Loading...
SR-05-13-2014-11ACity Council Meeting: May 13, 2014 Agenda Item: { E — ) To: Mayor and City Council From: Martin Pastucha, Director of Public Works Subject: Public Hearing to Adopt Revised Solid Waste Rates Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing. 2. Receive public comment pursuant to Proposition 218 requirement. 3. Adopt the attached resolution establishing revised solid waste rates. Executive Summary The last significant rate modification solid waste rates was approved by Council in 2006. Since that time annual inflationary increases in the solid waste rates have been outpaced by the rising costs in disposal fees, new organics processing fees, transportation fees, salaries and benefits increases, vehicle purchase price increases, vehicle maintenance and fuel increases, state mandated recycling programs and the City's Zero Waste Strategic Plan. The City retained the services of an outside financial consultant in March 2013 to initiate a review of the current solid waste rates and recommend a schedule of increases over a three year period. The three -year plan was approved by Council on January 14 2014, as follows: Single Family Multi - Family Commercial July 1, 2014 3.85% 1.00% 7.25% July 1, 2015 3.85% 1.00% 7.25% July 1, 2016 3.85% 1.00% 7.25% Projected rate includes CPI adjustment of 2.5% per year. As a result of that approval, staff mailed notices of the proposed rate increases to all property owners in the City in accordance with Proposition 218 requirements. In addition, all solid waste customers, independent of property owners, were also mailed notices. Staff recommends that the Council hear public comment pursuant to Proposition 218 requirements and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) establishing revised solid waste rates. 1 Background On June 20, 2006 Council approved a five year rate adjustment plan providing that customer rates would only be adjusted by the Consumer Price Index, (CPI) or the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) whichever was higher after the initial rate modification. If an extraordinary adjustment was necessary within the five year period, such as unanticipated landfill disposal fee increases, the Resource Recovery & Recycling (RRR) Division used its fund balance to cover the cost of the adjustment. The solid waste rates have not been increased, except by CPI /COLA, since FY 2006 -07. Since that time the City has expanded its waste diversion programs, seen increased costs including; disposal fees, new organics processing fees, transportation fees, salaries and benefits increases, vehicle purchase price increases, maintenance and fuel increases, all requiring RRR to reduce its existing reserves. The State of California enacted AB 939 legislation in 1989 which required that all municipalities divert 50% of waste from the landfill by 2010 and 75% by the year 2020. This sparked the increase in blue cart recycling programs at the municipal and county levels throughout the late 1990's and the early 2000's. This legislation also led to development of additional opportunities for waste diversion including, green carts for yard clippings, and food scraps composting programs to meet the mandatory state diversion requirements, without additional state or federal funding to absorb costs for these new collection programs. In 2012, the State of California enacted AB 341 which mandates that all multi - family buildings with five or more units must implement a recycling program for its tenants, and all commercial entities generating four yards of trash weekly must also implement a recycling program for employees and clients /customers. The expenditures for collections, hauling and processing of these additional materials through this new mandate as well as outreach and marketing are currently being absorbed through a rate structure approved almost a decade ago. Operational issues have also had an impact on the cost of RRR programs. On October 31, 2013 the Puente Hills Landfill, owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, maximized its lifetime capacity for waste disposal and officially 7 closed. This closure resulted in the City seeking out alternatives for disposing of waste at landfills a further distance and at a higher cost due to market demand for landfill space. Landfill disposal and waste to energy fees increase annually between 1.2% and 6.4 %, whereas the revenues received from rate payers for all services increased by CPI /COLA. These adjustments have been as low as 2.0% and as high as 3.7 %, an average of 2.8% each year over the last seven years. The existing fees collected by the City pay for more than just refuse collections and disposal. A variety of waste diversion programs tailored to increase opportunities for residents and businesses are funded by fees. Examples of these programs include, collection and processing of recyclables, food scraps, yard debris and bulky items, as well as equipment, infrastructure, container replacements, support services, alternative technology studies, education, marketing, outreach, public litter collection, household hazardous waste collection, and street sweeping services. Fees also pay for the monthly community events which include paper shredding, compost give away, textile recycling, electronics recycling, costume swap, and other activities offered to all residents. The following chart shows that operational expenditures have been exceeding revenues regularly since FY 2009 -10. Operational expenditures for salaries and wages, supplies and expenses, and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are listed as columns with the revenues graphed to demonstrate the comparison for past and future projections. 3 Expenditure to Revenue Comparison 30,000,000 25,000,000 Actual Actual Actual Actual CIP 20,000,000 FY 2009 -10 Supplies /Expenses 15,000,000 Salaries /Benefits FY 2014 -15 FY 2015 -16 Revenue 10,000,000 5,000,000 FY07 /08 FY08 /09 FY09 /10 FY10 /11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15 /16 FY16/17 City staff has monitored expenditures and implemented cost saving measures in daily operations for all line items that are not affected by outside increases such as landfill disposal costs. In spite of these efforts, the cost of Resource Recovery & Recycling operations continues to exceed the revenue received. There will be a projected fund deficit by FY 2016 -17 if a structural adjustment to rates is not implemented. Unrestricted cash reserves have been used to offset the past increased costs for services. Table 1 shows the reserve levels since FY 2009 -10 through to the projected deficit in FY 2016 -17. Table 1 Changes in the Cash Reserve Fund CASH RESERVES El Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget FY 2009 -10 FY 2010 -11 FY 2011 -12 FY 2012 -13 FY 2013 -14 FY 2014 -15 FY 2015 -16 FY 2016 -17 BEGINNING CASH BALANCE 4,062,138 3,773,868 3,882,791 2,211,677 3,593,135 1,286,161 982,434 566,562 ENDING CASH BALANCE 33 773,_868 33 883,_791 2,211,67 _7 3.593,135 128?_161 982,434 56._562 27S,727) Decrease /(Increase) in Cash Reserve 288,270 108,923) 1,671,114 1,381,458) 2,306,974 303,727 415,872 842,289 El The decreases in the reserve fund are the result of several unscheduled events during past budget years and projections for the next three fiscal years. The reserve decrease in FY 2009 -10 was a result of one time funding needed for the design of the Resource Recovery Facility. Funds were spent in FY 2011 -12 for the initial start -up of the bulky item collection crew and the purchase of several additional vehicles to perform collection services including the new organics collection program. In FY 2012 -13, operational procedures were implemented to achieve ongoing staffing and equipment savings and a one -time savings in construction and demolition planning programs. Beginning in FY 2013 -14, the decrease in the reserve is a projection because the actual bottom line savings will not be known until the close of the Fiscal Year. All future fiscal year projections are based upon an estimated CPI of 2.5 %. Discussion On November 22, 2011 Council approved a contract with HDR Engineering and HF &H Consultants to assist with the development of a Zero Waste Strategic Plan (Plan). HF &H Consultants conducted the financial analysis on the Plan and the anticipated impact on rates for the proposed programs listed in the Plan. As a result of the analysis on the proposed programs and rates, HF &H was retained by the City in March 2013 to perform a more in depth rate study including an evaluation of the current rate structure. The HF &H report indicated that the study evaluated projected revenues, expenditures and the fund balance for a five -year period, assuming continuation of the existing services and the existing rate structure. The rate study included an analysis of the alignment of current rate revenue with the cost of service for single family, multi - family and commercial customers; these are referenced in the report as service sectors. The objectives of the solid waste rate study are to: Evaluate the adequacy of existing rates to reasonably fund current services and maintain target reserves. Compare existing rate revenues by service sector (residential, multi - family and commercial) to the cost of service. 0 Operational costs for waste collection services are increasing annually. Unrestricted cash reserves are being used to continue to perform on -going services. The reserve fund is established as just that, reserve. The reserve fund should be used on a limited basis as a result of loss due to a catastrophic event or unscheduled events including unanticipated increases in landfill disposal fees, organics waste processing fees, or a substantial decrease in revenue. The rate study determined that a 5% reserve of the total revenue generated for the enterprise fund is sufficient. Additional waste management services to enhance diversion programs could not be implemented if rates are increased by only the CPI /COLA. Without an additional rate increase, the reserve fund will be expended by FY 2016 -17 and the General Fund will become the lending agency to fund the ongoing waste management. Based on the data that RRR staff provided, the consultant developed scenarios based on rate adjustment recommendations for a three -year period beginning July 1, 2014: Sector Service Rates and a 5% Unrestricted Cash Balance The goal of the proposed rate adjustment is to maintain an unrestricted cash balance of 5% of total expenditures in FY 2016 -17 and to align rate revenues with the cost of service among customer sectors (residential, multi - family and commercial). Each sector was analyzed to determine actual operating expenditures for services performed, rates required to perform these services, and rates required to increase the reserve fund. This scenario provides for a 5% unrestricted cash balance by FY 2016 -17, and aligns rate revenues with the cost of service in each sector by the end of FY 2016 -17 (see Table 2). hu Table 2 Sector Service Rates Maintaining 5% Reserve Tables 3 through 5 illustrate the customer rate impacts of each scenario over the projection period. Service levels used in the projections are the most commonly used service rates based on the data provided for FY 2011 -12. In addition to the CPI /COLA, proposed single family rates increase slightly, proposed multi - family rates decrease and proposed commercial rates increase as well. All of these sector rates include waste, recycling and food waste collection services, bulky item and household hazardous waste collection programs, street sweeping services, public litter /recycling collection services, education and outreach materials, and monthly reuse and recycling events. Table 3 Single Family Rate Impact (One 95- gallon refuse cart) Actual 201243 Projected 2013 -14 Projected 201415 Projected 2015 -16 Projected 2016 -17 CUSTOMER RATE ADJUSTMENT ASSUMPTIONS Projected 2014-15 Projected 2015 -16 Projected 2016.17 Di-Monthly Monthly Single Famil 3.00 2.40 3.85° 3.85% 3.85 Multi-Family 3.003 2.40 1.005 1.00 1.00 Commercial 3.000 2.40 7755 7.25% 715° CPI /COLA 2.50° 88.34 44.17 45.27 1.10 NET REVENUE /(EXPENSE) ASA% OF SECTOR REVENUE 1,14 47.57 1.16 Scenario 1; includes 3.85 Single Family 3 10% 4% 3% 2.9% Multi- family 19% 13% 15% 15% 12% Commercial 28% 34% 25% 20% 17% 1.35 %) CASH BALANCE ear -End UnrestriRed Cash 3,108,800 1,680,286 1,450,573 1,409,334 1,281,491 Ending Unrestrictetl Cash Balance AsA %of Total Expenditures 13% 7% 6% 5% 5% Tables 3 through 5 illustrate the customer rate impacts of each scenario over the projection period. Service levels used in the projections are the most commonly used service rates based on the data provided for FY 2011 -12. In addition to the CPI /COLA, proposed single family rates increase slightly, proposed multi - family rates decrease and proposed commercial rates increase as well. All of these sector rates include waste, recycling and food waste collection services, bulky item and household hazardous waste collection programs, street sweeping services, public litter /recycling collection services, education and outreach materials, and monthly reuse and recycling events. Table 3 Single Family Rate Impact (One 95- gallon refuse cart) 7 Adjusted Monthly Rate Percentage Current 201314 Rates Projected 2014-15 Projected 2015 -16 Projected 2016.17 Di-Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly MonthlySingleFamilyIncrease July 1, 2014) Rate Rate Rate Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase CPI /COLA 2.50° 88.34 44.17 45.27 1.10 46.41 1,14 47.57 1.16 Scenario 1; includes 3.85 88.34 44.17 45.87 1,70 47.64 1.77 49.47 1.83 2.5 %CPI /COLA, plus 1.35 %) 7 Table 4 Multi - Family Rate Impact (2 cubic vard bin collected twice per week) Table 5 Commercial Rate Impact (2 cubic yard bin collected twice per week) Commercial 1.00% Adjusted Monthly Rate 1.00% Percentage Current 2013 -14 Rates Projected 2014 -15 Projected 201516 Projected 201617 Bi- Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly MonthlyMulti - Family Increase July 1, 2014) Increase Increase Rate Increase Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate CPI /COLA 2.50° 324.93 162.47 166.53 4.06 170.69 4.16 125.85 3.07 Scenario 1 1.00° 324.93 162.47 164.09 1.62 165.73 T. 1.64 144.16 9.74 Table 5 Commercial Rate Impact (2 cubic yard bin collected twice per week) The three -year rate plan by sector is as follows: July 1, 2014 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2016 Single Family 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% Multi - Family Commercial 1.00% Adjusted Monthly Rate 1.00% Percentage Current 2013 -14 Rates Projected 201415 Projected 201516 Projected 201617 BI-Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly MonthlyCommercialIncrease July 3, 2014) increase Increase Rate Increase Rate Rate Rate Rate CPI /COLA 2.50° 233.72 116.86 119.78 2.92 122,78 3.00 125.85 3.07 Scenario 1: includes 7.25° 233.72 116.86 125.33 8.47 134.42 9.09 144.16 9.74 2,5% CPI /COLA, plus 4.75 %) The three -year rate plan by sector is as follows: July 1, 2014 July 1, 2015 July 1, 2016 Single Family 3.85% 3.85% 3.85% Multi - Family Commercial 1.00% 7.25% 1.00% 7.25% 1.00% 7.25% Solid Waste Rate Comparison with Neighboring Communities Tables 6 and 7 summarize monthly solid waste rates under the City of Santa Monica's proposed solid waste rates for all scenarios and the current solid waste rates of several neighboring communities. The proposed monthly rate compares favorably with the other communities surveyed. I Table 6 FY 2013 -14 - Current Rates city Single Family 95 al) Multi- amil (2 yd) Commercial (2yd Beverly Hills 0104 per square foot lot size 18.31 per unit 105.40 Burbank 49.13 138.09 247.91 Culver City 41.86 64 gallon container 186.13 for >4 units 186.13 Los Angeles 36.32 24.33 per unit NA Pasadena 40.99 50.44/96 allon 157.34 Santa Monica 44.17 162.47 116.86 Table 7 Sector Service Rate with a 5% Unrestricted Cash Balance City Sin ie Family (95 al) Multi- Farn 2 d) Commercial 2 d) Beverly Hills 0104 per square foot lot size 18.31 per unit 105.40 Burbank 49.13 138.09 247.91 Culver City 41.86 64 gallon container 186.13 for >4 units 186.13 Los Angeles 36.32 24.33 per unit NA Pasadena 40.99 50.44/96 allon 157.34 Santa Monica 45.87 164.09 125.33 Rate Adjustment Alternatives As stated previously, there will be a fund deficit by FY 2016 -17 if existing rates remain with only an annual CPI /COLA increase. If a rate adjustment is not implemented, staff would continue to analyze existing operations to streamline programs to seek additional savings. Streamlining existing services may include a reduction in the daily bulky item illegal dumping) collection program, elimination of the commercial food waste collection program, and implementing monthly, rather than weekly residential street sweeping services. Council may also determine that the proposed 5% cash reserve be decreased which would lessen the proposed rate adjustment. Lowering the proposed 5% cash reserve would not ensure available funds for extraordinary events such as unanticipated landfill disposal fees, additional state and federal recycling mandates, or increased organics processing fees. We Public Notice Requirements Proposition 218 requirements mandate that a public notice of proposed change to rates be made to all property owners in the affected area. Notices of the proposed increases were mailed out to a total of 29,800 property owners and refuse customers on March 14, 2014. The protest period will close at the public hearing on May 13, 2014. Absent a majority protest from property owners, Council may approve the final adoption of the rates at the May 13 Council meeting. Rates would become effective July 1, 2014. Copies of protests submitted to date are included in Attachment B. A summary of all protests received to the closing date will be presented at the May 13 Council meeting. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The proposed rate change in the solid waste fees would increase annual revenues by 295,200 at account 27441.401500 in FY 2014 -15. Adopting the resolution requires increasing this revenue budget by $295,200 for the FY 2014 -15 proposed budget. Prepared by: Kim Braun, Resource Recovery and Recycling Manager Approved: Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager Attachments: A - Resolution Revising Solid Waste Rates and Fees including Exhibit 1 B - Protest Letters 10 ATTACHMENT B PROTEST LETTERS I EC ive.l; 3/17/2014 QCI'fYECLERK Attn: Public Hearing On Solid Waste Rate Increases 201h "AR 24 PH SAPdi A t10tdICA, CALT 1685 Main Street Room 201 Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 Protest of 'Record Owner" of 516 19`h Street S.M. Ca. 90402 to any Rate Increase for solid waste. Please read this protest into the record. Do not Raise Rates! In the next two weeks I will be sending out my property tax bill due before 4/10/14 and am paying for things I never use such as Santa Monica College, The City should have the local property taxpayer get some service or benefit from the college as long as I am being charged for it and paying for something I am not using. The same goes for the Santa Monica beach tax on my property tax bill. I should pay for the beach only when I use the beach. Why doesn't the city put up voluntary pay boxes at the beach for the people who use the beach and leave the local taxpayer who does not even use the beach alone. The city gets enough money and should manage Its expenses and payroll better by bidding out the services or contract out the service to someone who can provide the service at a lower rate for the taxpayer. For that matter why not lease out city hall and get revenue for the taxpayers of Santa Monica, It is prime beach location. You can get space for city hall in east Santa Monica at lower rates while you are making fabulous rents on the City Hall on Main street. Since the city seems to love adding parks without regard to the costs, all the city parks should have concessions that make the taxpayers money and the parks should pay for themselves instead of coning the taxpayer's money. Maybe the city should charge the people who use the parks a fee to sustain the parks they are using so the poor taxpayer and his hard earned money got left alone. I tend to believe that if the money Is coming directly out of your pocket you tend to think about it much more than when the money is coming out of someone else's pocket. I am sure my elected officials can brainstorm and come up with answers that do not involve raising fees and taxes on the easy target us taxpayers. Happy Saint Patrick's Record Owner 516 19' Santa Monica, Ca. 90402 kkC Nk -4/k' 1t C)\/kC) \0 FICE OF THE CITY CtERK X3/17/2014 7014MAR24 PH It46 Attn: Public Hearing On Solid Waste Rate Increases - SANTA MONICA. CALIF. 1685 Main Street Room 201 Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 Protest of 'Record Owner" of 504 24v' Street S.M. Ca. 90402 to any Rate Increase for solid waste. Please read this protest into the record. Do not Raise Ratesi In the next two weeks I will be sending out my property tax bill due before 4/10/14 and am paying for things I never use such as Santa Monica College, The City should have the local property taxpayer get some service or benefit from the college as long as I am being charged for it and paying for something I am not using, The same goes for the Santa Monica beach tax on my property tax bill. I should pay for the beach only when I use the beach. Why doesn't the city put up voluntary pay boxes at the beach for the people who use the beach and leave the local taxpayer who does not even use the beach alone. The city gets enough money and should manage its expenses and payroll better by bidding out the services or contract out the service to someone who can provide the service at a lower rate for the taxpayer. For that matter why not lease out city hall and get revenue for the taxpayers of Santa Monica. It is prime beach location. You can get space for city hall in east Santa Monica at lower rates while you are making fabulous rents on the City Hall on Main street. Since the city seems to love adding parks without regard to the costs, all the city parks should have concessions that make the taxpayers money and the parks should pay for themselves instead of costing the taxpayer's money. Maybe the city should charge the people who use the parks a fee to sustain the parks they are using so the poor taxpayer and his hard earned money get left alone. I tend to believe that if the money is coming directly out of your pocket you tend to think about it much more than when the money is coming out of someone else's pocket, I am sure my elected officials can brainstorm and come up with answers that do not involve raising fees and taxes on the easy target us taxpayers. Happy Saint Patrick's Vst in P (testing Record Owner 504 24'h Stree Santa Monica, Ca. 90402 PRINCESS EUGENIA APARTMENTS 1012 Third Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 310 -394 -8248 310- 266 -9675 March 26, 2014 City Clerk 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increases Re: APN #4292022041 To the Santa Monica City Council: v t Vy 1 Although costs continue to rise throughout our City, the burden of those costs is always passed on to property owners. Yet a vast, and growing part of our city is comprised of renters who are the real consumers of those services. Given the strict guidelines of Santa Monica Rent Control all increases in water costs, maintenance costs and now increased sewer costs are passed on to property owners alone, not the actual utility users. If the City of Santa Monica needs to raise revenue, it would be more equitable to raise it on the people who utilize the service. If you are going to pass it on to property owners, then the City should allow the property owners to pass it on to the tenants. When the Rent Control Board allows only a 1 -2% Increase in rent every year and increased costs passed on by the City due to the drought, etc. are much higher, the problem grows worse. Please reconsider the way the City collects and who should be held responsible. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Michele Nasatir Princess Eugenia Apartments rn fR v t Vy 1 Although costs continue to rise throughout our City, the burden of those costs is always passed on to property owners. Yet a vast, and growing part of our city is comprised of renters who are the real consumers of those services. Given the strict guidelines of Santa Monica Rent Control all increases in water costs, maintenance costs and now increased sewer costs are passed on to property owners alone, not the actual utility users. If the City of Santa Monica needs to raise revenue, it would be more equitable to raise it on the people who utilize the service. If you are going to pass it on to property owners, then the City should allow the property owners to pass it on to the tenants. When the Rent Control Board allows only a 1 -2% Increase in rent every year and increased costs passed on by the City due to the drought, etc. are much higher, the problem grows worse. Please reconsider the way the City collects and who should be held responsible. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Michele Nasatir Princess Eugenia Apartments WILLIAM ALSERICO 420 9TH STREET SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 APN# 4200012011 March 24, 2014 TO: CITY CLERK 1605 MAIN STREET ROOM 102 SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 I am a 75 year old retiree living on a "fixed income" and am opposed to the rate increase and the annual CPI. With the high cost of groceries, utilities and of course the exorbitant amount of property taxes, any increase would be an additional hard ship on me. PLEASE 00 NOT INCREASE THE SOLID WASTE RATE. WILLIAM ALBERICO tn x"' sso' 0 Po m Cj C7 rn l C Cy v c cis_ ed •fib i vt ct c S V re 1 1 Q flFICE 4F THE CITY CLERK 2914 MAR:31 AN 11:49 yln6ANT.A O;& A. ti r 1v1v1v W)Ucvk ovt k ibe, 1 ©n v, it cm a (ass 0) co `ivel/rs4vtc lle Gin 0000 - y need, q V cct((© vl tk cm iaffle( X33 1.4 r S R©vi Ilia, C64. paviC l zwq 030 - m, City Clerk Attn: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increases 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 RECEIVED OFFICE 01' THE CITY CLERK 2014 MAR 26 PH 4, 20 SANTA MONICA, CAt;'iT. Please consider this as a formal, written protest to the proposed.soild.waste rate increase. I formally protest that the rate increase for single family homes Is 385% higher than that of molti- family complexes 3.85% increase versus 1.00% Increase, respectively). Obviously mufti - family complexes produce much higher volumes of solid waste then produced by a single family home. This is unfairly targeting home owners and favoring renters. In addition I protest that the exact same sized container has a proposed single family home rate that is 27% higher than for a multi- family complex. The rate for one 95 gallon container ix /weekly for a single family home is proposed to be $45.87 beginning July 1, 2014,; whereas the exact same container for a multi- family complex will only be $35.98, This just does not make since and is unfair to home owners. James Estes 233 Alta Ave Santa Monica, CA 90402 310-319 -9990 I`,Q _,-042 '-13C)02(D2 March 20, 2014 City Clerk 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Attn: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Increases To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to protest the proposed solid waste increases. They will put undue financial stress on our already high monthly expenses. We are already paying a lot for water and waste, please do not allow these increases to go through. Thank youl Sincerely, Paul Withers N -/12s,1G0 GG(, REVIVED OFFICE of THE Elizabeth Koers CI7y CLERK 2625 ? " Street aapF AR 31 A" t 1:51 Santa Monica, CA 9t>FOSAKTA HONICA. CAL-*" March 28, 2014 Members of the City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Public hearing on solid waste service fees Dear Members of the City Council: I am writing to protest the proposed solid waste service fees for two reasons: 1. It seems to me that the rates should be based strictly on the amount (and maybe type) of waste generated, not on the type of customer. In the case of residential customers, I can imagine a single - family residence that houses two people, and a duplex (multi - family) that also houses two people. Why should they pay different amounts for the same container? Are you encouraging increased waste by making it cheaper for some customers? 2. The smallest trash container currently provided by the City (68 gallons) is much too large. A smaller container exists and is used by Los Angeles. The smaller container was available here when Santa Monica first rolled out its automated program, and I still see them on the street in one Ocean Park neighborhood, but for some reason Santa Monica no longer provides this smaller size. This is a problem for me because at the time my house was built the appropriate space was provided for trash containers then in use, which were smaller. I now have to house one container in the garage behind the car. Please make containers smaller than 68 gallons available again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to comment and thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Elizabeth P. Koers 114.)\1 z4 2 -7 C) f U)0 t Danuta Oppenheim, PhD 3039 Linda lane, Santa Monica, CA 90405 c/o 310 -450 -5713 City Clerk, City of Santa Monica March 17, 2014 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Sir, I wish to protest In strongest terms against the proposed fee raises for solid waste. I base my protest on three following reasons: 1) 1 am 91 year old living on Social Security and a very small pension. I cannot afford the raises. The proposed rates are discriminatory against old -time residents. I and my family have been residents in our house since 1973. We are not rich millionaires who buy present homes for millions of dollars. Yet, the rates for single homes appear to gauge the wealthy new residents. You must not do that; that is immoral. 2) 1 am retired old woman and wish to continue living in my beloved house in my beloved Santa Monica until I die. I do not wish to have my life destroyed by excessive city fee increases. 3) The inflation rate is dramatically smaller than the rate proposed I am unable to attend the meeting in person, so please Pe so kind to read this letter and attach it to the decision records. Sincerely 01 ate, Of Danuta Oppenheim 8 0 2, Dom' 40 m Ci ro rn M n 4? m m x cnCO ea OFFICE- FrwE Bohdan W,Oppenheim,PhD CITY CLERK 1733 Ashland Ave, Santa Monica, CA 90405; 014 1HAR 19 PH 3, S q310 - 450 -5713 1 MONICA, CAVV, City Clerk, City of Santa Monica ' `march 17, 2014 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Sir, s I wish to protest in strongest terms against the proposed fee raises for solid waste. I base my protest on three following reasons: 1) The inflation rate Is dramatically smaller than the rate proposed 2) 1 am about to retire, and I have been building my retirement in my beloved house in my beloved Santa Monica for 35 years. I do not wish to have that destroyed by excessive city fee increases. 3) The proposed rates are discriminatory against old -time residents. I and my family have been residents in our house since 1985. We are not rich millionaires who buy present homes for millions of dollars, Yet, the rates for single homes appear to gauge the wealthy new residents. You must not do that; that is immoral. I am unable to attend the meeting in person, so please be so kind to read this letter and attach it to the decision records. s. Sincerely i l HARVEY SCOTT SCHWART7 Attorney at Law DpfIGE RECEIVEDIVD 837 PEARL STREET' OFFICE GIF.FZIS SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 -2513 310) 393 -6688 2014 APR - I PH 44 01 fax SANTA HONIGA10A,, 3 G8fl March 29, 2014 Santa Monica City Clerk 1625 Main Street Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attention: public hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increases re! 837 Pearl Street 2220 -2226 1Or' Street Dear Sir or Madam; This letter will serve as a formal protest of any increase in Solid Waste Rates for the above referenced multi. - family residences of which I am a 5H or more owner. HSS1se encl.o Dacumentl Very truly yours, 4-11P— HARVEY SCOTT SCHWA Attorney at Law 4 2' L c r ()1:3 iECEIWED OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK anta onica, Ca. 90403 Attn: Public Hearing On Solid Waste Rate Increases City Cleric 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA, California, 90401 Attention City Clerk: I'm both owner and tenant of my Multi- Family (4 unit) Complex and would like to report as against the "Solid Waste" increases requested. starting July 18t. My " 4 unit Complex" provides me with less than a fixed income considering maintenance and repair expenses endured since its ownership in 1983, Your request for the increase in my "Service Fees" , (implied as nominal), is not functionally acceptable considering my expenses described. It is also noted that the 1% + CPP' increase requested does not remain fixed within the "3 year period -plus" stated, Respectfully, I would look forward to comparison of your Recycling outputs to those in other organizations that obtain more successful results on their Recycled income. Your comments would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely Albert Bernstein Brenda F. Anderson 475 20 Street Santa Monica, CA 90402 March 28, 2014 City of Santa Monica City Cleric 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 AT-ft Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increases I formally PROTEST the proposed rate Increase for solid waste refuse service fees. Our rates are high enough. The City needs to find a way to spend less money on unnecessary projects and services. We already have among the highest paid municipal employees in the State of California, which results in ever higher pension and benefit costs for the City. The City needs to bring our employee salaries more In line with other cities and comparable workers In prOte industry. The City needs also to spend less money on planting median strips with flowers necessitating irrigation with our precious water. City residents already pay plenty of taxes for our services and should not be burdened with higher collection fees. Brenda Anderson OM C IT MM APR -7 AH B!? 44 UN A - t 4' i. RF CEiU t OFF CgOF Tq Letter of Protest Regarding Pf4o3 1. 4 SOLID WASTE (REFUSE) SERV A,LN. INCRESE April 1, 2014 From: Rafail Ostrovsky and Julia Blank, and Rafail Ostrovsky and Julia Blank Family Trust 927 2511 Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403 To: City Clerk 1685 Main Street, Room 102, Santa Monica, CA, 90401 Attn: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increases Via Mail Dear City of Santa Monica, City Clerk, and the Committee: We strongly object to the proposed rate increases. We have three small children and elderly parents who will be residing during the proposed rate increases at our address. Our budget Is therefore already at a breaking point. These increases will make life in Santa Monica considerably harder for us, and we will need to deny some basic necessities to our multiple dependents. Given that we are already paying enormous taxes to the City of Santa Monica, this is simply not reasonable. We strongly urge you to NOT increase the rates. Sincerely, / i, / ,y Rafail Ostrovsky and Julia Blank J (RECORD OWNER of 927 25t1 Street, Santa Monica, 90403) J N3 Z 2 -, -I u1 -7o( 11 Susan Gary RECEIVED 507 9"' Street OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERKttaMonica, CA 90402 telephone 310/395- 666LoS Q ASR ®7 susanQaryIa@yao com March 27, 2014 Santa Monica City Clerk 1685 Main Street, Room 103 Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Proposed Solid Waste Rate Increase APN 4280 020 023 Dear Sir or Madam: AM 11: 44 SANTA MONICA, C"IF. As a homeowner with a limited, fixed income, I am firmly opposed to the increases proposed for the solid waste service fees. The percentage increases as outlined in your notice seem out of tou6h with the reality of those families who have no prospect of increased future income. As someone who recycles and composts on a daily basis, I have no need of the garbage bin provided, but must pay for it anyway. The current rates already strain my budget. If they are increased as proposed, it will be even more difficult to pay my water /refuse bill. I strongly. request the City Council not approve the increases as proposed, Sincerely, a h 4 z.,e a«'2 .C)C-) z3 ROBERT & CLAIRE HERON RECEIVED10941SproulAvenueOFFICEOFTHE Los Angeles, California 90064 -4060 CITY CLERK 310) 474 -0501 2014 APR - 7 PM 5= 22 March 19, 2014 SANTA MONICA, CdAUF. City Clerk City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 1.02 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increase We are hereby submitting our written Protest against the proposed Solid Waste (Refuse) Service Fees being considered by the City of Santa Monica._ We own the following parcels of real estate in the City of Santa Monica in our own names, as Trustees of the Heron Family Trust or as partners with some of our children: APN #427- 0012 -046 APN #427- 3010 -001 APN 9427- 3010 -003 APN 4427 - 3010 -013 APN #427- 3011 -001 APN #427 -3011 -003 APN 37427- 0020 -021 APN #428- 7038 -029 APN 11427 -0016 -083 APN # 427 -0012 -047 APN 4427 - 3010.002 APN #427- 3010 -012 APN #427-3010.014 APN #427 -3011 -002 APN 11427 -3011 -021 APN #428 - 1014 -012 APN 4426 -7028 -001 Some of these tax bills are sent to as at the above address and some are sent to us at 3101 Occan Park Blvd, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA 90405. The fees charged for these services are already too high and the City must learn to budget wisely so the -fees being collected are used in an efficient matmer -to do the work and provide the services required. And of course a 2.5 % CPI factor is absurd. Why don't you use that CPI number when you determine the amount of the rent raise landlords are rl CR.EIGH E. HERON & `I'AiV MARA 3101 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 300 OFF(CEOFTHESantaMonica, California go4o5 Cf7Y OLERX 310) 450 -5056 YUt+r APR t i Pik g: 47 SANTA MONICA, CA4 jr, March 29, 2014 City Clerk City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate Increase We are hereby submitting our written Protest against the proposed Solid Waste (Refuse) Service Fees being considered by the City of Santa Monica, We own the following parcels of real estate in the City of Santa Monica: APN 426 -7025- 001,428- 4003 -007 The fees charged for these services are already coo high and the City must learn to budget wisely so the fees being collected are used in an efficient manner to do the work and provide the services required, And of course a 2.5% CPI factor is absurd, Why don't you use that CPI number: when you determine the amount of the rent raise landlords are permitted? Sit cerely, RI rH E. IJ RON t§< » « I i %!\9«n Y.f+tni+2 R +n¥m OFFICE 7T« CITY 4twEki<y. 175.9 £ \ a10 m p G Santa e«ƒ a Y2W m<% t THE PROPERTY AT Zav? <f St. Santa Monica. 1 9 « m! t 4f+:.Y :£ a «;«, e!v<t 9rb<x + & », b G '.»$!4 Mathew L Millen 4 J iG « % li&<9 «n x.f +vni +2 x m 3 2t % x<w9$4+i RECEIVED H@ yTR Mathew pA ±ae# 17.5,3gj$ mpm Santa Mon 90404 SANTA MONICA, C# OWN THE PROPERTY 4! :739!6 St. Santa Monica. . protest the t»f +vlf solid waste @!: set for hearing max"_ 4 oj « Mathew L 11 G > % «6(022 City Clerkr3i, 5 Maina3F l YI . Room 0 v. Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attn: Public Hearing on Solid Waste Rate increases o RICE OFT° E MathewL..Mlllen CITY CLERK 175916 "St. AINKOR 10 'PN 4.00SantaMonicaCA90404 ANTAI MONICA, CAM, I OWN THE tai R #, F 7, i AT 3007-3009 :. St. Santaa Monica. r protest the proposed so, la t`s;Rs= {e fees "I for hearing on May 13% I; * i?i ',It' e °•.,! -' ilt }I f U t:sii.,t' . -. ;r ; i ° ' -a' F.1 _: >: h P. a r t City Clerk 1685 Main St, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Atin: Public Rearing on Solid Waste Rate increases RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE Mathew L. Mil n T Y CLERK 1759161° 8140, R PH fit 10 Santa Mo is p Ap4 lTgkf1 %hfCA. 0 JF' 4 OWN THE PROPERTYRIY Ai 2010-2012 € gin;a} Ave. t1. nie6 Monica. i protest # e proposed solid its j. fees for hearing i j j i1S fiF t I 3 1` L $i j!- i,1 +. z,. k. S i !'. i ' .. i ' i i Mathew L. Mille Reference: Resolution No. 10806 CCS)