Saturday, October 8, 2011

Recology wants a 5 percent rate increase for Pacifica garbage collection


By Lionel Emde
The Pacifica city council will take up the latest demand for another price increase in Pacifica’s sky-high garbage collection rates at a public meeting on Monday, October 10, 2011. The current request for a 5 percent increase in January 2012 follows an 8 percent increase in rates in July 2011, and a 5 percent increase in August, 2010. At the time that Recology was awarded the no-bid contract in February 2010, Pacificans were already paying the highest rates for garbage collection in San Mateo County.  
Residents will be able to send in written protest letters if they wish, in accordance with the settlement reached in Emde v. City of Pacifica. The letters will be counted and tabulated as part of the public hearing on November 28, 2011 at Pacifica City Council chambers on Beach Blvd.
Recology also services Montara, Moss Beach, and El Granada. Those communities pay half as much for garbage collection as Pacifica. Those communities are served by the same company running the same trucks out of the same location as that which serves Pacifica. The question of why rates are so much lower there for similar service has never been answered.

45 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

This is getting ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

But remember, they do so much for this community. Haha and we all pay for every bit of it and more.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Chris Porter, head of Pacifica Recology and of the Pacifica Chamber of Commerce.

Anonymous said...

No criticism of Ms. Porter at all but this new increase on top of the already high rates is just too much. Lionel Emde is right about Recology.

Steve Sinai said...

Chris only manages the local Recology operation. She doesn't run Recology, and it's hard to imagine she encouraged Recology to raise rates again.

You can only go to the well so many times. Previously, a lot of locals were willing to give Recology (and Coastside Scavenger) the benefit of the doubt because they're friends with Chris, but there's a point where you have to say, "Enough already!"

Thomas Clifford said...

Steve I agree with you and hope everyone will remain respectful to Chris. She maybe the face of Recology in Pacifica but she does not set their policy.
I also agree that enough is enough. Rates are going up all across the peninsula and in every story I have read the contractor is Recology.
The City Council needs to hold the line on rates increases for our battered homeowners and businesses.

Anonymous said...

the city council won't do shit because recology clearly has something to hold over their head's, we will get screwed AGAIN...

on another note i think it is ridiculous that consolidating the library's into 1 is also on the agenda - the one's we have now - work just great - especially since they are in two locations, and not only in the 1 that the council wants (for our own good of course) on Beach Blvd. where the council meets...Crock of shit - the people that are supposed to care about and protect this town, continue to screw it up. sad.sad.sad.

todd bray said...

The city gets an 11% franchise fee from Recology that is from gross receipts not net. So it pays city staff to agree to rate increases when ever possible. The rate increases are supposedly to cover the costs of operation but to date the city does not audit the books of the waste hauler relying instead on the waste hauler for financial justification to raise rates. Oh and here is the punch-line, the contract with Recology guarantees the company an 8% profit annually hence the rate increases to cover the profit margin.

the who said...

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie

Do ya?


There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Kathy Meeh said...

"The city gets an 11% franchise fee from Recology that is from gross receipts not net."

Todd (942) did a good job summarizing issues about the expected Recology rate increase January, 2012. Some comments which might support the 5% requested rate increase (other than the buy-out) follow.

What do you think the 11% city franchise fee equates to net? The city fee occurs before expenses are paid by Recology, including trucks, gas, office overhead, containers, public education, information, yard, recycling, legal, payroll and all that goes with that; plus inflation, and plus credit agency and small claims cost and losses that result from those who do not pay their bills. Thus, I suspect the 11% gross city bite, looks more like 33% net to Recology, the vendor.

In reviewing the utilities bills for last year, the only fee that went down in cost was Recology. I'm sorry we are paying more than other local cities, but I suspect the higher cost is the result of true business cost, and city partnership policies. And, some freebees continue, including Pacific ocean, parks and other container and event pick-up.

I like the recycling benefit, the curbside pick-up, and the customer service which has remained consistently good. And, the additional $1 (+or-) cost to my household for trash pick-up will hardly be noticed.

Lionel Emde said...

I have to correct my friends Todd and Kathy: This contract does NOT guarantee Recology a profit. This is new, as Coastside Scavenger was guaranteed a profit. Why the hell that was you'll have to ask the councilmembers who signed off on it.

The city's income from this contract is capped at $805,000 per year. That is the most they have ever received and cannot be increased during the life of the contract. Because of my lawsuit, there is no incentive for the city to jack rates up for their own benefit. You'll have to ask them why they continue to allow it.

That being said, there is no reason why local businesses are being charged the highest rates in San Mateo County. There is also evidence which points to a money-losing contract with Montara-El Granada being subsidized by Pacifica ratepayers. They pay half as much as we do. How can that be?

I'll post the protest letter for people to download, the only way we get their attention is to threaten their electability.

todd bray said...

Lionel I'd love to read the new contract. Do you have an e-file?

Anonymous said...

Thank You, Lionel. I will sign your protest paper and send it back to you, if you want.

Tom Clifford said...

Todd I just got off the phone With City Hall an was told that it is not on the web site because of its size. You can go in an read it there but be prepared to spend more then one day going over it because of its size. I started Reading it before the last increase but got sidetracked by my trip to the hospital.

Todd Bray's 3rd grade teacher said...

Todd, do your homework and stop trying to get Lionel to do your work for you!!

Next time I put you on "time out"

todd bray said...

Tom I have a 40 page document from 2002. It had 17 pages dedicated to defining what garbage is, what recycling is and who owns it at what stage in collection process and who gets to keep the proceeds from that.

Is the document you saw similar but bigger?

Anonymous said...

Whew, what a cranky pants! It's not like he asked him to read it to him and explain it. Just using the technology.

dazed and confused said...

Tom

Listening to the city council gives me that dizzy and need to go to the ER feeling also

Tom Clifford said...

Todd
5 to 10 times bigger. It's the War and Peace of garbage.

Tom Clifford said...

Dazed and Confused
Now you tell me. I'll get my doctor to prescribe ear plugs.

todd bray said...

Woooow thatsa bigga buncha garbaga .

dazed and confused said...

Tom

Thrown in some Dramamine and a barf bag and you are on

Lionel Emde said...

The new contract is big. How many pages?
(Let's see!) 98 pages plus attachments.
Well over 100 pages.
Worth reading though; if one is a self-employed contractor, there is a process by which one may "self-haul" one's garbage.
I'm sorry to not have a link to the contract, it's important that it not be available to the general public. At least from Recology's point of view.
I would have to scan all pages and post, and if I get a printer /scanner I will do so.

Lionel Emde said...

@ Tom
"Todd I just got off the phone With City Hall an was told that it is not on the web site because of its size."

That is total BS. A file is a file is a file.
POST IT and be done with it.

Anonymous said...

Do remember to place your barfbag in the correct official Recology receptacle, or, way better, avoid the whole vomitus problem by not attempting to read the new contract. The rate increase is going through folks because this is Pacifica and all us residents be screwed. Why make it worse by giving up hours of your precious time reading a lot of bullshit. Relax and get your swerve on!

Thomas Clifford said...

Lionel I agree that the document should be posted. The citizens of Pacifica should not have to make a special trip down to City Hall to read it.
The size of the document is the best reason it should be posted. To fully understand it takes hours of reading and rereading while standing at the counter or if your lucky sitting at a desk in the middle of a busy Office.

What if more then one person wants to read it at the same time, somebody made the trip for nothing.
In my own case the time I spent recovering from my Hospital stay would have been an Ideal time to go over the contract but I was to weak to go to City Hall.

Kathy Meeh said...

Lionel (10/20, 9:31pm), thank you for the Recology contract update change information, from 11% (theoretical) gross to $805,000 (annual cumulative, assumed to be the same as annual). And, also thank you for the 11/28/11 blue color trash cost increase advisory most of us have now received, the result of your AB 218 advisory lawsuit.

Annual city/state flat fees paid by Recology separate from other gross expenses include: $805,000 city franchise, $75,000 Frontierland (old garbage dump remediation), and $30,000 AB 939 State landfill. Total -$910,000.

The consistent $805,000 city franchise fee is likely easier for city accounting to plan and manage. But this fee paid by Recology to the city may be even higher than the previous 11% (theoretical) gross fee.

Money has to come from somewhere to run this city and pay city overhead. Without a strong commercial/retail component, and in a weak economy, along with some reduced services-- one way or another, (if there's no grant available) it usually comes from those of us who live here.

Tom Clifford said...

I have a big problem with the protest voting system. No other system of voting counts as vote in favor of a rate increase those people who don't vote at all.
The bar is set impossible high for those people who have real concerns about the increased cost of the service being provided be it garbage collection, water rates, or sewer rates.

Anonymous said...

What's up with the $75,000 Frontierland remediation money? Coastside paid that for years. What happened to all that money? Isn't it supposed to be used for recreation in Pacifica? Sheesh, we could have had several dog parks by now. Down the rabbit hole into the general fund? Where is that money? Anyone know?

Anonymous said...

Tom Clifford you are such a boy scout. Too bad you didn't win in the last election. But probably better for your health. The protest voting system is always used when government and its partners need to thoroughly screw the public and want to be able to claim there was no opposition. They're quite cunning, in a slimey sort of way, about human nature. They count on an apathetic public. Works well for them, doesn't it?

Thomas Pain said...

Some observations:
Is you garbage bill less that with coastside?
Do we have single stream recycle?
Do we have compost recycle"
Do you use your garbage disposal less?

Is you sewer charge higher?
What costs you more per year?
Why?

Are we looking at the wrong gremlin?

Anonymous said...

Personally, I think we should be looking at the Gremlin my neighbor has permanently parked in his driveway. Its right next to the crusty outboard motors, broken pallets, and tree limbs that came down in the storm of Jan 2008. Look! Please!

the joker said...

This town needs an enemia

Lionel Emde said...

"And, also thank you for the 11/28/11 blue color trash cost increase advisory most of us have now received, the result of your AB 218 advisory lawsuit."

Kathy, my notice was green, not blue, I don't know HOW you got stuck with blue.

The lawsuit saved the ratepayers an estimated $300,000+ that would have been siphoned into city coffers by the former scheme of 11 percent of gross receipts as a franchise fee. That's the city's estimate, not mine.

The Frontierland Park Fee of $75,000 per year is deposited in an account that currently contains about $1 million. From what I've been able to glean, the potential cleanup of the site will be millions of dollars. It's unknown when or if it will be required, but you can look at the example of the sewage treatment plant lawsuit as a model of financial disaster waiting to happen.

Anonymous said...

Oh swell, another ticking time bomb. With a million dollars in the account, it's been ticking for at least 13 years, right? I'm amazed it hasn't been used for some council whim. Must be tamperproof.

Anonymous said...

Joker you one funny dude. "Enemia"? You getting your enemas and your enemies all mixed up again?

Frontierland Park said...

Other cities make money of the menthane gas but not in Pacifica.

Pacifica can not have money, a surplus, or make money that is part of the being an evil capitalist.

This is how Pacifica lives, dirty broke and busted.

Trash Taxi T-Rex said...

I challenge anyone to ask for the records of the Frontierland Park Remediation Fund. It doesn't exist. If you want a really scary Halloween, go ask Ritzma to explain it to you. Just ask her to show you exactly where the million dollars resides. That fund is supposed to be seperate from all others. There you go Clifford, take that one on.

Kathy Meeh said...

"... my notice was green, not blue, I don't know HOW you got stuck with blue."

Lionel (10/22, 10:29pm), sample from my neighborhood (2), indicates the city may have run out of blue paper for your neighborhood. Sorry, the blue is visually more friendly than the WWTP "fee" increase green.

Frontierland Remediation Fund, City budget, page A-95, computer scroll page 34, bottom. Contingency: actual 2008-09, $867,766; actual 2009-10, $$917,766; budget 2010-11 $992,766; 2011-12 adopted $1067,766. 3 year increase $200,000, or $66,666.67 annualized.

Trash/garbage collection vendor pays $75,000 into the Frontierland Remediation fund. 3 year annualized leakage appears to be $8,3333.33, or (surprise) about 11% (actual 11.11%). Just an 11% city override coincidence?

Anonymous said...

This remediation money is supposedly earmarked for clean-up of lower Frontierland. I'm no budget expert and wonder how/if these funds are included in the budget. Seems like they should be separate and budget neutral.

Anonymous said...

FrontierlandPark@559 It's just incompetence not some anti-capitalist political statement. Decades of it.

Kathy Meeh said...

Anon (10/23, 2:36pm) Fund 22 is separate from the General Fund: Capital Improvements. Scroll through some of the pages, you'll see several separate funds identified by title and number at the top of their accounting. Maybe start from page A-95, computer scroll page 34, or the index.

Anonymous said...

Kathy Meeh, is the only person who understand the city finances!!

Kathy Meeh said...

"..understand the city finances.."

Right, Anon (222) blue paper vs. green paper. Not everyone knows where to look for city information, and the online budget report in various pieces is initially a little scary. Just trying help, I'd expect the same from you.

Anonymous said...

yeah, she do