Loading...
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