Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-12; City Council; 12034; SOLID WASTE SERVICES RATE INCREASES0 g U e a < 2 0 a 6 5 z 3 0 0 Cw OF CARLSBAD - AGE A BILL -.>J Ud MTG. 01/12/93 SOLID WASTF, SERVICES RATE INCREASES CITY AT’ DEPT. H’ AB # /2.,,03q TITLE: DEPT. U&M CITY MG RECOMMENDED ACTION: vu 1. Approve the Combined Public Utility and Indexed Rate Approach for evaluating future solid waste services rate increase requests, as recommended by the City‘s consultant, Hilton, Farnkopf and Hobson. Adopt Resolution No. 9 3 - 1 f Commercial Solid Waste Services Fees. 2. authorizing an increase in the Residential and ITEM EXPLANATION: BACKGROUND: On August 6, 1991, the City Council approved a Refuse and Recyclables Collection Contract with Coast Waste Management (CWM). Among other things, the Contract provided that the City and CWM would share the cost of an independent consultant study to develop a mutually acceptable refuse rate index process which would be used to establish appropriate refuse and recycling collection rates on a non-adversarial and timely basis. A further objective of the Study was to determine if a formal incentive process could be established to aid in cost control. The firm of Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson (HFH) was jointly selected by City and CWM staff to perform the rate index study. The Study involved a detailed analysis of CWM’s finances, evaluated three methods for analyzing and setting rates and recommended an appropriate rate setting/indexing process and a profit margin in keeping with comparable companies. In summary, the Study: A. Established that CWM had been operating on a small before tax (2%) profit or a loss (-5%) for the past four years. The Study also identified that most comparable companies in the refuse industry earned a before tax profit of 9% to 10%. B. Evaluated three rate setting/indexing methodologies and recommended an appropriate methodology and process. Methodologies evaluated were: 1. Public Utility Approach. This process requires an in depth hancial analysis every time a rate increase is requested, whether the increase is requested to simply pass through tip fee increases or more complicated operating cost increases. The public utility analysis is intended to assure that a company does not earn a profit exceeding a previously agreed upon percentage. This process is time consuming and could cost $30,000 to $40,000 each time the analysis is performed. I 0 0 PAGE2OFAB# 12.,Q3y 2. Indexed Rate Approach. This process simply applies previously agreed upon indexes to the cost components of CWM's operations. This is similar to a cost of living index approach. While this approach would be inexpensive, it would be difficult, if not impossible to assure fair profits and reasonable rates. The volatility of the indexes chosen could have a greater impact on rates than actual costs. 3. Combined Public Utility and Indexed Rate Approach. This approach envisions using the in depth financial analysis of the Public Utility approach to establish a base year rate, based on an agreed profit margin. An Indexed Rate approach, using agreed upon indexes, would be used for subsequent years. The Indexed Rate would be used for only two years subsequent to the base year, then another in depth Public Utility financial analysis would be undertaken to assure that profits were not in excess of the agreed upon percentage. The City Council would consider and approve rate recommendations developed by either the Public Utility or Indexed Rate process. C. Reviewed the financial positions of similar sized waste collection companies and identified that a before tax profit margin of between 8% and 10% is the industry norm for most companies with successN performance records. Upon completion of the Study the Consultant recommended using the Public Utility with Indexed Rate approach, a process which would establish a base rate utilizing a "Public Utility" approach, and modify the rate in each of the two following years using the "Indexed Rate" approach. The Public Utility process would be conducted every three years. City Council approval would be required to increase rates. The indexes agreed to by CWM and U/M staff include: For Wages and Benefits: The percent change in Average Hour& Earnings - Transportation and Public UtiZities, as published in Employment and Earnings by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor; and, For Disposal Costs: The annual percentage change in the disposal tip fee per ton charged to dispose of refuse; and, For Operations and Maintenance Costs: The percent change in the Producer Price Index - Transportation Equipment, as published in Producer Price Indexes by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. These recommendations were considered and approved in concept by the City Council on July 7, 1992. The Council also authorized Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson (HFH) preparation of a 1992-93 base refuse collection rate using the Public Utility approach, for further consideration. Subsequently, Council approved an amendment to the Refuse Rate Index Study Contract with HFH to assist in the preparation of the 1992-93 base solid waste services rate. HFH has completed an extensive analysis of Coast Waste Management's (CWM) rate increase request, verifying all operating and financial data. 0 0 PAGE3OFAB# Ik!O?q RECOMMENDED 1992-93 BASE SOLID WASTE SERVICES RATES: An increase of $2.40, or 23.4%, in the residential solid waste services rate has been recommended by HFH. The revised solid waste services rate allows for a before tax profit of 9%. The before tax profit margin for privately owned solid waste companies with revenues comparable to CWM's Carlsbad operation is 8% to lo%, as reported in a 1991 Robert Moms Associates report. The rate increase includes increased costs resulting from increased disposal costs, the yard waste collection program, the multi-family recycling program, franchise fee increases, and a general operating increase. CWM has not had a general rate increase since 1988; increases occurring since then have been the pass through of increased tip fees and for the residential recycling program. A summary of the major factors impacting the requested increase is as follows: Disposal Cost Increases: The County Board of Supervisors approved an increase in landfill tip fees from $23/ton to $28/ton, effective September 1 , 1992. Since disposal costs comprise approximately 30% of the solid waste services rate, these fee increases substantially affect the residential and commercial solid waste services rates. Coast Waste Management (CWM) has been charged the new tip fee since September 1, 1992. However, rates were not increased to pass this additional cost through to ratepayers. Therefore the proposed refuse rates contain a "surcharge" of thirty-eight cents ($.38) to recover this additional but unreimbursed cost. The "me" wiU be suspended on June 30,1993. Additional, substantial increases in the disposal fees are anticipated July 1,1993. The City of San Marcos has imposed a $2.80/ton "solid waste facility fee" (SW) on all waste entering the San Marcos landfill. The County of San Diego Solid Waste Enterprise fund has been paying the City of San Marcos SWF fee from Enterprise Fund reserves since its inception. However, it will be added to the tip fee effective July 1, 1993. Additionally, an offsite impact mitigation fee of $1.40/ton and increases in landfill operations, closure/post-closure costs, and new landfill siting costs will be added to the disposal rate, also effective July 1. The landfill tip fee could increase from $28/ton to $45/ton by July 1. Yard Waste Collection: On August 4,1992, Council approved a curbside yard waste collection program in accordance with the County's and the City's Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. This program became fully operational the first week in September. Implementation of the program required an additional collection vehicle on each route, the provision of two yard waste collection decals to each single-family customer, and related public education materials. However, because the disposal cost for yard waste is substantially lower than for regular mixed refuse ($15.25 for yard waste as opposed to $28.00 for refuse), the cost of the yard waste collection program is completely offset by savings in disposal costs. 0 0 PAGE4OFAB# /2,03q Administration (AB 939) : The Administrative Service (AB 939) fee funds a portion of the cost of the City's Solid Waste administrative effort. It is currently 1.1% of the residential rate ($0.11 per month) and 1.1% of the commercial rate. Staff recommends maintenance of this fee at 1,1% of the solid waste services rate. Franchise Fee: In accordance with the Refuse and Recyclables Collection contract with CWM, the franchise fee will increase one-half percent (.5%) on March 1. The franchise fee is a general fund revenue source. Residential Solid Waste Services Rate: All of the above items result in a residential solid waste services fee of $12.67. The recommended rate includes a $.38 "surcharge" to recover the cost of the tip fee increase which went into effect on September 1, 1992. The "surcharn e" will be mended on June 30,1993. Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4 provide more detailed information concerning the proposed rate increase. Commercial Solid Waste Services Rate; Commercial solid waste services rates will undergo increases similar to the residential rate, approximating 24%. The factors which impact these increases are the increased disposal costs, full implementation of the multi-family recycling program (multi-family customers are billed as commercial accounts), a general operating increase and the franchise fee increases. More detailed information is contained in Exhibits 3 and 4. These increases are to be effective December 15, 1992, with bills sent to customers after January 15, 1993. Residential and commercial refuse collection customers will be informed of the rate increase, through a feature article in the 'Wastelines" Newsletter, describing the rate increase and the corresponding need. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of the proposed rates increase the single family residential solid waste services rate from $10.27/month to $12.67/month (23.4%); the commercial rate increases vary from 24% to 43%, depending on level of service. These rate increases compare favorably to other cities' costs for similar service (see Exhibit 2). Currently, the AB 939 fee generates approximately $5,150 revenue to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund (SWEF) each month. Staff estimates that the increased rates will increase this revenue source to approximately $6,600 monthly. The franchise fee currently generates approximately $14,150 general fund revenue each month. The increased rates will generate approximately $18,000 in franchise fees each month, this figure will increase to $21,000 when the franchise fee increases to 3.5% on 3/1/93. 0 0 PAGE5OFAB# ,K,03? EXHIBITS: 1. Resolution No. 9 3 - / l 2. Rate Comparison 3. 4. Components of the Solid Waste Services Rates Hilton Famkopf & Hobson Study (on file in the City Clerk’s office) . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 e e . RESOLUTION NO. 93-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALDFORNIA, REVTSINGTHE MONTHLY SOLID WASTF, SERVICES RATE FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad is responsible for the provision of re designated recyclables, and yard waste collection services to promote the safety, he and general welfare of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad may contract for such services; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has contracted with Coast Waste Managen Inc. for refuse, designated recyclables, and yard waste collection services within the and WHEREAS, Coast Waste Management, Inc. is in the business of collecting disposing of refuse and can continue to provide the necessary refuse collection ser to the citizens of Carlsbad; and WHEREAS, Coast Waste Management, Inc. is in the business of collecting marketing recyclable goods as designated by the City Manager and can contini ~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 provide the necessary recyclables collection services to residential and come i 1 customers; and I WHEREAS, Coast Waste Management, Inc. is in the business of collecting disposing of source separated yard waste and can continue to provide the necessary waste collection services to residential and commercial customers; and WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has determined that an increase in solid I services rates is necessary at this time; and 1 I , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 W 0 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Carl: as follows: 1. 2. The above recitations are true and correct. The Solid Waste Services rate for once-a-week collection of reside! refuse, designated recyclables, and yard waste shall be $12.67 per mc inclusive of the AB 939 fee. 3. The Solid Waste Services rate for Special Residential Collection Sei shall be $15.05 per month, inclusive of the AB 939 fee. The Administrative Service (AB 939) fee for residential and cornme customers shall be 1.1% of the solid waste services rate. The Solid Waste Services Rates for commercial refuse collection, inch of the AB 939 fee, shall be: 4. 5. NUMBER OF PICKUPS PER WEEK No. of &E - 1 - 2 - 3 4 - 5 1 $76.30 $140.28 $204.26 $268.24 $332.22 $39 CO~CrAL CAN STOPS I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 j 1 x Week $20.1 9/month 2 x Week $40.36/month 3 x Week $60.55/month 4 x Week $80.72/month 5 x Week $1 00.90/month 6. The charge for designated commercial recyclables collection service be determined by Coast Waste Management, Inc. and approved b! Utilities and Maintenance Director on a case-by-case basis, deper 2 @ t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 e 0 upon materials collected, but in no case shall this charge exceed charge for commercial refuse collection. The following rates shall apply to special pickups of refuse: a. b. 7. The delivery charge for roll-off boxes shall be $39.50 per bo: The rate for all classes of roll-off boxes shall be $139.32, landfill disposal fees and AB 939 fees. Roll-off boxes which are not dumped a minimum of once per v shall be assessed a charge of $3.00 per day. Customers requj more than one dump from a roll-off box shall be refunded original $39.50 delivery charge. This refund may be in the j of a credit on the customer's account. c. 8. The rate for special haul bins (3 cubic yard bins which require sp collection or are rented for seven days or less) shall be as follows: a. 1 bin delivered: $61 b. 2 bins delivered same trip: $121 The residential and commercial Solid Waste Services Rates establi c. 3 bins delivered same trip: $1 7 9. /I 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hereby shall be effective December 15, 1992. The rates and charges established by this Resolution shall on effective day supersede rates previously established. I 10. 1 / / / 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I.2 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I e 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Carl at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of January , 1993, b! following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Nygaard and Finnila NOES: Council Members Stanton and Kulchin ABSENT: None ATTEST: i!LDL $. u ALETHA L. RAUTENKRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) I I 4 i!4 8 E 2 d m 3 VI %+ -0 '5 % ZQ-.: 4 i? -3 d9co 22 0- m 3 232 2 322 %e, .r( m s HGZ a: or u .g g? 1 -4 a 0 F.i rn M E 38 8 A OF u 0- CK) rn m b b -p+j % 8- 493 # $-, a ZH ww zm m ow 2 1 $4 a, ‘i3 04 w mk FjYjV=J 6l w 00 0 $J 06 m 64 0 64 w3 1 1 €e # 0 0 city of CdW Review of Coast Waste Management's RefkeRate Application December 1,1992 This report is printed on recycled paper and copied on both sides to reduce waste. Exhibit 0 0 HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON e Advisory Services to -3 Municipal Management - Fremi Newport Be, 3990 Westerly Place, Suite 195 Newport Beach, California 92660-23 11 Telephone 7141251-8628 Fax 7 14/25 1-9741 December 1,1992 Mr, Conrad B, Pawelski General Manager Coast Waste Management, hc. 5960 El Camino Real P.O. Box 947 Carlsbad, California 92018-0947 Mr. Ralph Anderson Director Utilities and Maintenance Department City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 cityofcarlsbad RePt Review of Coast waste lkTmagement's Refuse hte&pfication Dear Messrs. Pawelski and Anderson: This report is submitted in accordance with our contract with the City of Carlsbad (City) and Coast Waste Management (Company) dated July 23,1992. In summary, the scope of our review included: Reviewing the Company's rate application for mathematical accuracy, log ical consistency, and reasonableness; and, Revising the Company's projections and recalculating any necessary adjustments to refuse collection and disposal rates. Based on our analysis of the projected fiscal year 1993 results of operations we recommend a 20% increase to collection and disposal rates. This increase resdts largely from increased disposal costs and the establishment of rates at a suf€icient level to allow the Company to earn a reasonable profit. In addition, because the projections were done on a fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) basis, but the rates are being adjusted effective January 1, a one-time surcharge of 3% is also recommended. Although, the surcharge will terminate effective July 1, 1993, rates are not anticipated to be reduced because the reduction is currently anticipated to be offset by increasing disposal fees. 0 0 @ == HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON _. - December 1,1992 Messrs. Pawelski and Anderson Page 2 Throughout the report, we have presented the rate impact of various adjustments on residential, commercial, and roll-off customers. The roll-off customers are charged separately for a haul charge and disposal expense. Because the disposal expense varies with the weight of the load, our calculation of the rate may not be accurate for a particular customer. It has been our pleasure to have been of service to the City of Carlsbad and Coast Waste Management in the performance of this review. We look forward to presenting our report to the City Council at its December 15,1992, meeting. Very truly yours, *@&L.4C&d- Robert D. Hilton, CMC Managing Partner CI recycled <J paper 0. e city OfCarIsbad Report Review of Coast Waste lbmagement's Refuse Rate Application - section Descrintio n Ea%! I Background 1 I1 Company's Application 2 Prior Year Results of Operations Projected Results of Operations I11 Review of Company's Application 4 Review of Prior Year Results of Operations Review of Projected Expenses Review of Requested Profit Disposal Fee Surcharge IV Recommended Rate Adjustment 8 Exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 Company's Requested 1992-93 Refuse Rate Adjustments to Company's Requested Rate Current Returns Allowed by Other Jurisdictions City of Carlsbad 1992-93 Base'Rate &view Rate Increase Factors City of Carlsbad 1992-93 Rate Review Composition of Refuse Collection Rates 0 0 SECTION I - BACEGROUND The City of Carlsbad (City) and Coast Waste Management, Inc. (Company) retained Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson (HF&H) to develop a Rate Index System for use in adjusting the rates charged by the Company for refuse collection and dis- posal. The system developed by HF&H and approved by both the Company and City adjusts refuse rates based on certain changes in indices applied to certain costs (e.g., the U.S. Department of Commerce, Average Hourly Earnings, Transportation and Utilities Workers' Index is applied to wages and benefits). The initial rate is to be based on a review of the Company's hancial results of operations. In order to initiate the Rate Index System, the City and Company retained HF&H to review the Company's forecasted results of operations for the twelve months ending June 30, 1993, and to establish an initial refuse collection and disposal rate. x 0 e SECTION 11 - COMPANY'S APPLICATION PR\IORYEARRJESULTS OF OPERATIONS The Company prepared its projection of its financial results of operations for the twelve months ending June 30,1993, based in part on its financial results of operations for the twelve months ending June 30,1992. The Company reported that it achieved a 106% operating ratio during this earlier period. ~~RESULTSOFOPERATIONS Based on its projections, the Company projected that existing rates charged to the customers would increase an average of 40%. This increase would raise residential customer rates from $10.27 per month by $4.13 per month to $14.40 per month. This increase includes a net savings of $.05 per month for the residential customers resulting from the implementation of a "Green Waste" program. The major factors causing this increase are: An increase in profitability to achieve a 91% Modified Operating Ratio; A $5.00 per ton increase in landfill tipping fees; Franchise Fee Increases; Inflation; and; Additional Administrative Positions. Exhibit 1 presents the incremental adjustments to the existing rates based on the Company's projection of changes &om its 1991-92 actual expenses and its projected 1992-93 expenses. 2 Disposal Inflation Added Positions 0 Franchise Pees AB 939 Fee Profit Green Waste Subtotal - Operating Costs - Disposal Costs - Disposal Savings Subtotal CompanytsRequestedRa~@ Sl%MOdifiedOperatingRatio (Footnote 4) Percent Increase From Current Rate 1 Represents unlimited service. 1.03 6.15 30.09 1.20 7.23 15.69 0.10 0.59 2.15 0.17 1-01 3.66 .04 .28 .93 LG4 9.74 34.93 14.45 86.45 302.36 .81 1.06 (1.92) (.05) $1440 s6-6 $30236 40% 41% 41% - Interest 6. Franchise Fees 7. AB939Fee 8. Non-Refuse Interest Expense 9. Contributions 10. Pre-Tax Income hmmendedRate (0.03) (0.51) (1.78) (0.07) (0.40) (1.39) (0.02) (0.14) (0.49) (0.04) (0.27) (0.94) (0.01) (0.04) (0.15) (0.18) (1.11) (3.87) $- $7= $254.12 0 e ._ 1. Depreciation Expense - the Company's projection was reduced to reflect changes in the useW life of certain assets, additions of new assets, and the decrease in expense resulting fkom assets becoming Mly depreciated during fiscal year 1992-93. 2. Disposal Expense - The Company's tonnage volume projection was reduced &om a 13% increase to the same level as the prior year. This is more consistent with recent trends and current conditions. 3. Development Expense - The Company's projection was reduced by the unrelated to the Company's rehse collection operations. Development costs of refuse-related projects (i.e., San Marcos recycling center) which were expensed were capitalized and amortized over the life of the facility. 4. Allocated Costs - The Company's projection of allocated costs were reduced because the labor hours submitted by the Company and used to allocate 'Wages and Benefits" and 'Vehicle Expense" were revised to include fewer hours attributable to the Carlsbad operations. The allocations of ''Recycling Expense" and "Transfer Station Lease Expense" were developed by HF&H because the Company did not provide an allocation basis for these costs. 5. Related Party Expenses - The Company's projection of related party "Equipment Rental" expenses were reduced to reflect the interest and depre- ciation costs the Company would have incurred if they owned the equipment. "Interest Expense" paid to the owner and other related parties was reduced to reflect current market interest rates. 6. Franchise Fee Expense - The Company's projection of franchise fee expense was reduced as a result of the adjustments described herein that decrease amount of the projected costs related to real estate development projects the Company's requested revenues, 7. AB 939 Fee Expense - The Company's projection of AB 939 Fee expense was reduced as a result of the adjustments described herein that decrease the Company's requested revenues. 8. Non-Rehse Interest Expense - The Company's projection of Non-Refuse Interest Expense on property unrelated to the Company's refise collection operations were disallowed. 9. Contributions - the Company's projection of charitable and political contribution expenses were disallowed. 10. Pre-Tax Income - The Company's requested pre-tax income was reduced as a result of the adjustments described above decreasing the Company's requested revenues. 5 0 0 *. R;EVIEWOFREQUESTEDI?€U)FTI' The Company's requested profit calculated as a 91% operating ratio is within a wide range of reasonableness. In the past three fiscal years, the average operat- ing ratio for similar companies in the industry ranges from 90% to 95%. The 1991 Robert Morris Associates Report represents that the operating ratio for simi- lar size companies (with total assets of $2 million to $10 million) is 91% and that an average operating ratio of 93% was reported by all companies contained in the survey. Exhibit 3 summarizes profitability in the solid waste industry. Exhibit 3 Profi~ilityintheSolidWasteIndustry 2 The return on equity used was 10%. 94% is the equivalent operating ratio. 6 0 0 .” We believe that the operating ratios of the publicly held solid waste companies are not comparable to that which a franchise collection company should earn. Many of their activities are non-franchised, and they provide a broader range of services with greater risk than that of solid waste collection. Because of the increasing costs of disposal, which are beyond the control of collection companies, several cities have elected to exclude some or all of the disposal expense in the expenses on which an operating ratio is applied. These cities include the City of Encinitas, the San Mate0 County cities, districts and the County who are members of the South Bayside Transfer Station Authority, and the City of Walnut Creek. Based on discussions with the City staff and Company officials we recommend that this modified operating ratio approach be applied in the City’s establishment of rates and that no profit be calculated on that portion of disposal expense that exceeds $23.00 per ton. Based on earnings of similar companies in the industry and the range of operating ratios allowed by other jurisdictions, we believe that a modified operating ratio between 90% and 95% is not unreasonable. Based on discussion with City staff and Company officials, a 91% modified operating rate is recommended. SURCHARGE The Company’s projection of Fiscal Year 1993 results of financial operations and related rate increases were based on a July 1 effective date. Because six months of the fiscal year have already passed, the revenues received &om the rate increase will be less that necessary. Therefore, a one-time surcharge to reimburse the Company for the costs it absorbed resulting from the disposal fee increase that was implemented September 1,1992, net of the savings f?om the Greenwaste Program, is recommended. This surcharge equals 3% or the equivalent of $0.38 per month to a residential rate. This surcharge should expire July I, 1993, when new rates are established. However, the projected increase to the disposal fee is likely to offset the savings f?om the elimination of the surcharge. 7 Inflation Added Positions Franchise Fees AB 939 Fee Profit Green Waste - Operating Costs - Disposal Costs R#i!comm~Rate AB939FW Recommended Basic Rate (Footmte 4) - Disposal Savings 0.43 2.64 0.67 0.10 0.58 1.75 0.11 0.62 1.87 0.02 0.13 0.36 0.80 4.78 14.56 OB1 1.06 (1.92) $- $;1386 $=n 0 lQlm 0 $12.16 $73.04 $== DispodFee(>$Z3/ton) 5 0.61 5 3.66 8 20.00 -- 29 3.58 29 21.50 22 54.04 FranchiseFee 3 0.38 3 2.31 3 7.94 -fit (Footnote4) 9 1.05 9 6.32 821.07 BaSiCRafe 100 $12.16 100 e3.W 100 e5132 AB939F- 1 0.13 1 0.82 1 2.80 Surcharge (Footnote 5) 3 0.38 3 2.44 _o.oo TotalChargedto $=w @m $!=.I2 Customem .