Item 21b Staff Report Public Hearing to Consider Solid Waste Management Issues: b) Adopt Solid Waste Management RatesTOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: January 12, 1996
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGER
COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 1-17-95
ITEM NO. ('
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive public testimony.
2. Close the public hearing.
3. Adopt the attached resolution modifying rates for solid waste management services which
incorporates the following structure components:
a basic fee of $15.75 is charged for the first can; each additional can is priced 10 percent
more;
a senior rate is charged for households eligible for and receiving SSI. The rate Is about two-
thirds the base rate;
• sideyard, backyard, and hard -to -serve surcharges are at a cost recovery rate;
• residential recycling and yard waste collection costs are included in the refuse rates
(spreading the cost over the total number of cans collected in the Town);
• commercial and drop-off box (dab) rates are increased 24.1 percent.
4. Refer this item to the Town Attorney to prepare findings for consideration on February 6, 1995.
BACKGROUND:
Public hearings were held on November 21, December 5, 1994, and January 3, 1995, to receive testimony on
the Town's Solid Waste Management Program. The related reports address Green Valley Disposal Company's
(GVDC) Performance Audit, GVDC's rate base (or budget), and rate structure factors. The Town has sent
approximately 500 fact sheets to Los Gatos residents and business owners. All callers have been entered into
a data base and have received Council reports regarding Solid Waste Management rates.
The remaining rate setting issues are:
how to give a cost break to residents whose need is Tess than one 32 gallon can; and,
how to prevent residents from having to pay for yard waste collection twice (a gardener and
residential rates).
This report responds specifically to rate -related issues raised at the January 3 hearing. The following outlines
the report:
PREPARED BY: Regina A. F
Community .` •• =s Director
RAF:dr
CSD19:A:\CNCLRPTS\REFRATE.GVD
Attachments: See page 5 for list of attachments
Distribution: See page 6 for distribution list
Reviewed by:
Attomey Clerk Finance
Revised: 1/12/95 3:55 pm
surer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBUC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
DATE: January 12, 1995
Overview
II. Residential
A. Yard Waste: Reduced Townhouse/Condominium Rates
B. Mini -Cans
C. Home Composting
D. Reduced Refuse, Recycling and Yard Waste Collection Frequency
II. Commercial and Drop-off Boxes
DISCUSSION:
Revenues to pay for all solid waste management services, including recycling, are collected through refuse
bills. This report identifies the costs allocated to each customer sector (residential, commercial, drop-off box)
and describes the basis for recommended rates.
Overview
Residential, commercial, and drop-off box cost elements are summarized in Attachment 2. Increases
for all three sectors are phased -in; the first Increase of 25.7 percent is scheduled for February 1 and
10.2 percent Is scheduled for July 1, 1996. The actual rate increase in 1996 will depend on the success
of the recycling program and its effect on refuse collection and disposal costs.
II. Residential
The base residential rate is recommended at $15.75 per can per month; this includes unlimited
recycling and yard waste collection and is the same as the Campbell's adopted rate. To charge the
same basic rate, Los Gatos and Campbell will raise revenues to accommodate the $15.75 base rate.
Revenues and rates will be re-evaluated prior to the next increase July, 1996, with the objective of
having the same residential base rate.
Attachment 3 is a residential rate survey comparing Los Gatos rates to those of similar communities.
The average rate for similar basic services (one can of refuse, recycling, and yard waste) is $20.27.
The basic rate incorporates the following elements as proposed by Council and the community:
each can In excess of the first is priced 10 percent more;
a senior rate is charged for households eligible for and receiving SSI. The rate is about two-
thirds the base rate;
side yard, backyard, and hard -to -serve surcharges are at a cost recovery rate; and,
recycling and other SWM services are included in the basic rate.
GVDC Staff has been asked to respond to suggestions to reduce rates for those who compost or have
Tess than one can of garbage. Its response to mini -cans, home composting subsidies, reduced refuse
pick-up frequency, and reduced rates for townhouse and condominium residents is attached.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBUC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
DATE: January 12, 1995
A. Yard Waste: Reduced Townhouse/Condominium Rates
In distributing costs for slid waste collection and disposal, universal service is recommended.
Program costs should be charged to all customers because all customers benefit:
participation delays increased disposal costs resulting from transporting refuse to a
more distant landfill;
encourages a maximum participation to meet AB 939 diversion requirements.
To prevent townhouse residents from paying for yard waste services twice (once through their
residential rates and again through association fees), GVDC recommends providing a locking
bin to each townhouse/condominium association for yard waste. GVDC will collect limited
yard clippings as needed, free of additional charge. This will result in savings to at least two
associations where gardeners leave the clippings and the association pays DOB rates. GVDC
proposes limiting DOB boxes to equal one cubic yard per twenty households per week.
GVDC also recommends that it execute an agreement with each association making the latter
responsible for paying for disposal ci any bins that are contaminated with materials other than
yard waste.
The RRC considered the effect that elective service would have on rates for those who do
participate. The cost for the yard waste is less per can when there are more cans over which
to distribute the cost. Inversely, the cost per can is higher if fewer people subscribe. Staff has
estimated the impact of eliminating yard waste requirements from townhouses. Eliminating
townhouse and condominium residential customers is estimated to remove at least 1,300
cans over which costs can be spread. Assuming the same migration in cans from 15,340 to
10,300 the resulting increase in yard waste costs is from 4.28 to 4.84 per can. The monthly
rate for a single can would be $16.31 (9.40 + 4.84 + 2.07). The savings to townhouse
residents would be $4.84/month.
Al of the Santa Clara County Cities currently providing both extensive curbside recycling and
yard waste services assign the costs of those services to all residential generators in their
communities. This includes Campbell, Monte Sereno, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Los
Altos, and Saratoga.
On January 11, we received a proposal from Allan Young regarding expanding the recycling
center colection activities. His proposal does not impact the curbside recycling or yardwaste
collection program's costs nor related rates. It is not dear if Mr. Young's proposal includes
all the costs kwdved in operating the program. Greatly expanding services provided at the
recycling center could be contested by area residents. Staff has not received a return
telephone call from Lexington Haulers to confirm its proposed services. His proposal is
included with other correspondence received (Attachment 5).
B. Mini -Cans
GVDC claims that there are no cost savings if it collects a mini -can instead of a 32-gallon can
that is half full. In both cases, collection and disposal costs are the same. A reduced price
could be provided for mini -can users, but the basic rate would increase. GVDC recommends
a weight based system once the technology is available. A weight- based system would
reflect actual landfill costs.
Preliminary analysis indicates that if 1,000 households subscribe to a mini -can and receive a
$3.00/month price break, the monthly rate for the remaining 9,300 cans increase to $0.32.
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
DATE: January 12, 1995
This requires that customers do not change their service level more than once in any twelve
month period.
C. Home Composting Subsidy
In its letter, GVDC points out that there are costs in monitoring home composting efforts.
These costs could be bome by other rate payers who would already be paying higher fees
because of reduced participants. if charged to the composters, GVDC estimates that the cost
would approximate the price break.
There are alternative monitoring systems. For example, the Town could contact with the
University of California Extension Program to provide services. The County is contracting with
the UC Extension to coordinate its County -wide home composting education program.
Alternatively, if other West Valley Cities are interested, an hourly employee would be hired
through the West Valley Cooperative SWM Program. Staff will pursue these options during
the next several months.
Assuming 300 households compost, the yard waste program costs and compost oversight
costs (estimated at $5,000/year) are distributed over 10,000 instead of 10,300 cans. This
results in a $0.19/month increase in the basic rate and a savings to composters of $4.24.
Over the next several years, residents will have Teamed to separate yard waste and will have
had more opportunities to leam about composting through the Town initiated county -wide
education program.
D. Reduced Refuse, Recycling and Yard Waste Collection Frequency
GVDC contends that reducing refuse collection frequency results in cost savings only if a
number of criteria are met. One criterion is that at least one thousand residents request the
reduced services. Because this is unlikely to be the case in the next several months, Staff
recommends that this be reconsidered as part of the 1996 rate setting process. With regard
to recycling, the Town has entered a fixed price contract. There is no savings if services are
reduced unless GVDC agrees to amend the contract.
III. Commercial and Drop-off Boxes (DOB)
To collect revenues to cover SWM costs, a rate increase of 24.1 percent is required for both
commercial and DOB rates. In addition, for the DOB sector, Staff concurs with GVDC's
recommendation to institute the rate structure in which DOB customers pay a basic rate and an
additional fee for debris over a specified weight.
Proposed DOB rates reflect a policy of having the DOB customers pay for the weight of debris.
Accordingly, instead of being able to put unlimited refuse (up to the street -legal weight) in the boxes,
customers will be charged $52.00 per ton for the weight over an allowed limit. Since disposal fees are
based on weight, this system provides equity.
CUBIC YARDS PRICE ALLOWED WEIGHTS
18 $362 1.5 tons
30 $510 4.5 tons
40 $575 5.5 tons
6 $395 N/A
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBUC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
DATE: January 12, 1995
There is no per -ton charge for the six cubic yard box. These six cubic yard boxes are picked up by
another vehicle which picks up several of these size bins before being weighed. This means the
customer can put out as many tons as s/he can fit into the six cubic yard box. The price is set so that
there is enough dollars with revenues to pay for the tipping fee on the expected tonnages going In the
six cubic yard box.
This methodology has been in place in Saratoga and in other Santa Clara County Cities. GVDC will
be asked to give customers a chart listing weight of various materials so they can estimate their costs
before ordering services.
CONCLUSION:
All ratepayers benefit when households participate in the recycling and yard waste collection programs
Ratepayers defer increased rates due to increased transportation costs and, if AB 939 goals are met, the daily
fines of $10,000/day are avoided. There are also environmental benefits which are difficult to quantify but
apparent when violated.
The societal benefit of recycling and yard waste can be compared to schools: ail residents financially support
the schools regardless of the extent to which their farnMies participate. It is because of the societal benefits that
staff recommends that recycling and yard waste costs be equally shared with surcharges for special services.
Staff recommends that Council adopt rates incorporating the following components:
• a basic fee is charged for the first can; each additional can is priced 10 percent more;
a senior rate is charged for households eligible for and receiving SSI. The rate is about two-
thirds the base rate;
side yard, backyard, and hard -to -serve surcharges are at a cost recovery rate; and
• residential recycling and yard waste collection costs are included in the refuse rates
(spreading the cost over the total number of cans collected In the Town).
• commercial and drop-off box (dob) rates are increased 24.1 percent.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS:
Modifying refuse rates is not a project as defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Franchise fee revenues to the Town are expected to decrease by about $40,000. This loss will be offset by the
administration fee collected through the recycling agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Modifying Rates for Solid Waste Management Services
2. Cost Components by Sector
3. Residential Rate Survey
4. Letters from GVDC dated January 9, and January 11, 1995.
5. Letters from residents
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PUBUC HEARING TO CONSIDER SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES:
b) Adopt Solid Waste Management Rates
DATE: January 12, 1995
DISTRIBUTION:
Jean Cushman, 16123 Loretta Lane, Los Gatos 96032
Dan Williams, 304 Harding, Los Gatos 95032
Margaret Woosley, 18 Rimer, Los Gatos 95032
Gene Humphlett, 18400 Overcook Road, Box 39, Los Gatos 95030
Rate Review Committee
Green Valley Disposal Company, Gerard Wen, P.O. Box 1227, Los Gatos 95031
John , 247 Old Adobe Road, Los Gatos 95030
Ron O'Neill 509 Monterey Avenue, Los Gatos 95030
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
MODIFYING RATES FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, The Town of Los Gatos has contracted with the Green Valley
Disposal Company, Inc. for the collection of garbage and rubbish in Town; and
WHEREAS, the Green Valley Disposal Company, Inc. has requested a rate
modification for refuse collection services in the Town of Los Gatos; and
WHEREAS, the Town Manager has examined the proposed modification and
determined that it is in fact reasonable; and
WHEREAS, Council has elected to incorporate the costs for implementation of
all solid waste management services in the solid waste management rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The rates for residential solid waste management services in the Town
of Los Gatos shall increase over the rates established in Resolution
1992-130 effective February 1, 1995; new rates are attached as Exhibit
A.
2. The rates for commercial solid waste management services in the Town
of Los Gatos shall increase from the rates established in Resolution
1992-130 effective February 1, 1995; new rates are attached as Exhibit
B.
CSD08:A:0RESOSocs011795.R00 1
3. The rates for drop-off box solid waste management services in the Town
of Los Gatos shall increase over the rates in Resolution 1992-130
effective February 1, 1995; new rates are attached as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 1992-130 be repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the day of 1995, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CSD08:A:$RESOSmcs011795.R00 2
81/11/95
18:38 a 518 713 3234
P_82
A
1
t
1 oil
0
4. tip
1 ra
111
, Q to
5 x
i A f
6�1V
1
g C lik
� 4 it
i q
i
Fr
r
1
FRif
�8a
n
oa
ti
II
Exhibit A
81/11/95
L8:31 a 518 713 3294
P.83
h �
g3
O
g
S
e g
rl b
it 6 lit
its
to ijw K
it....
_ rtK
i
R Iall
01/11/95 t8:32
$ 510 713 32'34 P.04
165;4$4516;5EMigM
za efer.s 2
, c741M 8888 8888
kvo w il
lsaggaiggsig
asmiiui“ 88$$$$lS$
a Al• a* ERaasx aa
� 8q °!;2;:21 888 888
MWEIWElippiggggRgag
n r:to u ss Sri N N sl M
S t- I
otd9A
V
cei
n ci esl d v d a %d eo a a a
T!!!!!!!!3!32A ,1
PAIMIWNWAHI;
V. (4 v. N 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0
m* V .0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
deb:i3SAISliSSAIS
��"�hd.�bd� okd3An
I to i S
..... r r(4c4MMM( V.•.v •.ri6 hn
a
a
01/11,95 18:33 a 510 713 3244
P.
121) ee 111ee 4WIK
*****rnefeebtetebteffg
r A^� K N N 00 N N z g C s
a � ffffVVVV
$ pINIltagiiggSgRgRSSSS
ry18 8888a8$$$$$
111
1:1188*V18g8888888 88
i RS6e/Rag RRRggggg
1 R x
��8588888888$8 82;oi
. � rM, .a .a,PIEadadad..r..5
Ji
h
M
4 2
iP4M VH:14UM
N V
81
a0 O rn 0 U O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
0 Oh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
kR
O �D iMgrf D o M t d t turf O t M 1
sst
8
ON I
a w
81/11/95 18:34 It 518 713 3294
P.06
E P1
eRtleeR+Rd ***
*mom too*** # 4*e r r
N N N N N N N.
N.
N N N N N t� N N N N N N N N
2i8XF888
8*^ =8888
Vd .-ooe3o
21MVA Fi;;;P:
WW2
Exhibit B
kgr41 Rgdd
--8 c"
R0 A '0 N— 0 0 0 N oQ 4 1' 0 0 0 0 a G* 10'0 O, 0 0
ti
41
N M a N 10
91/11/95 19:35 X 518 713 3244
P.97
de iR !R a He iR 1R a iR 1R m a 1e a * ►t * * K *
44444444
C/ N N
61Wk
zsg=n9E
RtklW
Y O +O N WI .-. 0 O
.� N M .M 11
rtg
11
JI
N C4'1 N N N N N N N N N N N N
add
! INS fit.. 2
Milt:1§;;IN
%mg0000..,.1.
N 0) WI. IA
•O A GO Os ti .�+ +�'• �D +�O
a
01/11/95 t8:36
$ 510 713 3294
P.88
Exhibit C
pi
t!
***.9
aa11
NNCIN
+1! 8888 8
r agog
888 8
R
k
0
!M. I
.heea9.9.e
8$888MIkkR
83$8888
P,H11§Rig
L� tV d' fV
n
8
a
Y!
8
Exhibit C
Page 2
DOB rates reflect a policy of having the DOB customers pay for the weight of debris. Accordingly,
customers will be charged $52.00 per ton for the weight over the allowed limit. Since disposal fees
are based on weight, this system provides equity.
CUBIC YARDS PRICE ALLOWED WEIGHTS
18 $362 1.5 tons
30 $510 4.5 tons
40 $575 5.5 tons
6 $395 N/A
There is no per -ton charge for the six cubic yard box. These six cubic yard boxes are picked up by
another vehicle which picks up several of these size bins before being weighed. This means the
customer can put out as many tons as s/he can fit into the six cubic yard box. The price is set so
that there are enough revenues to pay for the tipping fee on the expected tonnages
C SD 19: A \so l idwst\dobchart. swm
MONTHLY COST PER -CAN
1
0 s co
eT 0 di
.
01 (NJ d'
V! V). t/1
0
O N c-
cn N O
o 0l (NI
ri irk if).
G
O
a
-,I
i-1 0
U to 0 0 N
O
A en er
0 1a O 01 N
cn ig r-1 t1>• t/k
1
1
01
01
to
N
tR
to
4)
to
0
O 4 O r-4
C 0 0 0 o r.
3 a) . ua
O 0 01 N e4, ri
E-� r ri IA CV
t/)) t/?
Ts
a)
'd
O
a)
2
0
0
W
Z
0
O 0 b
to .4' 0
O 01 N
r4 t/r
to
id
U
4.4
0
3.4
4)
1
O
z
Refuse Collection
Residential Curbside Recycling
1
Yard Waste Collection
including one can of garbage with unlimited
1
4)
A
4)
In N
N •r•1
for those electing to not subscribe for yard waste services would
r-1
a)
A
r-1
Z
0
3
rn
W
O
A
.r)
W
0
VI
A
0
to
U
1
•r•1
.,.1
gi
0
44
a) a)
4 4)
T3 T3
4) a)
N N •
•r-1 •r-I N
Ts • b$4
-r•1 N •r•1 W
(n w A
A • A •r•1
C r-) O )4
torI to U
to to
a! CD A
.0 a) .s~ O
E I A E+ to
The subsidized rate for composters would be $11.47.
1 h
1
Attachment 2
csd19:A:\memos\chart.can
CITY
Atherton
*Concord
*Danville
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Mill Valley
Monte Sereno
*Orinda
*Palo Alto
ATTACHMENT 3
RESIDENTIAL RATE SURVEY: COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES
AS OF 7-1-94
HAULER
BFI
Concord Disp.
1 CAN 2 CANS CURBSIDE
RECYCLING
15.61 29.61 Biweekly
23.25 31.10 Weekly
Valley Waste 21.75 43.50 Weekly
Los Altos Garbage 16.80 33.36 Biweekly
Los Altos Garbage
MarinSanitary
Green Valley
Orinda/Moraga
Pasco
*Pleasant Hill BFI
Portola Valley Los Altos Garbage 19.00
*Saratoga Green Valley
Stanford
Peninsula
*Walnut Creek Valley Waste
24.05 32.15 Biweekly
14.72 25.32 Weekly
7.60 12.66 Weekly
25.35 50.70 Weekly
16.50 34.00 Weekly
21.20 30.35 Biweekly
38.00 Biweekly
15.27 30.54 Weekly
17.13 25.52 Weekly
18.60 37.20
(Loose
Weekly
(Both paid through pr
*Average weekly rate for one can, including yard waste collection, is $20.27.
YARDWST
RECYCLING
1 time/month
Weekly
(2 bags/week)
Weekly
Biweekly
Toter provided
None
None
None
1 bag or can
per week.
Weekly
(Residents
Containers)
Weekly
Two cans
None
Weekly
Residents
Containers
Weekly
in street)
Weekly
operty taxes)
CSD 19: A.\SOLID W ST. RATE. SUR
Attachment 4
ilot= `
O1sPOOr
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1227 • LOS GATOS, CA 95031-1227 • PHONE i408) 354-2100
January 9, 1995
Regina Falkner
Town of Los Gatos
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Dear Regina:
Per your request, here is our evaluation of the four options suggested by various
members of Council on January 3, 1995. This is being submitted by the due date
you provided to me.
•
•
Sincerely,
Gerard Wen
YARD WASTE CHARGES FOR
TOWNHOUSES & CONDOMINIUMS
Question
What can Green Valley do to assist townhouses, condominiums, etc. that have
residential can service but do not generate any or enough yard waste volume at the
individual dwelling unit?
Discussion
► Other West Valley jurisdictions have assessed the yard waste charge, with no
special services in place or planned for the townhouses, condominiums, etc.
We have found the same to be true in cities such as San Jose.
► The Request for Proposal assumed the cost of the yard waste recycling
program would be spread to all residential households, which include
townhouses and condominiums receiving residential Carl service. The
residential rates being considered by Council is predicated on that
assumption. Reducing or eliminating the yard waste recycling charge for
townhouses and condominiums would mean the remaining single-family
homes will see an increase in their bills.
► Our yard waste proposal, as is normal in the recycling field, assumed a
number of households would not participate in the yard waste program. This
is one of the reasons why a residential yard waste route is larger than a
residential garbage route. We know there are some townhouses,
condominiums, and detached single-family homes that would not be
participating. There are no cost savings as a result of non -participation.
► We are proposing the following:
1. Provide a minimum size of a 1-cubic yard bin for the collection of yard
waste from the common areas.
2. To minimize contamination and to isolate the contamination, the bin
would be locked with a Green Valley -supplied key to be provided to
the on -site gardener by the homeowners' association (HOA).
3. Any contamination in the bin renders the yard waste as garbage and the
HOA and/or its homeowners would be responsible for the garbage bill
associated with the contaminated yard waste.
4. The HOA would sign an agreement to abide by the above terms and be
responsible for yard waste contamination.
MINI -CAN
Question
Some households do not have enough garbage on a weekly basis to fill up one
standard 32-gallon can. Can a mini -can service level be offered? What will happen
to garbage rates?
Discussion
• The most common mini -can size is 20 gallons.
• Adding a mini -can is basically adding another level of service to the 1-can, 2-
can, 3-can, etc. levels of service now in existence.
• There is no savings in cost because all that is occurring is changing the size of
the container being collected by Green Valley Disposal, i.e. the '/z full 32-
gallon garbage can picked up weekly will now be a full 20-gallon mini -can
picked up weekly.
• If the mini -can is priced lower than what is suggested for 1-can, then the
shortfall in revenue will have to be made up by the 1-can, 2-can, 3-can, etc.
households. These households will see their costs go up.
Suggested alternative
The long-term solution is "garbage by the pound". This means the household is
billed for the amount of pounds of garbage. This system is fair since landfills, San
Jose surcharges, State fees, etc. are assessed on the weight basis and not on volume.
However this weight method is not "ready for prime time" until the accuracy
standard set forth by the Bureau of Weights and Measures can be met by the scale
vendors. Additionally, this alternate method will require standardized carts.
YARD WASTE CHARGE & HOME COMPOSTING
Question
Consider a waiver or reduction in the yard waste charge for those households
participating in home composting?
Discussion
The Request for Proposal issued by the Rate Review Committee assumed the cost
of the yard waste recycling program would be spread to all residential households.
The residential rates being considered by Council is predicated on that assumption.
Reducing or eliminating the yard waste recycling charge for home composters
would mean non -home composters will see an increase in their bills.
There are unbudgeted additional costs that need to be considered for home
composters to receive a reduction or waiver in their yard waste recycling bill. We
believe these additional costs will be much higher than the expected reduction in the
yard waste recycling bills:
1. Costs to set up the criteria, rules, and regulations for the program. For
example, what are the standards for home composting? If a household is
found in non-compliance, how many days do they have to be in compliance?
When should they be added back into the yard waste recycling program?
2. Costs to change the billing system; office costs to add and delete households
and issue appropriate charges or credits to the households on a daily basis.
3. Costs to inspect all applicants.
4. Costs to monitor the program and have an appeal process in place for
disputed findings.
5. Compliance costs. There would be a need to hire an individual and provide a
vehicle and documentation camera to check garbage cans and yards for non-
compliance. Estimated annual costs may be $60,000 which would translate
to a monthly bill for the home composter of $100 per month or $1,200 per
year, assuming 500 households are home composters.
We suggest a monthly fee be placed on the home composters only for the start-up,
monitoring and compliance program needed in order that non -home composters not
be unduly burdened.
We concur with staff recommendation that the cost of the yard waste program be
assessed on all residential households. We believe it is simpler to administer and
less costly to manage.
REDUCED FREQUENCY OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE PICK-UP
Question
If some households put out their garbage less frequently, e.g. once a month, will
there be a savings in their garbage bill?
Discussion
• The Town needs to check appropriate health codes and regulations for
mandates in garbage collection frequency.
• In residential curbside recycling and residential yard waste recycling, the
routes are larger than for residential garbage routes. In recycling it is
common for households not to place their recyclables or yard waste out every
week for collection. That is one of the reasons why a curbside truck or a yard
waste truck has more homes on its daily route than a garbage truck. More
homes on a route means less routes needed, along with less trucks and less
drivers.
• There will be long-term cost savings if all the following criteria are met:
1. Health codes permit it.
2. A sufficient number of households put out their garbage less often than
once a week in order that routes can be expanded in size. "Sufficient
number" would be in the order of 1,000 homes.
3. Los Gatos residential garbage routes can be restructured with the
cooperation of the other West Valley jurisdictions. For example, if
Monday through Thursday requires 14 trucks and Friday can be
reduced to 13 trucks, there would be minimal savings because the 14th
truck and its crew still incur depreciation costs, insurance expense,
maintenance, etc.
4. Use of standardized carts with Radio Frequency IDentification (RFID)
tags to minimize the costs of administering the program. The tags
would reduce the paperwork and data entry needed since garbage
service is "measured" service and billed accordingly.
GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY, INC.
573 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • P.O. BOX 1227 • LOS (ATOS, CA 95031-1227 • PHONE (408) 354-2100
January 11, 1994
To: Regina Falkner
From: Phil Couchec
Re: Yard Waste Recycling at townhouses and condominium complexes
At the January 3, 1995 Los Gatos Town Council meeting there was a concern raised by council
that residents of townhouses and condominium complexes may have to pay twice for the hauling
of yard waste, once through their rates, then again through their landscaper.
As we discussed previously, Green Valley submitted our proposal assuming all single family
residents would share in the cost of the program. The request for proposal never made mention
of the possibility of exemptions being granted for these types of complexes_ We are aware that
there would be areas or complexes that would produce little if any ya><d waste, and submitted our
proposal with that knowledge_
In response to the concerns raised by the council, I have contacted, by phone or through letter,
all the complexes we have been able to identify (see attached letters). I have outlined the choices
Green Valley will offer them should the Council decide to spread the cost to all service recipients_
The choices are:
A) Have all the residents participate individually.
B) Provide the Association with an appropriate size bin, cart(s) or a combination of bin and
cart(s) placed in a central location for use by the gardener or homeowners.
In phone conversations with several Association representatives, it appears alternative B is
preferred for several reasons:
* The lack of individual storage space available for any additional containers.
* Residents produce minimal yard waste on an individual basis.
* The desire to have the yard waste produced from the common areas placed in the
provided container.
* The elimination of an additional truck traveling through their streets.
I have spoken to La Rinconada Hills (300 units), Los Gatos Woods (233 units), Wimbledon (94
units), and Los Gatos Village (121) and it appears a workable solution can be provided which will
allow their yard waste to be collected and recycled by Green Valley.
The appropriate size bin for these complexes will be determined by the number of units. Using
the estimated lbs/hh and converting that to cubic yards, it is estimated that 1 cubic yard per week
for every 20 units will be needed_ As mentioned before, this common arca green waste tonnage
or collection was not Considered or anticipated in our proposal. We reserve the right to
reevaluate or modify this collection method should some unforeseen problem or cost arise.
As other Associations continue to contact me I will keep you informed of the types of individual
solutions which are developed.
Attachment 5
�'f 950c-3 3-
_ _ ,n/ d cg-eL rLc_L
i / c1 1l. v71a err,
9c52,3 v
JAN 4 g95
a -�
e
-1-_e_fre- ''Q. ""' -4'13f-ge- -4';e1.-9/
a, �; � �
�,- .�- C? .
.-'
17
..2're)-e ea„4., /7)--,t_ ,771-0,,14 . .„,"--z4e, ymee- e_....e,,c)
,6v-ez,d/ • mac., y-kg--,-,--• tli1J �Z iLi'2-e.see, _ZLe.. -421%r-4,a, L-eezte. (,227- pAierr, e_...ex-
Lez-d-w4i,•r ot7I__ ff-E-oc- -/L,,‹- 7 7 `'ic.4,6Z--4,
-4a, re4--ee- d-l-c:/afr-,,,
-
v
re--2
,t6te
air-
(/ t-e
14..77te_.
y , vhc.c
�, '
G1
101/2
jv_ U/r
tizzfzee'PL‘z
%e.7z
°-L�-�
-z' ev
Cz-a •,9 te„,, ;zz_ee,
iera
e .•
os
xis , c4 ?5 d
Pri
tZ'-
17/0.3 /ce,0,, ‘v-z z;e -moo
et,_/ G✓�Q Ccc
,41-7- n Q-
oL� / 9 9 J "_
JAN 4 1995
a,
,fat-S 4-61 9-5 �� v
Ye) f-370-0,.z70
. _ J i .% _ i
t' 'ritelgrateri Waste
^•"ass ..suc.)pur; Lodh!t.%at 'oi. of cur ...::e
Tt', �^K: you.
0
0
ram. ~ "(_�� �i L s.{,t. L 1.
4
Town of Los 1 Gatos
Tot:.^. r c11
17601 Foster Rd.
Ca 95032
phone (408) 354-7739
Jan5 1995
Dear Council Member :
In reference to the public hearing on Yard waste pick up that proposed
to raise the cost of monthly pick up from $6.60 to $18.50 held on Jan
3rd:
I have come up with a proposal that appears to handle most of the
public concerns that will collect twice as much yard waste including
larger branches that are now a fire hazard and at the same time may be
half the cost to the taxpayers. (sounds too good}
It is clear that the cut and dried proposal the Town Council tried to
vote on in December; is full of unknowns and everyone decided it was
time to gather missing information. Perhaps it is time to take a step
back for a broader look.
The most significant comment was from Councilmember O'Laughlin who
compared the very small amount of yard waste that it is proposed to
collect with the request during the drought of 1987 that restaurants
not serve water.
While taking the engineering classes at San Jose State on solid waste
management the first thing we learned was that government got into the
trash pick up business because of a real public health problem with
rats and disease. After the last November election it is plain that big
government programs to solve problems that don't exist are out of
favor.
All over Los Gatos things grow fall down decay and add nourishment to
the soil. If one just leaves a pile of grass and leaves in a pile it
will go away. The proposed containers for curb side pick up are big but
not big enough for branches and brush so this solution may not have any
social value. There is a real need to remove branches dead trees wood
waste, the big pile of old fence that fell over. This is a real concern
to stop fire danger and unsightliness that the Town Government should
address.
HERE I5 A NEW IDEA:
Lexington haulers or a number of oi.nai fii ms will diup uff 2 40 yard
containers at our recycling center to collect yard waste, unpainted
wood as lift truck pallets old fences 2 by 4s from remodel work logs
large branches stumps etc. The hauler will take the full containers to
Zanker wood waste recyclers in Alviso where Los Gatos will get a credit
for recycling. Zanker will make compost of much of the yard waste and
chip the wood for co gen fuel and recycle even the nails. The returning
trailer will have 25% deep dark compost in it which Zenker will give us
for free. This is the same deal that San Jose gets. The cost is $38 per
ton including the hauling cost, but we get back what we sell the
compost for. This we use to pay Lexington for a person to collect
money. This replaces a present employee that The Town supplies to
monitor the recycling center and saves us money. It is unlikely that
persons outside the Town will use the yard waste containers as they
have more room and most just pile up yard waste until it decomposes.
Here is the process: Gardeners, homeowners, teenagers that mow lawns
all bring there Yard waste and wood to the containers and pay a fee
exactly as many now do that deliver to Guadalupe landfill.
CuaLs. We will c:ullect 20 tollb W1,1 day crud people will be charged
$200,000 per year total but there is a much bigger advantage as the
local gardeners only have to drive a short way as compared to
Guadalupe. This compares to $600,000 that Green valley wants just to
ut• loavba and grass and ww f}i ese►i.;r ► udu%..cs out fire danger and
clean up the Town. Our small industry people will love it as they now
have a big problem getting rid of wood and shipping crates. The hauler
will also pick up dumpsters at other locations.
Downside: Some people such as those that do not compost, those who have
no room for a pile of grass, those who can not get to the recycling
center, and those that just can't bother to deal with it, will have to
pay a local teenager to clean up and do it for them. Does this group of
people deserve a solution to their problem that everyone else must pay
for. Of course you will here citizens complaints on this proposal but
there was a lot of very smart people at the meeting and if the Towns
people as a whole save sup to a million dollars including private trips
to Guadalupe and we pay teenagers to work; we are all ahead. Yes
someone will point out that a couple of teenagers in Los Gatos don't
own a car to get to the recycling center.
To act on this The Town must pass an ordinance that yard waste may not
be placed in the trash cans. This is the same rule as no car batteries
or broken concrete. Green valley says it is easy to enforce as they
just don't pick up containersantainers if they don't follow the rules.
There is nothing in our present agreement with Greenvalley that says we
can not do this. Green Valley says that if they must pick up yard waste
on a house by house basis that the recovery cost is $26 per can. Great
let them try to compete with my 7 kids out there with wagons. It will
be a good test of a coddled big government program against free
enterprise.
Yours very truly
Alan Young
Town of Los Gatos
Town Council
17601 Foster Rd.
Los Gatos Ca 95032
phone (408) 354-7739
Jan5 1995
Dear Council Member
In reference To the enclosed news article:
The problem of 300 miles of streams filling up with junk relates to a
letter I wrote to Regina Falkner last spring after someone closed down
the metal recycling part of our recycling center perhaps out of a
misdirected attempt to save money. In fact the metal was being sold for
a big profit but the Los Gatos Street dept was attempting to take it
down to the junk yard on Montery highway and eating up all the profit
in labor and gas.
Now Los Gatos perhaps didn't notice it but it signed a monopoly deal
with Green valley that puts citizens in a bind. Example: an 85 year
old Los Gatos Grandmother has an old shower door, water heater,
bicycle, Bar BO etc. She wants to get rid of it. Older people and many
others can not wait till trash clean up day every 6 months.. I don't
know exactly why they just get anxious. Last year she had someone drop
it off at the recycling center. This year the Tuwn has a new solution:
she pays Green Valley $30 for a special pickup.
Up until this last year there was another solution as there were large
debris dumpsters all around town for major house tear outs people just
flipped it in when no one was looking, but the new cost for these is
$550 so most contractors are not using them as if they sort their
debris they pay only a quarter as much to get rid of it. Also most
businesses in the past year have put pad locks on their dumpsters.
Of course the Trash ends up costing much more if it is abandoned which
is now happening much more frequently.
I was told by Regina that my letter would get an answer which it didn't
A new proposal is that Markavitz and fox or one of the other junk yards
has offered to drop off a dumpster at our recycling center for metal,
washers, dryers, water heaters, swing sets an old furnace etc and pick
it up probably for free as their profit will come from high priced
metal like aluminum not steel. We don't make money but we don't lose
and we clean up the Town and save r.ur citizens Tpny 'any 14?e, fPAQ _ Aa
before; an attendant puts useful items aside so people can reuse them.
One guy dropped off his grandfathers old blacksmith tools and lots of
people got parts to repair their appliances and kids bicycles and it
was written up in the newspaper as a very positive attraction until
some killjoy closed it down. One Idea; its better for safety and
liability reasons not to let people browse and dissemble there. If
someone wants a bicycle part they take the whole bicycle home remove
the parts and bring the rest back the next week.
We should also consider placing containers at the recycling center for
broken concrete, asphalt, window glass, as well as buy a bailer for
cardboard etc. They cost $5000 but you could have paid for it 10 times
already. Someone by mistake spent over $5000 on a cage to put the
aluminum cans in when the bailer would have done the cans and a lot
more.
As much as possible it is wise to have Government insist that free
enterprise do the work; as Government with no profit incentive can make
things worse.
Examp►e: Up until 3 years ago if one had an old car to get rid of you
went into the DMV with the license plates and pink slip and they in
return, for free, gave you a junk slip. You then towed the car to the
junk yard and got M20 for the metal which was exactly what your time
and gas was worth but at least you had done the right thing as a
responsible citizen. The junk yard will not accept the car without a
junk slip. Three years ago our legislature in Sacramento by mistake
changed the process. Now you must pay all back fees before you get the
junk 'slip. This is up to 11250. So now what one does is park the car on
the street and remove the licence plates. The local authorities have
not the resources to chase after the owners so San Jose alone set up a
new million and a half dollar program to collect all these cars. I know
someone who did this 3 times. Before Los Gatos shut down the metal part
of its recycling center every 2 weeks someone would cut up a car and
drop it off but with a metal dumpster there this will not be much of a
problem; won't cost the town and saves the town the problem of improper
abandonment elsewhere or on the street.
Yours very truly
Alan Young
Town of Los Gatos
iown LOUncii
17601 Foster Rd.
Los Gatos La 5►,IIJL
phone (408) 354-7739
Jan5 1995
Dear Council Members=
In reference Town's recycling and solid waste issues coming up for a
vote this week. Please see attached my notice cf appointment to the
cities recycling advisory board. This was chaired by Toni Blackstone a
local attorney and I was appointed because I was a principal member of
the environmental task force of the Methodist Church. I have a degree
in Mechanical engineering and extra credits in solid and hazardous
waste management at San Jose State. In short this board had quite a bit
of horsepower at no cost to the city. While the representative from
Green Valley was always trying to push Green Valley as the only answer
to the Towns disposal issue the board had a lot of good ideas and also
was a window to expected citizens reaction to this issue and cost
increases.
This board is the logical forum to work out chanaes from our present_
recycling and trash pick up efforts that now cost $6.60.
It is unbelievable that an attempt would be made to triple the cost to
$18 without convening this board and get citizens input. The place to
work out this issue is not at a Town hall meeting where people are
already upset and a new contract is all fixed but at this board meeting
which is open to the public. I called Regina in March 94 and was told
that my input was not needed. I then wrote her a letter with a number
of suggestions and she told me she would have someone answer it but it
didn't happen.
Regina feels that she must only consider Green Valley for the solution
to solid waste and recycling because of a 20 year contract signed in
1984. This original contract did not envision the recycling effort that
would increase costs by 3 times. It would help here for some input from
the Town attorney. Very good authority has it that there is a 'non
compete' contract between Green valley and the other trash haulers.
This is of course in restraint of trade and quite illegal. It is
similar to a bunch of military contractors getting together in a back
room and deciding to distribute military contracts at 4 times the going
rate. I understand that the Town signed a contract in August with Green
Valley for recycling thinking that it had competitive bids. It appears
this contract is may be voided if the bidding was a farce.
In the meeting of Jan 3rd The Green valley representative said that
there was no technology that would allow charging for weight in stead
of per can. This would be more equable and encourage more recycling
which will be required to meet the year 2000 goal, be easier on older
retired people and insure that people don't cram trash tight in the can
in order to save money which would slow up collection.
I believe Green Valley is now aware of the latest technology and that
San Jose is already set _to start this tested and proven technology
already. There are a number of systems that will improve Green Valleys
efficiency and this is one reason that it is unwise to get technical
input only from them as you may end up buyinz obcc_c'_c equipment
because in fact Green valley according to their proposal gets 6% profit
and there is no incentive for them to act efficiently. If you get sold
an obsolete system or trucks this year that have to be replaced in 5
yeArs they make more money.
The goal of Los Gatos should be to recycle to save the environment and
at the same time save taxpayers money and land fill space. Saratoga
claims that they already have met the 50% recycling goal so that they
can now sit back until some new law forces them to act. I have seen
calculations that will later be voided that shows towns trying to meet
this goal by counting the weight of goods in the thrift stores as
recycled and other tricky calculations. Guadalupe also may not know
what was put in the land fill in 1987 which is the base for the 50%
reduction as all non commercial loads were simply guessed on and not
weighted. A spot recalculation based on the volume may show they
overcharged all small haulers and their figured could be off by 40%.
This is because when these people came in the gate person simply
guessed at the volume of the load and not the weight.
The pay by weight system San Jose is starting for small dump boxes that
will quickly go to trash cans goes like this. At an office there is a
$600 486 computer connected to trucks by cellular phone. The route
driver identifies the trash container electronically but it could have
a bar code like in the grocery store the can is weighed as it is dumped
with no effort on the drivers part and it is set down. Billing is
automatic and if the route driver misses a can the computer reminds him
so a lot of calls for missed cans are avoided. There is no paper work
or data entry; billing is automatic.
Want to here more Call me or insist that Regina convene the advisory
board. Meanwhile the Town should sign the shortest contract it can with
Green Valley.
Yours very truly
Alan Young
• • •
jg....?
19;k1IM
arLogoarogg
- -
2114‘'77"trogrA1eislert
i441*-1.1*".1114417';*•=t
„March I tit,
•.• r - ele• AV'S." n.w.•
•
001.111anAkiting;-.
r..--117601- FosterRoad •-,_ =.4--:-.•_.'"*.: :..
_ 7'_..12.vs Gatos; CA 11$032
-'1z
1.1411cailliPs1,1416111011617:40k0911#411.""TbVIVINIV-Aike'S.
. •.:&.7.41P*.f..--3i:_t%:-.: !.-,"'";t: -'i,'•.'-- - - . •
-... s. ------e-gl--.-7,-.114.4 ,*-47..1...---Jr-1,----• - 4., • --•!*: I:
k,-----1)ear dir:l'oung: ...0""I''''el-'04y--:'~i'-',"!-N-t-b- . • ..- - . ' ' ."' • • • •-• -.1"%.71._. _...• . ..: : ,.-,.,_ -
. _
....:, participation on Ile Board. _,.,-...,...-f.".... -'. : • :,.. -_,.. --- •:1,.....-,.,,_ : ;-.-:;.
.. ei . ,-.. re 411 : ' iKe -..iF f,rAplig.lierrnt wrrsig-:.,.,./maL--1-46-.: :_cri.-•-----riso..:
. • ... - -
- tin behalf of -the Community Services Commiseion Recycling &Ike:mattes 1 Want to
..':.::: thank you for agreeing to serve on the Recycling Advisory Board; - You have been )--7.-7.----;
:-identified -as one of the xameunity's - leaders and vs look forward to your -. - -
7.., -r.-- -
-- •'.,---7: .;.......,i. .; ;0.,.. 1-.... -.., .%..: . .,..,.....f. ,- - -r- -7,., .. : .; 7--mr -----•-: ' :
_t_The Community Services Commission has set a goal -of 100 percent participation 4..,-4Ap-•-, ..
t -. . by the residents of the Town in the residential recycling program. We currently ••-__-:.--...-it
have a participation rate of about 74 percent; your input will help vs to close ' -the gap and meet our objective. :, '._ ._1. - . .,,,, .4.:_„..„...,..;‘.•_;-....... i.......,-J,..- - ...:,-,;«-7
• --
-tartainly, ;We all ihare the desire-4o -pre'ierv-;-ca71:-Iiiiviriinii;n1.478. ut;-In-additiooi '-"L`T.; --727",777-____
-- - . _ .
r ...„...._..........„......,-.-rs.--
-*-- -to that, Assembly Bill 939 puts a tremendous financial incentive on the Town and ------- --,-
its citizens to reduce the amount of refuse disposed of at the landfill in
short period of Aims. The enclosed document explains AB 939 more fully.„..,--;:.:•:m----=" 7
-'-----:-Th. :.-- t firstseating of the.NeCYclingAtivitiry Bo trd wi 11 bt lielia;Th ;ride''. March _ - -
program.-
-- , . L.. . -
i:14 at 5:30 p.m. in the Neighborhood Canter. At that time, we will ask you to -•-. -.,
. -share your ideas, your criticisms and your comments on the residential recycling •
. .
;. -. . -- --' 4- -- • . -.
Regina Falkner,
Town Community Services Manager, and Phil Couches' the Recycling
_ .. . .
Coordinator fro Green Valley Recycling, will meat with us and is available to c _
- answer questions. - After our discussion, -we will schedule our vett meeting at
- which time we will ask you to make specific suggestions toward achieving the 100 - ..
- percent :
participation goal„z-.;;_-:;::...7.-,.- :- - _
r:7 1 am certain that you will find the ieeting informative, challenging and brief -
....t.,-.. - and I promise to have you out no later than 7:00 p.m. Please phone Chris Lang
1 of Commit, Services at 334-6820 to confirm your attendance at the meeting.
— - - -.
-.4-- -Again, your -willingness to serve an this 'advisory board is much appreciated.
::_ _looking forward to seeing you an the 14th at 3:30 p.m. -:-..:- - ,, ..-- .
. , /Alt, --...t. ,...:.4..:41, ....-= 'et 41..."Ze. .......g ftrissarr-ww.....e.....-.—.. -...es.....—...., 111.1. . ---
-.. .....s... ..
acks •airperson
-
$ "VrEttrir. ,Irnr•.i.-a. 'prze...•%-`-tik-- ;A.".
ing ittee Arfit"Pte5"r--...7-1-14
_ . »1B gr ameraneseamovesmaib,r,~.--..,„ • I.. ...a- - - -
41.4- -" 2;1 1,5"'- -
. - • - --d•-••••-•,•-••• -
'Agenda fir Nail% 14,2991 . •
2.. AB 939 - • =
of
• • •
7 Raanling *mutt _Report , -
-e 13'Y rtz,?..- •:• • .
knir, Causunity Services Manager f.
• Nary Al ice Mica, Recycl ng Subcommittee •-•
e-41. - Rossano fisher, Recycling Subconmittee • •
Phil _Couches'. or; Recycling Coortlinator treen Valley Recycling - 7 • .
*re
.'• --; :
• —
-7"
- - we' -** 4 . • •1•••••
ow*:
•
• .. • — •
1.11P II ..
111[11
4. - •
471
14..77 7' 1.1 ‘•4
e."—:" *.Z. •
r
San Jose
•
•
1.
I -
t
- .
woes
'4_11
it/i 3*-*e.-z.7 likliciiistlffie I
. •••
1110 )er.d. r
• Ar .6'412
- .
•••
- ?at. • r
• r-r•••• : '
----.•‘4•114)•1•• -.•.••••••••••:, •••••
• , " •
Vern
1: e . •
JUICIM4 CaLICIN — YOCUM PEV4
Grocery- darts and other abandoned objects, Including couches
and refrigerators, foul the Guadalupe River in San Jose.
. - • ' • • . • • •
--1-4e:ez,ep..7,,iest,wworot ,z7,4:::...0 &lit-L-111r )....z 0
e�D1eare using creeksor-
'" • I .1. • ;
umpuig grow2ds _
11 CREEKII:''-'jzi!:, . so they drive here ind dump
. front Page „18 their stuff7 -
for dumping -Ilona- the Besides an. education pro-
.-ftveres! -;! "••; grarn,-- Linguist favors two
water -district "has' thing@ to help clean up the
"•--speakers visit schools and pus creeks: more prosecution of of -
out educational coloring books. fenders who are caught and
It also has set up an adopt -a- several -tree" days at local
creek program, where volun- landfills paid by the county or
teers van clean up the river- city governments. 1
beds, and a district truck will • • .
pick up the waste. e
. - - : • • .1- ;
That way people whO can't'
afford the $1::..'44G dibpuse
twimre;lou'eleant7p7iaTurpTaZ, of big items such as couches or •
refrigerators wouldn't • be
short. Several weeks after
cleaning a site on the Quids_ • tempted to dump them in creek
lupe, it is again covered with .
Jitter. • ,-..- '
"qdon'tthlnkthej,eopl; in- IF YOU'RE INTERESTED •
this neighborhood hecessarn.Y To report littered creeks or re- •
do said crew member Al-. calve information about adopt-s-
- frdTaurIac,4LhhIthlnkpeo.* - creek call the water district at
3)1e assume this is a bad area. - moe)
• .4. -4;64 ;1.;• 'X .t.'" • '
4.414 .1.•:011.% ••• .0‘ . • • , •
r l•-• •
. • ".. - - • •
•