The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-03-11 - AGENDA REPORTS - RESIDENTIAL REFUSE FRANCHISES (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Appro* Item to be presented by: L3mn M. Harris Wj Llwl L KI �910_03_0-18M QVIZM� DATE: March 11, 1997 SUBJECT: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE FRANCHISES: ANNUAL TERM EXTENSION OF AGREEMENTS DEPARTMENT: Public Works BACKGROUND At the February 25, 1997 meeting of the City Council a public hearing was held to consider the renewal of the automatic 12 -month term extension of the City's residential refuse franchise agreements and to provide residents with an opportunity to publicly express their level of satisfaction with the service performance and to discuss other issues related to the franchises. Following the close of the public hearing, staff was directed to identify and summarize the key issues raised at the hearing, seek resolutions to these issues, and return to the City Council with a recommendation for action. ANALYSIS Twenty-two speakers provided oral testimony at the public hearing. Twenty items of written testimony were also submitted. The total of 42 items presented at the hearing were distributed as follows; 18 opposed to approving the franchise extension, 17 in favor of approving the extension and 7 items were presented by corporate officers or representatives of the franchisees. The key issues raised at the public hearing included: 0 Yard trimmings set -out limitations 0 Refuse set -out limitations 0 Competitive selection of franchisees Rates being charged for refuse and recycling services 0 Communication between haulers, staff and residents Customer complaint resolution procedures Weekly recycling. A detailed summary of these issues, and others, are noted in Attachment A of this document. Ar -T, - I Aocanda Item".1-6-00 Krf Staff met with the franchisees on Thursday, February 27, 1997 in an effort to resolve the key issues that had been identified through the public hearing process. During the meeting the franchisees demonstrated a strong willingness to cooperatively resolve the majority of concerns raised at the public hearing. Based on the results of the meeting, staff concludes that the franchise agreements should be allowed to automatically extend for the prescribed 12 -month period. The results of the meeting are summarized as follows: The franchisees have agreed to provide, free of charge, collection tags for up to 12 additional 32 -gallon containers, or 12 bundles, of yard trimmings each year, upon customer request. Franchisees will collect additional trash at a cost of $1.00 per 32 -gallon container, or residents can order 12 extra collection tags for a cost of $10.00 Franchisee have agreed to increased advertisement of the annual Pride Week Event as another mechanism for collection of excess refuse and yard trimmings. To ensure uniform customer service and complaint resolution, the City will continue to provide the franchisees customer service staff with standardized complaint forms and updated training on an annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. The franchisees have agreed to work diligently with City staff and the contracted consultants to seek viable solutions to stabilize refuse rates through a unit -pricing structure which would offer residents more options to control household disposal costs. Franchisees have agreed to continue dialogue related to the implementation of weekly curbside recycling. I a fxmcel UV I a I It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Direct staff to amend the residential franchise agreements to reflect the changes outlined in this report, and 2) Allow the residential refuse franchise agreements to automatically extend for a 12 month period. SXCAGE�A\EWGRN9.�N tay- �6-VVWP- 0 � Issues and Responses .A' * ATTACHMENT A ISSUES AND RESPONSES RELATED TO THE FEBRUARY 25,1997 PUBLIC BEARING ON RESIDENTIAL REFUSE FIL This attachment provides a summary of the key issues that were raised at the February 25, 1997 Public Hearing. The issues are ranked according to the number of residents I that discussed each particular issue. City staff has also provided responses to each key issue. As noted at the hearing, all citizens that provided oral, or written, testimony will be mailed a copy of this attachment for their reference. I 1) RATES Issue: Thirteen of the hearing. participants indicated that they believed that residential refuse collection rates in Santa Clarita were excessive and/or not comparable to the raies in other cities of similar size. Five pagicipants felt that the rates were reasonable and justified. I Response: Continued increases in landfill tipping fees, collection costs, Los Ahgeles County taxes I and the implementation of comprehensive waste reduction programs to comply, with the California Integrated Waste Management Act 1989 (AB 939) have led to an escalation of local refuse rates since the inception of the franchises in 1991. However, consideri ' ng the wide'range of refuse and recycling services that local residents receive, the rates being charged a�.e not significantly inconsistent 'with rates being charged in other areas. Currently, City staff is working diligently with the franchisees and an independent consulting firm to develop a unit -pricing s�stem which would allow residents greater choices in controlling their household disposal costs. This new system is scheduled to be introduced in early 1998, pending City Council approval. 2) COMPETITION Issue: Eleven hearing participants indicated that they were opposed to the franchises based on economic, or philosophical, grounds stating that franchise arrangements stifle competition and customer choices regarding service providers. It was also stated that lack of co I mpetition results in stagnant service performance. Some of the participants opposed to the frani chise arrangement indicated that a franchise would be more acceptable if a competitive process would be used in contractor selection. One participant indicated that competition would allo� w for undesirable contractors to operate in the City. Response: Many cities in Los Angeles County and throughout the state use franchise arrangements for municipal refuse collection. The Santa Clarita City Council committed to the concept of refuse franchising in 1991 by granting the three residential franchises. This commitment was reaffirmed in 1993 when the franchisees were also granted contracts to the City's conimerc�al waste collection services. The City Council's decision to franchise for refuse service was based on several important factors including; the ability to coordinate AB 939 waste reduction programs, to facilitate AB 939 reporting, to provide for Superfund and AB 939 indemnity and general lia I bility insurance, to minimize heavy truck traffic and road damage, and the ability to ensure responsiveness to customer requests. -0 ATTACHMENT A ISSUES AND RESPONSES 3) YARD TRIMMINGS SET -OUT LIMITATIONS Issue: Nine hearing participants indicated that the 64 -gallon yard trimmings container did not adequately meet their service needs. They further indicated that they felt it was unfair to be required to pay extra for additional containers or bundles that had previously been picked up at no additional charge. Some participants indicated that the limitations were a deterrent to their participation in the program. Several of the participants also indicated concerns about how seasonal increases in yard trimmings would be handled. . Response: The decision to use 64 -gallon yard trimmings containers was based on information gathered from the yard trimmings pilot program and a study conducted by independent consultants. The data indicated that the average household generates about 24 pounds of yard trinunings a week. Of course, some households generate much more material, or much less material, depending on lot size, landscape type and other factors. There are also seasonal changes that effect the amount of yard trimming material generated. The data indicated that a 64 -gallon container would provide the greatest utility to the greatest number of households. In order to address the concerns of the marginalized residents whose needs are not being met, staff has coordinated with the franchisees to provide 12 additional 32 gallon containers, or 12 bundles, pick-ups per year free of charge. Residents must simply call and request the 12 yard trimniings pick-up taggs from their franchised refuse company. 4) COMMUNICATION Issue: Five hearing participants indicated that they were not notified in a timely manner of service and price changes related to the yard trimmings recycling program and the 90 -gallon refuse container limitation. Response: The yard trimmings recycling program was aggressively promoted several months in advance of implementation. In addition to numerous City Council Meetings, study sessions, public service announcements, press releases, newspaper ads, and public presentations, every single family household in the City was directly mailed letters from the incumbent Mayor and upon container delivery, magnets, brochures and follow-up letter were also distributed. The franchisees notified all residential customers of changes in refuse collection limitations through messages on billing statements and through a field tagging system. 5) WEEKLY RECYCLING Issue: Four hearing participants indicated that twice a month curbside recycling collection was inadequate. Response: The original franchise agreements provided for twice a month unlimited recycling at no additional charge to residents. Since that time, program participation has dramatically increased and the types of materials accepted through the program has also increased. City staff and the franchisees have noted increased customer demand for weekly recycling collection. City staff and franchisee are ATTACHMENT A ISSUES AND RESPONSES 5) WEEKLY RECYCLING (cont.) continuing to evaluate the cost of weekly curbside versus the amount of additional waste diversion that would result from this change. This issue will be revisited as part of the unit -pricing study. 6) 90 -GALLON REFUSE LIMITATION Issue: Three hearing participants indicated that the 90 -gallon refuse container limitation was unfair to larger families, and the limitation served as a reduction in service with an increase in customer cost. Response: As was indicated by staff at the public hearing, service has not been reduced but has been changed to place emphasis on recycling and source reduction rather than unlimited refuse disposal. The 64 -gallon yard trimmings recycling container is intended to replace the additional 32- gallon containers, or brush bundles, that used to be collected as part of refuse service. All residents, and particularly those with large.families, are also being strongly encouraged by the franchisees and staff to fully utilize the free unlimited curbside recycling service. These changes in service assist in increasing waste diversion as well as preparing residents for the potential transition to a unit -based pricing system. Residents who occasionally need additional refuse container service can request additional pick-up tags from the franchisees for $I a tag, or 12 tags for $10. 7) CUSTOMER SERVICE AND COMPLIANT PROCEDURE Issue: Three hearing participants indicated that they had experienced poor customer service and that complaints were bounced back and forth between franchisee representatives and city officials with no established means of filing a formal complaint. Response: To ensure uniform customer service and complaint resolution, the City will continue to provide the franchisee's' customer service staff with standardized complaint forms and updated training on an annual basis, or more frequently if necessary. Each complaint form outlines the specific complaint procedure, as excerpted from the franchise agreement, on the reverse side of the document. 0 0 0 Results of February 25, 1997 Public Hearing In Favo Extension of Residential Refuse Franchises Franchisee Comments pposed Cust. Serv. Refuse Lmt. Weekly Rcy. Comm. YT Limits Competition Rates 22 Speakers provided Oral Testimony, 20 items of Written Testimony, Total of 42 items Presented Results of February 25, 1997 Public Hearing In Favo Extension of Residential Refuse Franchises Franchisee Comments pposed- Cust. Serv. Refuse Lmt. Weekly Rcy. Comm. YT Limits Competition Rates 22 Speakers provided Oral Testimony, 20 items of Written Testimony, Total of 42 items Presented