Another layer of government oversight that is just considering review and audit. Compare to Pacifica's less complicated trash collection services, which includes an annual review, audit and periodic contract, with oversight by the city. Is bigger better?
The Daily Journal (San Mateo), Michelle Durand, 12/5/12. "City hopes others join waste agency probe."
 |
| Agency considers how to build a better "mouse trap" |
Councilwoman Rosanne Foust, who chairs the city’s utilities commission seeking a blue ribbon task force on the South Bay Waste Management Authority, said at Monday night’s council meeting she was also troubled by the handling of an ex-employee’s retaliation claim against the executive director after her job was cut.
“I’m not going to sugarcoat this,” Foust said in a video of the meeting, “When the governing body chooses not to put the executive director on leave while the issue is being looked at ... it just said to us, you know what? It’s time to take a look at the whole governance structure.”
.... The SBWMA, also known as RethinkWaste, formed in 1982 and its members include Atherton, Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, San Mateo County and the West Bay Sanitary District. It owns the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos and is led by an executive director who reports to a board of directors comprised of city staff from the various cities.
The SBWMA’s budget for fiscal year 2012 included more than $40 million
in revenue and operating expenses of $36.5 million. The program budget
of $3.5 million includes the cost of 7.8 employees along with other
administrative, recycling diversion program and contract compliance
expenses. ....Foust said the idea was not to point fingers at the agency’s service but assess if it can more efficiently use funds." Read article.
 |
| More recycled trash |
RethinkWaste owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center which receives all of the recyclables, organics, and garbage collected in its service area. RethinkWaste also provides strategic oversight, support and management of service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials for the 12 Member Agencies. RethinkWaste, also known as the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) was formed in 1982."
Related Fix Pacifica reprint article - The Daily Journal, 11/2/12, "Foster City increases Recology franchise fees."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
36 comments:
Kathy,
Thanks for posting this. Altough I've been less than impressed with Ms. Foust's actions in the past, it would seem that she sees the outrageous appetite of Recology and their cohorts at South Bay for rate increases as being worthy of greater scrutiny.
Would that we had ANYONE in power here in Pacifica looking at this more critically. We have the highest commercial rates for garbage collection in the county and maybe second highest for residential- and Atherton gets better greenwaste collection than we do.
These are facts.
Lionel, I just thought it was of interest that Redwood City is asking for SBWMA/RethinkWaste joint powers evaluation. From the outside, the operating expenses do look high.
I don't understand the SBWMA/RethinkWaste (12 Agency) relationship to Recology, other than Recology is the contracted vendor. On a much smaller scale, Recology is the contracted vendor to the City of Pacifica (1 Agency).
As for city trash rates, needless to say there are many variables. Recology or any other trash/recycling/greenwaste company is a business and is run as such. This city has taken a big franchise fee bite, insists on its freebees, has passed collections and debt on to the vendor company. Additionally, there isn't much commercial business here, so that may influence competitive cost. Foster City franchise fees will double to 10% for 2013. And in an article today San Carlos plans to increase their rates 12%.
I'm more unhappy about the upcoming bag charges in local stores.
Lionel, as always, you are incorrect.
Yeah, the bag charges suck.
Kathy,
There is no commercial business to speak of in Montara, El Granada, Moss Beach, et al. That doesn't explain why they pay HALF as much as Pacificans do for solid waste collection. So that argument doesn't wash.
We can dismiss anything Chris says as being in her personal and corporate financial interest. She offers nothing in the way of facts and figures to support her position. In fact, another Recology spokesperson refused to reveal what it cost to collect a 20-gallon can of garbage in Montara to a reporter. Why was that?
Didn't want to get fired?
Lionel, solution to your obvious animosity to Recology, move to one of the towns south of the slide. Voila, problem solved, for a lot of us.
Lionel, no one refused to answer anything. The wrong person was asked and why your friend who wrote the story never called me, who could have given them the answer in a hot second, shows they were not looking to get the answer from the person who could give it to them very easily, so who is working for their own personal interests? I have stated facts and figures for years that you do not believe but for the last time, Montara has no wheeled carts, no food recycling, much less recycling items available to them to be recycled and 5 routes 2 days a week versus 14 routes DAILY in Pacifica. One thing you are right about, Recology awareness is in my financial interest as well as the interest of every person who works there because I am proud to say we are an employee owned company and about 85% of my employees live locally.
Steve Sinai said...
I'm more unhappy about the upcoming bag charges in local stores.
December 7, 2012 1:56 PM
Quit bellyaching Sinai, you are always unhappy when fees go up.
Wrong person, wrong question, wrong time and place. It's all so wrong.
So Chris,
You say that Montara is receiving less service than Pacifica but you STILL can't tell us what they pay for a 20-gallon can of garbage to be collected. Dollars and cents, no bullsh@@.
Your denial of reality is simply amazing, but I'm sure that's what the bosses told you to do, All is forgiven.
I'm still laughing over council's dramatic performance at the last meeting when a couple of them , Nihart and Digre I think, reminicsed about that time they just didn't know who was going to pick up the garbage. Pretty sure it wasn't going to be them. This was their defense for the no bid sweetheart deal they entered into with Recology. Whether the service is good, bad, or indifferent council sold us down the river. Was it worry over who's going to pick up the trash or do you think they wanted to avoid public outrage if Picardo crashed and burned owing the city an $800K debt they'd let him run-up? I prefer Recology to Coastside but that deal reeks.
"...if Picardo crashed and burned owing the city an $800K debt they'd let him run-up..." Anonymous, 12/8, 10:53 PM
As I recall, the city was the primary cause of Coastside debt. Visible players that impacted that debt included Councilmember Vreeland and Attorney Quick. On the last, rather than working with their vendor (Coastside), there were several years of city harassment. (Coastside had been the cooperative city vendor for something like 50 years).
Not contracted, the city started asking for more freebee services, initially temporary which became permanent. The city (Quick) exacerbated resolvable legal action against Picardo with regard to greenwaste dumpling at his ranch. The city passed the expense and debt of non-paying accounts/collection onto Coastside with no recourse. Previously this had been a city function, reimbursed by the county with lean on the property. Vocally Coastside intended to upgrade and modernize trash/recycling/greenwaste services, but was stuck dealing with this kind of non-productive antagonism from what amounted to their more than 14% fees on gross revenue "partner", the city.
Recology made a good transition in contracting with the city, and seems to be providing this city with a quality service, just as Coastside had in the past. Fortunately Chris Porter has continued as General Manager, and most other vested employees have retained their jobs. Life continues.
Your lawsuit served its purpose Lionel, citizen notification and city capping of fees. Commercial rates are high, fully disclosed, part of the total contract overseen by the city.
"As I recall, the city was the primary cause of Coastside debt."
No. Coastside was responsible for its problems. While they were good at picking up garbage on time, it was collecting a franchise fee for the city and keeping it. It also had a less-than-professional billing and accounting system in place, and I remember having to go through several months of billing problems with them.
I blame previous councils for letting things fester and get out of control, to the point where it had to accept a bad deal with Recology to salvage what it could. That $800K that Coastside owed the city was not paid by Recology. It is ultimately being paid by Pacificans through higher collection rates than they otherwise would have.
While I get very tired of the way Lionel demonizes Chris for things she had nothing to do with, I also agree with the view that people are looking the other way regarding Coastside's bad management because it was a company run by friends.
Hi all...As I will say for the last time, Recology PURCHASED Coastside Scavenger from Louie Picardo and Louie paid the past due franchise fees. I do not think Louie was a friend to anyone on City Council (in fact I know that)but there was a completely erroneous charge that greenwaste was taken to the then Picardo Ranch illegally and a I think $600,000 levy was given to Coastside. This was done in between City Managers and after I presented an appropriately dated e-mail from then City Manager Dave Carmany saying strictly greenwaste (no food then) could be taken to the ranch and used as mulch. This saved the rate payers at the time about $25 a ton. Approved 20 gallon can rates (again, no carts and minimal services) is Montara $10.93 and El Granada $14.20. To put this in prospective, read 12/8 2:58pm post.
Mismanagement by our City Council allowed Coastside's debt to grow to nearly a million bucks. Then, the city buried it in the new deal and passed the cost on to the ratepayers. It's what they do, folks. So listening to this council's dramatic but very disingenuous recollections of what drove that deal every time they vote for a rate increase is disgusting. Chris Porter isn't the problem. She has a job to do. It was a smart move by Recology to retain a local GM and the valuable goodwill and institutional memory that came with her---and that is in no way a criticism of Ms. Porter or her ability. But that goodwill or friendship should never cloud the truth. The bills come from Recology but it is our City Council that screwed us and continues to do so. Council's self-serving revisionist history on the subject doesn't alter that fact.
Oh I see, and we're supposed to believe the terms of that sale could not lead to the higher collection rates in Pacifica. Really? Sorry, no sale.
Chris, maybe I'm thinking too hard about this, but I can only assume that since Louis Picardo didn't pay the city its franchise fees, he didn't have the money. When Recology offered to buy Coastside, they added an extra 800K to the sales price so he could pay the city, and Recology is recouping that money through higher fees.
Otherwise, why didn't he pay the 800K until he sold the company?
It was a no bid contract. Tells us everything we need to know about how we got ripped off and who conspired to do it.
Sinai, would that be legal? It probably happened or something similar. Would anyone admit to it even if they knew?
"Sinai, would that be legal?"
I don't know why not.
As for the no-bid contract, I would blame the city for that, not Recology.
Anyone feel the "love" from the $800K ANNUAL City scavenger vendor franchise fee? (Lionel got that upward fee capped through his lawsuit). The city provides vendor oversight, but do they even pay for 1) the community annual rate update notifications, and for 2) the annual review/audit?
Steve, 11:22 AM, sorry you experienced an accounting glitch (which could happen with old or new accounting systems). Lucky me, since 1983, Coastside/Recology accounting in this household has been perfect.
And meantime, my outsider opinion remains the same: 1) City actions caused Coastside default (for the reasons stated at 9:40 AM); 2) the City got the best deal they could with the franchise transition from Coastside to Recology (that's why they made that deal).
I'm sure grateful the city and our dear council is watching out for us
residents. Let's all just nod along and trust that they got the very best deal they could get for us from Recology under the circumstances. Don't worry our silly heads about those circumstances. Just keep forking over the cash.
Sinai, did you get anything but a headache from your hard-thinking? I thought it was a great question.
"Approved 20 gallon can rates (again, no carts and minimal services) is Montara $10.93 and El Granada $14.20."
Thanks Chris, for the info. Composting costs near a 100 percent in Pacifica. No bid contracts cost that too.
Put it out to bid in 2016! You know, I think Recology will suddenly come up with more reasonable rates if that happens.
But, that will depend on city council members who don't make all their decisions in the backroom, as this one was.
Lionel, this council is as backroom as they get. Maybe 2014 elections will clear the air. And we should all be pretty fed-up with the annual rate increases by then.
It seems Recology is doing a great job. But I don't think the method set up by the city for protesting rate increases is fair. To expect rate payers to fork over more than $5000 in postage and then figure out who and where and what to send a protest letter is too much to ask. There should be a postage paid postcard in the bill with a simple yes or no rate increase checkbox.
Hi Steve..Recology did not give an extra $800,000 for the purchase..Louie paid out of his proceeds from the sale which included the building at 2305 Palmetto Avenue.
people are so goddam stupid
Picardo owed the city $800,000.
the city was near broke
Picardo said, I will pay you if Recology can buy my business right away
Recology said, we will cover that if you let us gouge the ratepayers for the next 3 years
and give us a no bid contract.
Recology is not at fault for this contract, it was the dumb broke city council who panicked
Because they WOULD have run out of money that year if they hadn't grabbed that contract.
And it was an election year . . .
@1132 Thank you for putting into simple sentences exactly what happened and why. Nice job of placing the blame where it belongs, as well. Recology's only crime is being shrewd...not difficult when you're dealing with a city run by jackasses. It was our own City Council that screwed the public and they're still doing it. They're a bunch of shape-shifting, sleazy politicians. Protecting their careers always comes first.
I can't play anymore. My friends tell me I'm too sane to post.
Sanity was never the issue.
You'd better believe Louie paid out of his proceeds! One of Pacifica's finest moments. Surprised it wasn't a photo op for some grinning councilmembers.
"Hi Steve..Recology did not give an extra $800,000 for the purchase..Louie paid out of his proceeds from the sale which included the building at 2305 Palmetto Avenue."
Thanks, Chris.
When you post the rate payers assume you are trying to cover up extreme city hall incompetence.
Post a Comment