Item 13 Staff Report Consideration of Report Regarding Response to Elements of the Rubbish System Revisions Being Considered by the City of San JoseCOUNCIL AGENDA
DATE: 3/4/91
ITEM NO. /3
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: February 28, 1991
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: TOWN MANAGERS(
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPORT REGARDING RESPONSE TO ELEMENTS OF THE
RUBBISH SYSTEM REVISIONS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
RECOMMENDATION:
That Council authorize the Town Manager to forward the attached draft letter to the City Manager of the City
of San Jose responding to elements of the Rubbish System Revisions that the City is currently considering.
BACKGROUND:
Staff members of the San Jose Office of Environmental Management have developed recommendations to
present to the San Jose City Council's Environmental Committee at their March 13 meeting and to the City
Council on March 26,1991. Portions of the proposal would result in increased costs to the Los Gatos rate payers
without an increase in service. The attached letter (Attachment 1) responding to the recommendation has been
prepared for Council's consideration.
DISCUSSION:
As stated above, Staff members of the San Jose Office of Environmental Management have developed a proposal
to raise revenues to offset their costs of AB 939 related activities. San Jose Staff has defined AB 939 activities
as essentially all waste management activities related to recycling. It excludes refuse collection. On February
20, San Jose Staff presented a draft of proposed rubbish fee modifications to waste generators, haulers, landfill
operators and other interested parties (see Attachment 2). This draft was considerably different from the
proposals previously described by San Jose staff. Reasons cited by San Jose staff for these proposed increases
at the landfill are:
To encourage the rubbish haulers to recycle material prior to disposing of it in the landfill;
To develop a funding source fc At3 0'39 activities
m To allow San Jose to keep any increases tees collected by franchised rubbish haulers as low
as possible without experiencing a decrease in the amount of revenue that is currently collected;
To address the need for long term disposal capacity for San Jose rubbish and garbage.
PREPARED BY: Regina A. Fa
Community S
RAF:dr
CSD04:A:\CNCLRPTS\AB939.SJ
Manager
Attachments: See Page 3 for list of Attachments.
Distribution: See Page 3 for Distribution List.
2/28/91 10:30 am
File #
Reviewed by: Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer
COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO:
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPORT REGARDING RESPONSE TO ELEMENTS OF THE
RUBBISH SYSTEM REVISIONS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
MARCH 4, 1991
The Collection and Disposal Subcommittee of the County Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on
February 21, 1991, to develop recommendations to present to the IGC Solid Waste Committee regarding San
Jose's proposed Rubbish System Revisions. The Subcommittee agreed to comment on items 2, 4, and 10 which
are the only "countywide" issues; the other items affect only waste haulers which contract with the City of San
Jose and San Jose residents. The items and a summary of the subcommittee's recommendations are summarized
below:
"2. Impose an AB 939 fee of $0.25 per ton, levied at the landfill, on all waste disposed of at San Jose
landfills."
On principle, Staff opposes any additional charges to tipping fees imposed by the City of San Jose which
does not have direct benefit to Los Gatos customers.
The Guadalupe Landfill was recently incorporated into the City of San Jose. The result of this action
would simply be that the cost for dumping a ton of garbage would increase from $27.32 to $27.57. Green
Valley Disposal Company disposed of approxi-mately 35,042 tons of garbage in 1990; the fmancial impact
would therefore equal about $8,761. This fee would go to the City's General fund to offset the cost of
their recycling programs. San Jose City Staff reports that an alternative method for assessing this fee
could be an increase in the business tax already charged.
Two changes in the fee would soften the impact of the fee on other jurisdictions:
sunset the fee if and when a countywide AB 939 fee is implemented; and
not levy the fee on franchised waste.
"4. Revise the Municipal Code to add new definitions for Rubbish Hauler, Waste Processing Facility,
Recycling Processing Facility, and Mixed Recyclables."
Members of the recycling and waste disposal industries are concerned about the potential long-term
effect of imposing franchise and other fees on waste disposal to fund recycling programs. Zanker
Material Recovery Systems notes negative effects on their ability to compete with recycling operations
in neighboring counties where such fees are not levied (see enclosed letter from Guadalupe Rubbish
Disposal Company management, Attachment 3).
Such impacts are difficult to assess without a full analysis of the countywide waste management system
and its connections to the regional system. Such analysis is currently not available to Staff.
"10. Work through the intergovernmental Council Solid Waste Committee to implement a countywide AB
939 fee on all wastes landfilled in the County to assist in recovering a portion of the costs associated with
implementing Source Reduction and Recycling Elements being prepared pursuant to State mandate
under AB 939 (Chapter 1095 of the Government Code of the State of California)."
This item was suggested as an alternative to #2, above. The County Staff raised concerns that they do
not currently have resources to implement such a program. Representatives of the landfill businesses
oppose the proposal because it will have the effect of charging commercial and industrial waste loads
that have already been recycled and have reduced up to 50 percent from the waste stream.
Postponing inception of the countywide fee one year, as proposed by the City Staff, will allow the Solid
Waste Committee and TAC time to assess the feasibility of such a fee. Feasibility hinges on the funding
needs of each jurisdiction, which are currently being determined as part of the Source Reduction and
Recycling Element (SRRE) planning process. Once all SRREs are completed, funding needs can be
analyzed to determine whether it is possible to set a single fee level that will serve the needs of all
jurisdictions in the County. The Town currently raises revenues to offset AB 939 planning costs through
our Solid Waste Management Program.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF REPORT REGARDING RESPONSE TO ELEMENTS OF THE
RUBBISH SYSTEM REVISIONS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
MARCH 4, 1991
CONCLUSION:
The City of San Jose seems to have adopted a policy of raising revenues by imposing fees on the landfills located
within their jurisdiction. This is evidenced by the $3.00 per ton Business Tax imposed last July and by the
current proposal. The Town Council has adopted programs and policies supporting the concept of waste
reduction and recycling and thereby shares many of San Jose's objectives. However, raising revenues to offset
solid waste management programs should be left to the individual jurisdiction. Revenues to cover existing and
new programs are likely to increase. Consequently, it is probable that San Jose's $0.25 fee will increase or that
other means of raising revenues through the landfills will be sought. The Town of Los Gatos and the other West
Valley Cities should not be required to subsidize the cost of San Jose's solid waste management program.
It is therefore recommended that Council authorize the Town Manager to sign and forward the attached letter:
.
opposing the proposed AB 939 fee of $0.25 per ton;
postponing changes to the San Jose Municipal Code to provide solid waste management related
defmitions until full analysis and impact of the proposed and definitions have been completed
and reviewed;
supporting consideration of implementation of a countywide AB 939 fee until the Fall of 1991
to allow the TAC to assess its feasibility.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Based on tons of refuse disposed of at the Guadalupe landfill by Green Valley Disposal Company in 1990,
revenue projections for FY 1991-92 would need to be increased by $8,761 to cover the AB 939 fee.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft letter
2. Rubbish system revision discussion points from the City of San Jose, distributed on 2/20/91.
3. Letter from Gaudalupe Rubbish Disposal Company to Gary Liss, City of San Jose.
DISTRIBUTION:
Rosemary Pierce, City of Monte Sereno, 18041 Saratoga -Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Barbara Lee/Michelle Quinney, City of Campbell, 70 North First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
Isabel Gloege/Vera Dahle, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
Gerard Wen, Green Valley Disposal Company, Inc., P.O. Box 4423, Los Gatos, CA 95030-4423
Michelle Yesney, Director, Office of Environmental Management, City of San Jose, 777 N. First Street, Ste. 450,
San Jose, CA 95112
Gary Liss, Program Manager, Integrated Waste Management, City of San Jose, 777 N. First Street, Ste. 450, San
Jose, CA 95112
DRAFT
TOWN of LOS GATOS
February 28, 1991
Mr. Les White, City Manager
City of San Jose
801 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Mr. White:
Attachment 1
The Los Gatos Town Council has requested that I forward this letter to you
stating Council's and Staff's concerns about the draft Rubbish System Revisions
currently being processed by your Office of Environmental Management. A few of
the proposals have a direct impact on the Town's Solid Waste Management Program.
Specifically, we would like the Environmental Committee and the City Council to
revise the proposal as follows:
• restrict the $0.25/ton of rubbish disposed of at San Jose's landfills
to waste collected in the City of San Jose. As this may be difficult to
administer, alternatives would be to eliminate the fee altogether or
possibly to implement the fee as part of a county -wide effort. We support
consideration of a county -wide fee to start on July 1, 1992. This will
allow the Technical Advisory Committee to assess its feasibility.
• postpone the changes to the San Jose Municipal Code to provide solid
waste management related definitions until full analysis and impact of the
proposed definitions have been completed and reviewed.
The Town shares San Jose's objectives of source reduction and recycling. In
addition to curbside recycling services for residents in single family dwellings,
we have one of the first city-wide recycling programs serving residents in multi-
unit dwellings.
We are, however, opposed to having Los Gatos residents and businesses subsidize
San Jose's Waste Management programs. If you would like to discuss any of the
above with me, please call me at (408) 354-6832.
Sincerely,
David W. Knapp
Town Manager
DWK:RAF:dr
CSD05:A:\LETTERS\AB939.SJ
CIVIC CENTER • 110 EAST MAIN STREET • P.O. BOX 949 • LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031
Al TACHMLNT 2
RUBBISH SYSTEM REVISION DISCUSSION POINTS
To become effective July 1, 1991:
1. Charge a rubbish franchise fee on all franchised rubbish -haulers of 10
percent of the first $100,000 of gross receipts per fiscal year and 19.5
percent of gross receipts in excess of $100,000 per fiscal year;
2. Impose an AB 939 fee of $0.25 per ton, levied at the landfill, on all
waste disposed of at San Jose landfills;
3. Maintain the business tax for Category A landfills at $3.00 per ton.
Direct the City Attorney to prepare a revision in the business tax for
Category B landfills, increasing the tax from the current $2.10 per ton to
$3.00 per ton;
4. Revise the Municipal Code to add new definitions for Rubbish Hauler, Waste
Processing Facility, Recycling Processing Facility, and Mixed Recyclables.
5. Direct staff in the Administration to provide facility siting and permit
assistance to firms who wish to establish additional Waste Processing
Facilities;
6. Extend existing and establish all new rubbish franchise agreements to
terminate on June 30, 1993;
7. Increase the residential and commercial garbage service rates by $0.31 per
household per month and $0.31 per average cubic yard, respectively.
8. Amend the Municipal Code to enact an AB 939 fee on residential garbage
customers receiving can service of $1.69 per household per month to pay
for 63% of the costs of the implementation of the new yard waste recycling
service to single-family residents. Amend the Municipal Coe to enact an
AB 939 fee on commercial garbage customers of $0.31 per average cubic yard.
To become effective July 1, 1992:
9. Revise the rubbish franchise fee system to allow rubbish haulers to pay a
lower franchise fee on rubbish taken to a Waste Processing Facility (WPF)
than on rubbish taken to a landfill.
10. Work through the Intergovernmental Council Solid Waste Committee to
implement a countywide AB 939 fee on all wastes landfilled in the County
to assist in recovering a portion of the costs associated with
implementing Source Reduction and Recycling Elements being prepared
pursuant to State mandate under AB939 (Chapter 1095 of the Government Code
of the State of California).
1746i
FEB 25 '91 15:34 GUPD LF(408)258_7451
P.01
ATTACHMENT 3
EEB 2 5 1991
GUADALUPE RUBBISH DISPOSAL COMPANY
P.Q. BOX 20957 + SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95160 • PHONE 266.1670
Mr. Gary Liss
City of San Jose
Office of Environmental Management
151 West Mission Street, Room 203
San Jose, CA 95110
Dear Gary,
February 21, 1991
Post-IIt' brand fax transmittal memo
7671 # of pages I.3
To
ICQCt ,,,, r c.,..(1‹,,,,,—
From . ` 1 ,
Lo.`c
CO.
Dept.
Phone # 2613
- 76 70
Fax # A s 4 - Tif 3 L
Fax
RE: Rubbish Comments
These comments are given In response to the "Rubbish System Revision
Discussion Points" distributed in the February 20, 1991 meeting. Generally,
the suggested implementations for FY 91-92 are a significant Improvement
over the initial recommendations made by OEM but, there are still Issues on
the table that pose a serious threat to the garbage industry,
The most significant of these issues was "2, Impose an AB 939 fee of $0,25
per ton, levied at the landfill, on all waste disposed of at" landfills located
in the City of San Jose. This issue has been heavily lobbied against because
It sets a dangerous president of 1) charging everyone except the benefactors
for recycling services, and 2) charges other cities for San Jose residential
recycling services, The end result of this policy i5 non -franchised waste
consisting of Corrimercial, Industrial, self haulers, and adjoining
communities will pay for San Jose residential recycling.
The longer term objection to this policy is that there will be continued
attempts to escalate this fee as the cost spent for existing recycling
services increase or new services are added, This fee will be placed on an
ever decreasing wastestream as the other cities implement AB 939 and
business begin greater levels of recycling, either through internal controls
or use of the recycling facilities available to them. As this occurs the cost
of disposal will become prohibitive and alternate disposal locations will be
found. The. remaining "one yard" of non franchised material going into
landfills located In San Jose cannot support all of the cities ambitious and
somewhat less than cost effective recycling Services.
FEE; 25 '91 15:35 GUPD LF(408)268_7451 P.02
We are also greatly concerned over the definition proposed in Item 4 for
Waste Processing Facilities. While we will be commenting at greater length
on this Issue once the actual proposed definition is released by OEM, some
initial comments are warranted. The staff's proposed use of percentages
recycled to define a facility is a serious and grievous over regulation of
facilities and processes that are just coming on line. It sends out a message
that a waste 15 not recyclable unless it contains a fixed amount of
recyclable material, regardless of its value, A recycling facility that goes
to the eftor-t to sort through waste material, pull any material that has an
economic value, then load and transport the residue to a landfill should be
considered a Waste Processing Facility.
The definition becomes more Important when it is viewed with point 9 that
proposes reduced franchise rates for material taken to a Waste Processing
Facility, This forces a huge burden on the facility to reach a percentage
recycling goal, for fear of not meeting the percentages and subsequently
losing all of its wastestream. This will force the facilities to be extremely
selective in receiving waste to make sure percentages can be met, with
little regard to the economics of recycling, as the economics of the perfered
franchise fee w111 govern.
Concerning point 9, this should be but one of several alternatives that can
be evaluated to Increase recycling. First the use of the perfered fee system
may not even be necessary as the recycling facilities may provide the
economic incentive (lower tipping fees than landfills) to accomplish
recycling goals if reliable markets can be found for recycled materials. It
would certainly be admirable if recycling could be accomplished on its on
merits.
Point 10, another recommendation tor FY 91-92, proposes looking at a
county wide landfill fee for AB 939 costs. We are strongly recommending
against this concept as having the ultimate impact of charging
commercial/Industrial disposers for residential recycling. This artificially
reduces garbage rates to residents through subsidies, creating the same
pitfalls noted with point 2, The charging of residents for recycling services
is the prefered alternative.
in closing, we wish to lend our support for point 3 that establishes a fair
and equitable landfill business tax, point 4 that will give city support in
permitting waste processing facilities, and point 8 that charges residents a
large percentage of the actual cost of a recycling service.
FEB 25 '91 15:35 GAD LF(408)268_7451 P.03
Please call it there are any questions regarding these comments.
Very Truly Yours,
Guadalupe Rubbish D� p 1 Co. Inc.
James H. Lord, P.E.
General Manager
cc: Michelle Yesney
Judy Stabile
Patricia Sausedo
Trtxie Johnson
James Beall
March 4, 1991
Los Gatos, California
ARTWORKS CONT.
2. Historical and Arts Coordinator: (Vacant)Position to be filled by Community Services
Manager.
3. Artist from our Community: David Middlebrook
4. Citizen from Community: Dr. Jeffrey Brown
5. Arts Professionals: David Allen and Madelyn Crawford
6. Parks Department: Director or appointee
Carried unanimously.
RUBBISH SYSTEM REVISIONS/SAN JOSE
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council authorize the Town Manager
to forward the attached draft letter to the City Manager of the City of San Jose responding to
elements of the Rubbish System Revisions that the City is currently considering and to have staff
investigate alternatives to incurring the increases of fees from San Jose. Carried unanimously.
SHANNON ROAD 14615/TRACT 8400/ASSESSMENT DISTRICT/RESOLUTION 1991-34
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT'
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council adopt Resolution 1991-34
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS OF INTENTION TO FORM AN
OPEN SPACE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF TRACT 8400 SANTA
ROSA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION- LOCATED AT 14615 SHANNON ROAD, and designate the
Town Engineer as the Engineer who will coordinate and prepare the necessary reports and
documents. Carried unanimously.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE/COLLECTION DAY PROGRAM/RESOLUTION 1991-35
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council adopt Resolution 1991-35
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AUTHORIZING THE TOWN
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CAMPBELL. TOWN
OF LOS GATOS. CITY OF MONTE SERENO. CITY OF SARATOGA. AND COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA- SPECIFYING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATION IN A
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTECQLLECTION PROGRAM AND TO NEGOTIATE AND
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CAMPBELL_TOWN OF LOS GATOS,
CITY OF MONTE SERENO CITY OF SARATOGA. AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. AND
GREENFIELD ENVIRONMENTAL FOR HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICES, Carried unanimously.
HISTORIC DISTRICT LANDMARKS/ORDINANCE 1815/RESOLUTION 1991-36
Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council adopt Resolution 1991-36
entitled, RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS CORRECTING A CLERICAL
ERROR IN ORDINANCE 1815 AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE APPROVAL FOR MINOR PROJECTS AND TO
REQUIRE ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL AND APPROVE APPLICATION FEES
FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FOR DESIGNATED LANDMARKS.
Carried by a vote of 4 ayes. Mayor Ventura abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
TC:D1:MM030491
3