CC 2022-04-12_11a Supplemental 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Legislative & Information Services Director/City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 11.a. – Consider Request from South County Sanitary
Service for Integrated Solid Waste Collection Rate Increase
DATE: April 12, 2022
Attached is correspondence received before 4 p.m. for the above referenced item.
cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager/Public Works Director
Administrative Services Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website (or public review binder)
From:Jim Guthrie
To:Caren Ray Russom; Jimmy Paulding; Keith Storton; Kristen Barneich; Lan George
Cc:Jessica Matson
Subject:Trash rate increases
Date:Tuesday, April 12, 2022 3:39:42 PM
Mayor and Council Members:
I apologize for the lateness of this email I wasn’t planning on commenting on the Trash rate
increases but the 30% increase promoted me to go a little deeper.
Given the 186% increase in costs for deprecation, I think a more through and clearer
explanation than the one included in the report is warranted. Although I had to read is several
times, my interpatient of it is that we benefited in the past from what turned out to be an
accelerated rate of deprecation ( the 7 year period was actually longer) and now we are seeing
the difference between some part of the fleet already depreciated to zero and depreciation
on new more expensive vehicles?
My questions are , how many years did we have zero depreciation, how much more expensive
are the new vehicles and what is the new amortization period?
The note the goes on to state,
“Combined with a possible change in amortization schedule as noted in the sidebar, planned
replacements should result in stabilized costs in the future.”.
So, is there a new amortization rate or not and by “stabilized “will they just go up by less than
186%, stay the same or come down because the amortization rate is too short in this
calculation?
I have similar concerns about the Greenwaste pass through costs, but at least there is a more
through explanation. In addition, they are out of the control of the contractor and therefore
not an allowable cost in their profit calculation.
The other area that I think needs more explanation is the additional IWMA costs.
The table in the staff report shows expense for residential customers going up by as much as
750% ($0.30 to $2.26).
How much of this increase is due to the IWMA expense being spread over fewer customers vs
the change from a fixed cost to a % of the total bill.
If that is not possible how much did the total IWMA cost for Arroyo Grande go up with the
reformation of the IWMA?
Thanks
Jim Guthrie