a pro rata share of the obligation of the Commission. For the purposes of this agreement the "pro rata" percentage shall be determined by dividing the population of the withdrawing member by the population of the Commission territory. SECTION 11.05. Notice to Secretary of Stat~. The Secretary of the Commission shall be responsible for preparing and filing the notice to the Secretary of State of this joint exercise of powers agreement, pursuant to the provisions of Section 6503.5 of the Government Code of the State of California. IT WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereunto duly authorized, and their official seals to be hereto affixed, as of the date and year first above written. 25 (SEAL) ATTEST: COUNTY OF MENDOCINO BY Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California BY Deputy Clerk POTTER VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT (SEAL) ATTEST: Chairman of the Board of the Potter Valley Irrigation District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino BY Deputy Clerk REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (SEAL) ATTEST: Chairman of the Board of the Redwood Valley County Water District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California BY Deputy Clerk 26 MENDOCINO COUNTY RUSSIAN RIVERFLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (SEAL) ATTEST Chairman of the Board of the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District County Clerk and ex officio Clerk of of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Mendocino, State of California BY Deputy Clerk 27 EXHIBIT "A" "DRAFT-#5" County of Mendocino Potter Valley Irrigation District Redwood Valley County Water District MCRRFC&WCID $ $ $ 28 M~(~INO AND WATER RUSSIAN RIVER FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT November 8, 1995 Dear Ad Hoc Committee Member: The next Potter Valley Project JPA ad hoc committee meeting will be held on Thursday, November 16, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room at North Counties Engineering Co., 425 Talmage Road, Ukiah, CA. This meeting is to specifically discuss Draft #5 of the Joint Powers Agreement, a copy of which is enclosed. If You are unable to attend or if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. /Us Sincerely, ~_~ Barbara Spazek _ District Secretary 425 TALMAGE ROAD · UKIAH, CALIFORNIA 95482 · (707) 462-1961 ITEM NO. 9G DATE: November 15, 1995 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR MANAGEMENT UNIT We have placed this item on the City Council agenda in the event that an agreement is reached in the early part of next week between the Employee/Employer Relations Officer and the Management Unit for the 1995-96 Memorandum of Understanding. It is recommended that Council review and discuss the Memorandum of Understanding, which will be distributed to Council prior to the meeting if an agreement is reached. If the City Council approves the agreement in closed session, then adoption of the attached resolution in public would be necessary. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution. ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTIONS: 1. Do not adopt resolution. 2. Refer to Staff for further information or revisions. Acct. No. (if NOT budgeted): N/A Acct. No.: Appropriation Requested: N/A (if budgeted) Citizen Advised: N/A Requested by: N/A Prepared by- Kari Revheim, Acting Personnel Officer~ Coordinated with- Candace Horsley, City Manager Attachments: Resolution for adoption. 3' PER\ASR. MOU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION ~O. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UKIAH ADOPTING THE HEMOP~NDUMOF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF UKIAHAND MANAGEMENT UNIT WHEREAS, the Employee/Employer Relations Officer has met and conferred in good faith with representatives of the Management Unit; and WHEREAS, the Memorandum of Understanding attached as Exhibit "A" has been arrived at; and WHEREAS, said Memorandum of Understanding has been presented to the City Council for its consideration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the attached Memorandum of Understanding is hereby adopted and the Employee/Employer Relations Officer is authorized to enter into this Agreement for the Fiscal Year 1995-96. PASSED AND ADOPTED this the following roll call vote- AYES: NOES: day of , 1995, by ABSENT: ATTEST: MAYOR CITY CLERK PER/RES .MOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Agreement is made and entered on , 1995, in Ukiah, California, by and between the City of Ukiah ("City"), a general law .municipal corporation, and the Ukiah Redevelopment Agency ("RDA"), a'California redevelopment agency established by City. RECITALS~ 1. City has received a Community Development Bloc Grant ("CDBG") from the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for the period April 3, 1995 to August 29, 1997, to establish a revolving loan fund from which City will make loans to businesses resulting in the creation or retention of 10 jobs, 6 of which are to be filled by members of a Targeted Income Group ("the Grant"). 2. RDA will. supervise the administration of this grant and the making and collection of the loans in accordance with the terms of the grant application and grant agreement, to which reference is hereby made and which are incorporated herein. 3. RDA will fully administer the Grant and provide all services under the Grant within the program budget. 4. This Agreement sets forth the terms and conditions under which the City will provide the Grant funds to RDA and RDA will administer the grant and provide the services funded by the Grant. A~REEMENT~ In consideration of and in reliance upon the above-recited facts and the terms and conditions as further stated herein, the parties hereby agree as follows. 1. GRANT ADMINISTRATION. RDA shall fully perform all administrative and service requirements set forth in a grant agreement between ~CD and the City ("the Agreement") and use grant funds solely and exclusively as authorized by the Agreement. This shall include, but not be limited to: 1.1 Contracting with the Ukiah Business Development Center to provide the day-to-day management of the grant, subject to RDA supervision, all as provided in the Agreement; 1.2 Preparation and submission of any performance or other reports required by the Agreement. 1.3 Fully account for all income and expenditures under the Agreement in compliance with all applicable state and federal s,\u\agr~tsg$\rda.mou November 9, 1995 statutes, regulations, circulates and other rules, using the services of the City Finance Director to manage and invest grant funds after receipt by the City and prior to using them for grant purposes, provided that any surplus Grant funds shall be invested strictly in accordance with the City's investment policies. 1.4 Maintain all records required by applicable state or federal statutes, .regulations, circulares and other rules for the time periods specified in such rules. 1.5 Fully comply in the performance of the grant with all other applicable state and federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, circulars or other rules. 1.6 Respond to all inquires from the HCD, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD"), Inspector General, Governmeht Accounting Office or other state or federal agency with jurisdiction over the City's administration of the grant, any audits or audit exceptions by said agencies, and fully defend and indemnify the City and its officers and employees from and against~any claim, disallowed cost or other liability arising out of RDA's administration of the grant and not resultinG from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the City or its employees or officials. .. 2. PAYMENT OF FUNDS AND OTHER CITY RESPONSIBILITIES. The City hereby authorizes RDA to initiate requests for payment under the grant on behalf of the City. If HCD will not accept ~uch requests directly from RDA, the City shall initiate timely requests for payment under the grant. It hereby authorizes HCD to transfer the funds directly to RDA. If HCD cannot transfer the funds directly to RDA, then within three (3) working days of its receipt of grant funds, the City shall transfer those funds without deduction to RDA. 2.1 The City shall promptly provide RDA with any notices or other communications from HCD affecting RDA's obligations under this Agreement. 2.2 The City shall provide prompt written notice to RDA of its dissatisfaction with any aspect of RDA's administration of the grant or its provision of services under the grant. If the City provides notice of dissatisfaction, such .notice shall be in writinG and set forth the specific acts or omissions upon which it bases its complaint. RDA shall have ten (10) working days to provide the City. with an explanation or plan to cure the deficiencies. The City shall have seven (7) working days to approve or reject the explanation or plan. If the City does not respond in writing within the time provided, it shall be deemed to have approved the. explanation or plan. If it disapproves the explanation or plan, it shall set forth in detail what RDA must do s~\u\mgrmts95\rda.mou November 9, 1995 to satisfy the City. If the City and RDA are unable to agree on whether RDA has adequately performed or on a plan to cure agreed upon deficiencies, they shall submit the dispute to resolution as provided in paragraph 5. 3. TERM, The terms of this Agreement shall commence on 1995 and shall until City has satisfied all conditions , of the grant. 4. INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, RDA shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees and such agents as are mutually agreed upon in writing between the parties from and against any claim, loss or damage, including the l~egal and other costs (such as experts, investigators, court fees and recoverable costs) of defending against any such claim, which arises out of the RDA's performance under this Agreement, except for claims, losses or damages resulting from the sole and active negligence or other wrongful conduct of the City or its officers and employees, provided such claim is (i) attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury to or destruction of tangible property, including the loss of use resulting therefrom, and (ii) caused in whole or in part by any negligent or willfully wrongful act or omission of RDA, any subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to waive the City's sovereign immunity from suit and both RDA and the City shall have the right to 'assert such immunity in defense of any claim to which this paragraph applies. 5. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. If any dispute should arise between the parties with respect to the performance or interpretation of this Agreement, they shall endeavor to resolve the dispute by mediation. If unsuccessful, they shall submit the dispute to arbitration. In the case of mediation, the parties shall submit their dispute to a Mediator chosen by both parties by mutual agreement. The Mediator shall be selected from a panel of certified professional Mediators provided by the American Arbitration Association. In the event.that mediation fails to resolve the dispute to the parties mutual satisfaction, they shall submit their dispute to arbitration administered by American Arbitration Association in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Each party shall pay from 1/2 the costs of the arbitration and their own litigation expenses, including attorney's fees. . . Any suit to enforce an arbitration award shall be brought in the state court, in Mendocino County with subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute. ~:\u\a~rmt$9$\rda.mou November 9, 1995 · ; 6. DOCUMENTS. Any documents, except documents containing confidential information about clients or services to clients, prepared or maintained by RDA in the administration of the grant shall be available to the City for inspection and copying during normal business hours upon reasonable notice requesting such inspection or copying. 7. MODIFICATION OF A~R~EMENT. The City may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services of the RDA to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any increase or decrease in the amount of the RDA's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between the City and the RDA, shall be incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. To be effective, all such changes as referred to in this section must be agreed upon in writing by both parties to this agreement. 8. ASSIGNMENT. The RDA shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior written consent of the City. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is the express intention of the parties hereto that RDA is an independent contractor and not an employee, joint venturer, or partner of the City for any purpose whatsoever. The City shall have no right to, and shall not control the manner or prescribe the method of accomplishing those services contracted to and.performed by RDA under this Agreement, and the general public and all governmental agencies regulating such ac- tivity shall be so informed. Those provisions of this Agreement that reserve ultimate authority in the City have been inserted solely to achieve com- pliance with federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and in- terpretations thereof. No such provisions and no other provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and employee between RDA and the City. RDA shall pay all estimated and actual federal and state income and self-employment taxes that are due the state and federal ~overnment and shall furnish and pay worker's compensation ~nsurance, unemployment insurance and any other benefits required y law for himself and his employees, if any. RDA agrees to ndemnify and hold the City and its officers, agents and employees harmless from and against any claims or demands by federal, state or local government agencies for any such taxes or benefits due but ~ot paid by RDA, including the legal costs associated with defending against any audit, claim, demand or law suit. RDA warrants and represents that it is a properly licensed S~: \u\agrmts9S\rda. mou N~vember 9, 1995 ; professional or professional organization with a substantial investment in its business and that it maintains its own offices and staff which it will use in performing under this Agreement. 10. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of the Agreement is held b~ a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 11. INTEHRATiON. This Agreement contains the ent ire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 12. WAIVER. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 13. NOTICESi Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under,his Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United Sates mail .with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: RDA The City City Manager' Ukiah Civic Center 300 SeminaryAve. Ukiah, CA. 95482 Executive Director Ukiah Civic Center 300 seminary Ave. Ukiah, CA. 95482 14. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not intended to define or limit the scope of this agreement. 15. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature Of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original ~=\u\agrmts95\rda.mou November 9, 1995 s~all be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the ~reement between the parties. ~ WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date fiirst written above. CITY OF UKIAH Fred Schneiter, Mayor UKIAH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY By: . Fred Schn-eiter, Chairman ATTEST: Cathy McCay, City Clerk Karen Yost, Secretary s: \u\agrmts95\rda. mou November 9, 1995 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT This Agreement is made and entered in Uklah, California, on ,1995, by and between Economic Development Associates ("Contractor"), and the Uklah Redevelopment Agency ("Uklah"), a general law municipal global corporation. 1. SERVICES PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall provide the following services for the duration of this Agreement: Under direction of Agency staff, shall provide professional services for grant management and program activities associated with Economic Development Block Grant No. 94-EDBG-333, as follows: Grant Management to include HCD Reporting, match documentation, and compliance recordkeeping. Program delivery to include all marketing, technical assistance, loan packaging, job creation monitoring, and Iow-income verification of new hires. Shall submit bi-weekly reports to Uklah Including a synopsis of pertinent activities. · · Ukiah shall have the right at all reasonable times on reasonable notice to Contractor to audit its books, records and accounts. Contractor shall maintain financial records sufficient according to generally accepted accounting principles to permit an accurate assessment of its finances and transactions. It shall maintain these records in a location reasonably accessible to Ukiah and for a three (3) year period following each of the fiscal years that the records cover. 2. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall provide the services as requested by Uklah in accordance with a schedule agreed upon as to each service requested. 3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall cover the period, beginning on November 1, 1995, and ending on November 30, 1998, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the parties or terminated as provided in paragraph 9. 4. COMPENSATION. Uklah shall pay Contractor in accordance with the program budget, in an amount not to exceed $24,900, for the life of this agreement and paid on an as-billed basis. Monies for grant administration shall come from the proceeds of the grant in advance of activities,in accordance with grant requirements. 5. CONFIDENTIALITY. Contractor hereby agrees that it, and its officers, agents and employees will not disclose or make any other use of Information about the business methods, operations, costs, proposals, budgets, and projections of Uklah or of any other Information of a confidential nature pertaining to Ukiah, without the prior wriHen consent of the Executive Director. 6. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE. 6.1 Indemnification. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless Uklah and its officers, agents and employees from and against any claim, loss or damage, including the legal and other costs of defending against any claim of damage or loss by third parties, which rises out of the Contractor's performance under this Agreement, except for claims, losses or damages resulting from the sole and exclusive negligence or other wrongful conduct of Ukiah or its officers, agents and employees. 6.2 Insurance. Contractor shall comply with the insurance requirements set forth in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference as through set forth in full. 7. OWNERSHIP AND RETURN OF DOCUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT. Upon termination of Contractor's services to Ukiah under this Agreement, Contractor agrees to return all written and other materials which are not matters of public record, and equipment, furnished to it by Uklah. Any documents, excluding curriculum materials, created by Contractor as part of providing services under this Agreement shall be the property of Ukiah and shall be furnished to Ukiah upon request. 8. TERMINATION. This Agreement may only be terminated by Uklah: 1) for breach of the agreement; 2) because funds are no longer available to pay Contractor for services provided under this Agreement; or 3) Uklah has abandoned and does not wish to complete the project for which Contractor was retained. Ukiah shall notify Contractor of any alleged breach of the agreement and of the action required to cure the breach. If Contractor fails to cure the breach within the time specified in the notice, the Agreement shall be terminated as of that time. If terminated for lack of funds or abandonment of the project, the Agreement shall terminate on the date notice of termination is given. Uklah shall pay the Contractor only for services performed and expenses incurred as of the effective termination date. In such event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports, excluding curriculum materials, prepared by the Contractor under this Agreement shall, at the option of Ukiah, become its property and the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed hereunder, subject to off-set for any direct or consequential damages Uklah may incur as a result of Contractor's breach of contract. Contractor shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on 6[] days prior written notice to Uklah. In the event of such termination, Ukiah shall be entitled to reimbursement for any excess payments for services or to private payments as appropriate. 9. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. Uklah may, from time to time, request changes in the scope of the services of the Contractor to be performed hereunder. Such changes, including any Increase or decrease In the amount of the Contractor's compensation, which are mutually agreed upon by and between Uklah and the Contractor, shall be Incorporated in written amendments to this Agreement. To be effective, all such changes as referred to in this section must be agreed upon in writing by both parties to this Agreement. 10. ASSIGNMENT. The Contractor shall not assign any Interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without the prior wriften consent of Ukiah. Contractor shall also obtain Ukiah's prior written approval of any significant changes in Contractor's or employees who provide services under this Agreement or whose services affect its performance under this Agreement. 11. APPLICATION OF LAWS. The parties hereby agree that all applicable Federal, State and local rules, regulations and guidelines not written into this Agreement shall hereby prevail during the period of this Agreement. .. 12. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. It is the express Intention of the parties hereto that Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee, joint venturer, or partner of Uklah for any purpose whatsoever. Ukiah shall have no right to, and shall not control the manner or prescribe the method of accomplishing those services contracted to and performed by Contractor under this Agreement, and the general public and all governmental agencies regulating such activity shall be so informed. Those provisions of this Agreement that reserve ultimate authority in Uklah have been Inserted solely to achieve compliance with federal and state laws, rules, regulations, and interpretations thereof. No such provisions and no other provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employer and emplpyee between Contractor and Ukiah. Contractor shall pay all estimated and actual federal and state income and self- employment taxes that are due the state and federal government and shall furnish and pay worker's compensation Insurance, unemployment Insurance and any other benefits required by law for its employees. Contractor agrees to Indemnify and hold Ukiah and its officers, agents and employees harmless from and against any claims or demands by federal, state or local government agencies for any such taxes or benefits due but not paid by Contractor, including the legal costs associated with defending against any audit, claim, demand or law suit. Contractor warrants and represents that it is a properly licensed organization with a substantial investment in its business and that if maintains its own offices and staff which it will use in performing under this Agreement. 13. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any legal action concerning this Agreement must be filed and litigated in the proper court in Mendocino County. 14. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of the Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect without being impaired or invalidated in any way. 15. INTEGRATION. This Agreement contains the entire agreement amount the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous oral and written agreements, understandings, and representations among the parties. No amendments to this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by all of the parties. 16. WAIVER. No waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed, or shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, nor shall any waiver constitute a continuing waiver. No waiver shall be binding unless executed in writing by the party making the waiver. 17. NOTICES. Whenever notice, payment or other communication is required or permitted under this Agreement it shall be deemed to have been given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mail with proper first class postage affixed thereto and addressed as follows: CONTRACTOR UKIAH Economic Development Associates C/O: Madelin Holtkamp 200 S. School St. Uklah, CA 95482 Redevelopment Agency C/O: Candace Horsley 300 Seminary Avenue Uklah, CA 95482 18. PARAGRAPH HEADINGS. The paragraph headings contained herein are for convenience and reference only and are not Intended to define or limit the scope of this agreement. 19. DUPLICATE ORIGINALS. This Agreement may be executed in one or more duplicate originals bearing the original signature of both parties and when so executed any such duplicate original shall be admissible as proof of the existence and terms of the Agreement between the parties. WHEREFORE, the parties have entered this Agreement on the date first written above. CONTRACTOR UKIAH By: By: Title: Title: