HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-09-18; City Council; 5991; Condition of Solid Waste Collection Agreementr
~-
Initial: ~t~:
Dept. Hd~ ·AGENDA BILL NO. _..,.S_,__9.__.9 _ _._ ________ _
DATE: September 18, 1979 C. Atty~ \)7:8
f
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS C. Mgr. ~
Subject: CONDITION OF SOLID •WASTE COLLECTION AGREEMENT
Statement of the Matter
The agreement for refuse collection services with Coast Waste Management runs _year-to-year
effective December 31 and requires 90 days written notice prior to th~t date of any
intention to terminate. This is being brought to Council's attention at this time for
discussion. ·
EXHIBITS:
1. Memo from Director of Utilities & Maintenance to City Manager, dated September 10, 1979.
REW~MENDAT ION:
If Council desires further infonnation, return to staff for further analysis.'
Council Action·:
9-18-79 By consensus, Council directed staff to study and renegotiate
the current contract, to include a study of unlimited service
versus limited collection~
.,,
September 10, 1979
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager
FROM: Director of Utilities & Maintenance
SUBJECT: Refuse Collection Agreement
The present refuse agreement between t.he City ar.d Coast Waste Management
was first execu:ed on October 1, 1971. It has been amended since that
time and the third amendment, executed on December 7, 1976, modified the
term of the agreement as follows:
"TERM: The term of this contract wi 11 commence on December
~1976 and shall continue for a period of one year. This
contract is automatically renewable, year to year~ subject
to the right of either party to terminate this agi•eement
for any reason on the anniversary date and upon ninety (90)
days written r;oti ce preceding that date, to the other party."
79-170
Any notification of the City's intent to terminate or, in my opinion, to
modify or to terminate the contract during the next year, should be made
to Coast Waste Management in early October in accordance with this clause
of our pre~ent agreement. This is not to infer that the performanr,e of
Coast Wq~te :,t,i11aaP.1J1P"'.: ~= .,,,,,ai:1sfactory or that a re-bi.j of the contract
is nece•sary, but to advise you of our contract terms. Council may wish
to direct staff to review our current solid waste collection practices
and consider any of the following alternatives:
1. Collection by City forces. This alternative will require considerable
staff analysis and will require about six months to complete.
Historically, about as many cities convert from city forces to private
collection as convert from contract to city forces each year.
Oceanside recently went from city collection to private contract.
2. Re-bid to private contract. Oceanside recently has let the collection
contract to a private corporation. Rates for residential services
were set at $3.65 per month (two containers) as compared to $4.65 per
month for unlimited container service in Carlsbad. The Oceanside city
contract has not been in force long enough to make an objective
evaluation of the service level; however, preliminary indications are
that it is satisfactory. Coast Waste has indicated they anticipate a
slight reduction in rates in the October-November time frame, after
an evaluation of cost savings due to the operation of the new shred-
ding facility.
3. Continue the present agreement with Coast Waste with no change. The
level of service provided by Coast Waste is satisfactory and suffi-
cient justification can be made to continue the contract (thus
avoiding staff costs 1ue to analysis or rebidding) for another year -
or for such period as Council might consider appropriate. Coast
Waste has indicated the desirability of a 5-year term contract in
order to facilitate arrangements for long-term financing, but they
City Manager -2-September 10, 1979
have not subnitted any fonnal request in this regard.
It is recommended that this item be placed on the Council agenda by early
October for further discussion.
q~~
Director of Utilities & Maintenance
RWG:pab
COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
PHONE: 753•9412 7204 PONTO DRIVE. P.O. BOX 947, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92003
or 452·9810
McDOUGAL SANITATION DEL MA.A DISPOSAL CO.
CARLSBAD DISPOSAL CO. RA"ICflO SANTA FE DISPOSAL CO.
SOLANA BEACfl DISPOSAL CO. SORRENTO VALLEY DISPOSAL CO,
September 14, 1979
Mr. Roger M. Greer
Director of Utilities and Maintenance
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear Mr. Greer:
After reviewing your memorandum of September 10, 1979 to the City Manager with re-
spect to the Carlsbad Refuse Collection Agreement, the following comnents on the
three alternative proposals in the memorandum are provided for your information
or for whatever action you may deem appropriate.
l. COLLECTION BY CITY FORCES: With the restrictions imposed by Proposition 13,
it is my considered opinion that when the pros and cons are analyzed for city col-
lection versus private co 11 ecti on, it wi 11 shC''·/ unque~ti onab'fy, tliat refuse coFec-
ti on can be provided at a lower cost through a private collector, be it Coast Waste
Management or another private firm. The City of Oceanside is an ex~ellent example.
When the City could no longer operate their own landfill, and were required to up-
grade thai r equipment and provide increased employee benefits, costs became prohi bi-
ti ve and they were forced to change to private contract.
2. RE-BID TO PRIV~fE CONTRACT: In comparing refuse rates, Carlsbad's rates are
competetive with those rates currently being charged in surrounding cities and
county areas which ar'e being serviced by private contracts. Oceanside is the ex-
ceptit,ll; however, as you have stated in your memorandum, residential services arP.
limited to two containers, while Carlsbad receives unlimited service and sufficfont
time has not elapsed since the City converted to private contract to evaluate the
quality of service. Previous rate increases granted to Coast Waste Management were
based in part on additional travel distance to landfills. A review is currently be-
ing conducted to ascertain if a rate reduction is in order with the opening of the
transfer site by Palomar Airfort. It must be pointed out, at this time, that costs
for operating the transfer facility have yet to be determined. Should the current
dump fees collected fall short of operating costs, a dump fee increase would be in
order. Increased costs for fuel, wages, insurance, etc. could negate any rate re-
duction which the City might have received as a result of eliminating the necessity
to transport refuse to outlying landfills.
3. CONTINUE THE PRESENT AGREEMENT WITH COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT WITH NO CHANGE: Coast
Waste Management is constantly up-grading equipment at tremendous costs. The cost of
new equipment dictates that long term financ'ing must be utilized in order to obtain
A SATISFll:O CIJSTOMER IS 1.:JR FIRST CONSIDERATION
the new equipment necessary to provide an efficient and effective refuse collection.
A five~year term contract, which is granted by other surrounding cities ~.10 utilize
a private collection is almost a necessity to provide the security required to re-
ceive adequate financing. Should the Council consider directing staff to review or
renegotiate the existing agreement, it is requested that the Council consider extend-
ing the term of the agreement to five years.
In view of the above, it is recommended that favorable consideration be given to
alternative three, and I would be most happy to discuss any question you or the
Members of the Council might have concerning my comments.
Respectfully,
AdeJ/mp