HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2409City of Palo Alto (ID # 2409)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 3/6/2012
March 06, 2012 Page 1 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Summary T itle: Refuse Cost of Service Study Results
Title: Results of Refuse Cost of Service Study and Plan for Restructure of Refuse
Rates
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Finance Committee recommend to the Council that:
1)Residential refuse rates be increased over a short term, but phased approach, to
stabilize the Refuse Fund and avoid a projected sector imbalance between the
residential and commercial ratepayers;
2)New residential rates for FY 2013 be structured using both a fixed and a variable
component with the fixed component representing the cost for street sweeping
developed by the cost of service model; and
3)A special rate stabilization and commercial outreach reserve dedicated to the
commercial sector be established and the Refuse Fund’s expected revenues over
expenses for FY 2013 be directed into this commercial reserve, with no change in
commercial refuse rates in FY 2013.
Executive Summary
This report provides the results of the Refuse Cost of Service Study and makes
recommendations for residential refuse rate changes. The Cost of Service Study
(COSS) concludes that the existing rate structure results in a commercial and residential
imbalance where the residential rates are not at a full cost recovery level while the
commercial rates are in excess of expenses. Accordingly, the COSS recommends new
residential rates that would bring the residential sector to a position of full cost
recovery. Much of this imbalance has been caused by the past “conservation pricing”
program, the incentive pricing system which lowers the cost for small garbage can
sizes to encourage waste reduction.
Staff recommends that new residential refuse rates which would eliminate
the residential sector subsidy be phased in over a short term period not to
exceed three years.Staff does not recommend that conservation pricing be fully
eliminated over this three-year period. However, staff does recommend introduction of
a flat rate component which would, in effect, reduce the level of conservation pricing.
March 06, 2012 Page 2 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Background
In August 2010, the Refuse Cost of Service Study (COSS) was initiated in response to
falling revenues in the Refuse Fund and the need to reevaluate the refuse rate
structure. A particular concern was that refuse rates were based entirely on garbage
can size, but expected to fund a broad range of programs including garbage collection
and disposal, yard trimmings collection and processing, recycling collection and
processing, commercial organics collection and processing, street sweeping, household
hazardous waste, the Palo Alto landfill, and the annual clean-up day. As residents
switched to smaller garbage can sizes through the success of the Zero Waste programs
and as the economic downturn impacted services provided to businesses, revenues
declined sharply.
In addition to developing a rate structure that would result in more stable revenues, the
COSS was also expected to address California’s Proposition 218. Proposition 218
requires that property-related fees, including refuse rates, be no greater than the cost
to provide the service. At the time the last COSS was conducted Proposition 218 did
not apply to Refuse rates.
In 2011, in an effort to address some of the early findings of the COSS and to avoid
exacerbating the sector imbalance, the Council implemented a flat rate residential rate
increase of $4.62 that became effective in October 2011. In addition, Council
authorized a $1.25 Million short term General Fund loan to ensure the overall health of
the fund during the preparation of the COSS.
Discussion
This report provides information on the current financial outlook for the Refuse Fund,
the residential rate structure proposed by the COSS, and options for modifying the
residential rates. This information is based on the draft FY 2013 budget for the Refuse
Fund, and the financial outlook and proposed rates will be updated when the FY 2013
budget is finalized.
Refuse Fund Financial Outlook
The cost of service model that has been developed during the study includes a 10-year
financial forecast that analyzes expected revenues and expenses for each year. Table 1
provides the model forecast for Fiscal Years 2013 through 2016, as well as the
projected revenues and expenses for FY 2012. These figures represent the base
financial outlook in that they do not assume any changes to the current refuse rates.
These figures also assume that the authorized General Fund loan of $1.25 million to the
Refuse Fund for FY 2012 is not utilized, and therefore does not need to be repaid in FY
2013. The authorized loan amount was reduced to $625,000 at mid-year to maintain a
safeguard because the current FY 2012 projections are not certain. While these
numbers are projections in the out years and will be refined from year to year, the
model is an important tool in achieving rate stabilization in the Refuse Fund.
March 06, 2012 Page 3 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Table 1: Refuse Fund Base Financial Outlook (thousands of dollars)
Fiscal Year (FY)2011
(actuals)
2012
(projected)
2013
(model)
2014
(model)
2015
(model)
2016
(model)
Revenues 31,488 31,083 28,958 28,958 28,958 28,958
Expenses 31,435 31,116 27,711 27,439 28,059 28,705
Change in Net Assets 53 0 1,247 1,519 899 253
Operating Reserve 53 53 1,300 2,819 3,718 3,971
The current Refuse Fund financial outlook represents a significant
improvement over the figures presented to the Finance Committee from the
preliminary cost of service model in April 2011.Reasons for the improvement to
the Refuse Fund outlook include the following:
·The residential fixed monthly charge of $4.62 approved by City Council increases
FY 2013 revenue by approximately $980,000.
·The permanent closure of the Recycling Center is expected to reduce FY 2013
expenses by approximately $400,000.
·Closure of the Palo Alto landfill in July 2011 results in significant reductions to
expenses.
·Staff has continued to identify opportunities to reduce budget amounts wherever
possible.
·A comprehensive review and update of Refuse Fund staffing allocations is
projected to reduce FY 2013 expenses by approximately $600,000.
·Increased revenues resulting from service audits comparing services provided in
the field with services indicated and billed by SAP
Cost of Service Study (COSS) Results for Sectors
The cost of service model utilizes the full dataset of SAP customer information to
generate projected revenues. Revenues and expenses are allocated to the three
customer sectors (residential, commercial, and rolloff), and then to services such as
garbage, recycling, household hazardous waste, and street sweeping. The allocated
expense information is used to develop rates for the various services. Assumptions
about growth in customer numbers and inflation, as well as any planned rate changes,
are used to develop a ten-year forecast of revenues and expenses.
Table 2 provides the FY 2013 expenses for the three customer sectors and the
individual services within each sector. Figure 1 uses residential garbage service as an
example of how various expenses are allocated to each service.
Table 2: FY 2013 expenses for the three customer sectors
Residential Commercial Roll-off
Garbage $4,076 $4,963 $4,108
March 06, 2012 Page 4 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Recycling $1,778 $794 $0
Organics $2,230 $2,481 $0
Cleanup Day $475 $321 $0
Palo Alto Landfill $1,180 $1,932 $1,145
HHW $599 $0 $0
Street Sweeping $1,415 $216 $0
Total $11,752 $10,705 $5,253
Figure 1: Breakdown of expenses allocated to residential garbage service, thousands of
dollars (* includes Palo Alto staff costs; total staff costs are approximately
$225)
$197, 5%
$789, 19%
$465,11%
$119,3%
$276, 7%$96, 2%
$153,4%
$1,981, 49%
Allocated Charges*,4%
Adminis tration*, 2%
GreenW as te, 49%
SMaRT Debt, 5%
SMaRT Operation, 19%
Kirby Disposal, 11%
Kirby Put or Pay, 3%
Zero W as te*, 7%
A key goal of the cost of service study is to develop rates that assure that the revenues
from each customer sector cover the expenses for that sector, so that no customer
sector is subsidizing the rates of another. Table 3 provides the FY 2013 revenues and
expenses by sector that demonstrate a current imbalance between the residential and
commercial sectors.
Table 3: FY 2013 revenues and expenses by sector
Line of Business Estimated
Revenue
Estimated
Expense
Revenue
Change
Required for
Parity
Preliminary
Value From
April 2011
Residential $8,903 $11,752 +32%+79%
March 06, 2012 Page 5 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Commercial $14,642 $10,705 -27%-42%
Roll-Off $5,413 $5,253 -3%+28%
For FY 2013, residential expenses are projected to exceed revenues by approximately
$2.8 million, while commercial revenues are projected to exceed expenses by
approximately $3.9 million. Therefore, a residential revenue increase of approximately
32%, and a commercial revenue decrease of approximately 27%, would be required to
reconcile the estimated difference between residential and commercial revenues and
expenses in FY 2013. Table 3 also provides the preliminary percent revenue change
figures that were provided to Finance Committee on April 5, 2011. At that time, the
estimated residential revenue increase needed was 79%. The change in estimated
residential revenue increase needed from 79% to 32% is due to the fixed residential
monthly charge of $4.62 that was adopted for FY 2012 and to numerous improvements
and corrections to allocation methods used by the cost of service model.
Cost of Service Study (COSS) Results for Residential Rates
The cost of service model uses the customer census information and the allocated
expenses for the residential sector (shown in Table 2) to derive residential rates that
balance revenues and expenses for the residential sector, and that eliminate
conservation pricing from the refuse rate structure. The rates derived for FY 2013 by
the model are provided in Table 4.
Table 4: FY 2013 residential refuse rates derived by cost of service model
Minican 32-gal 64-gal 96-gal 128-gal
Garbage 14.16 17.40 26.03 34.66 47.67
Palo Alto Landfill 2.97 4.75 9.50 14.25 19.00
Recycling (64-gal)7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66 7.66
Yard Trimmings (96-gal)10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99 10.99
Cleanup Day 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08
Street Sweeping 6.71 6.71 6.71 6.71 6.71
HHW 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Total: $45.46 $50.48 $63.86 $77.24 $95.00
The rates provided in Table 4 vary only with the size of the customer’s garbage can
because recycling containers and yard trimmings are assumed to be 64 gallon and 96
gallon sizes, respectively. The model also provides rates for recycling and yard
trimmings that vary based on the size and number of containers. There are problems
with attempting to immediately implement varying rates for recycling and yard
March 06, 2012 Page 6 of 13
(ID # 2409)
trimmings that are discussed later in this report.
Table 5 compares the current residential refuse rates with the FY 2013 rates derived by
the cost of service model.
Table 5: Comparison of FY 2013 model and current residential rates
Current Rate
Including Fixed
Model Rate for FY
2013
Percent Increase
Minican $20.52 $45.46 121%
32-gallon $37.48 $50.48 34%
64-gallon $72.46 $63.86 -12%
96-gallon $106.38 $77.24 -27%
128-gallon $140.30 $95.00 -32%
Table 6: Current breakdown of residential service levels.
Service Level Number of Customers Percent of Customers
Minican 5,191 29.2%
32-gallon 9,894 55.7%
64-gallon 2,373 13.4%
96-gallon 258 1.5%
128-gallon 41 0.2%
Total:17,757 100%
Given the magnitude of the rate increases that are needed for minican and 32-gallon
service to reach the cost of service model rates, staff recommends that rate increases
be phased in over some number of years. Phasing in the rate increases is most
important to reduce the impact on ratepayers, but there are additional reasons to take
this approach. First, staff intends to use the cost of service model that was developed
for the study on an ongoing basis. The model will be updated each year with revised
customer census, tonnage, budget, and other information that will be used by the
model to modify expense allocations and update the rates. Staff expects that the rates
calculated for FY 2013 will change as adjustments to the model are made. In
particular, any further expense reductions will result in reductions to the rates
calculated by the model.
Second, changes to the City’s SAP software are needed before some changes
associated with the rates can be implemented. For example, SAP does not currently
track the size and number of recycling and yard trimmings containers used by each
customer. SAP must be modified to track this information, and to include this
information in the billing process, before variable rates for recycling and yard trimmings
can be implemented. In addition, the interface between GreenWaste’s database and
March 06, 2012 Page 7 of 13
(ID # 2409)
the SAP system must be upgraded to allow GreenWaste to update this customer
information in SAP.
Finally, outstanding issues relating to multi-family residential customers should be
addressed before the rate structure is finalized. Under the current rate and billing
system, multi-family residents who have individual service are considered residential
customers, but multi-family residents who share service (e.g. 40 unit apartment
complex with a 8-yard garbage bin) are classified as commercial customers. This
system of classifying multi-family residents based on their service type raises concerns
about the fairness of charges for the annual clean-up day service, street sweeping, and
household hazardous waste.
Staff evaluated several options for phasing in changes to residential refuse rates.
These options included the following to eliminate sector imbalance and conservation
pricing:
·Option 1: 2 year phase-in
·Option 2: 3 year phase-in
·Option 3: 5 year phase-in
·Option 4: 7 year phase-in
·Option 5: 7 year phase-in (eliminate sector imbalance in 3 years, eliminate
conservation pricing in 7 years)
Options to eliminate sector imbalance but not immediately eliminate conservation
pricing are:
·Option 6: 3 year phase-in (fixed percentage increase each year to all rates)
·Option 7: 3 year phase-in (flat increase each year to all rates)
·Option 8: 3 year phase-in (flat increase combined with fixed percentage
increase)
Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 display the residential rates that result from Options 1, 2, 3, and
8, respectively. Figures for all eight options, including the annual percent changes to
each rate that result, are provided in Attachment A.
Figure 2: 2 year phase-in of rates that eliminate sector imbalance and conservation
pricing (Option 1)
March 06, 2012 Page 8 of 13
(ID # 2409)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Year
Ra
t
e
Minican
32-gallon
64-gallon
96-gallon
128-gallon
Figure 3: 3 year phase-in of rates that eliminate sector imbalance and conservation
pricing (Option 2)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Ra
t
e
Minican
32-gallon
64-gallon
96-gallon
128-gallon
March 06, 2012 Page 9 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Figure 4: 5 year phase-in of rates that eliminate sector imbalance and conservation
pricing (Option 3)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Year
Ra
t
e
Minican
32-gallon
64-gallon
96-gallon
128-gallon
Figure 5: 3 year phase-in of rates that eliminate sector imbalance but do not eliminate
conservation pricing using a combination of flat and percentage increases (Option 8)
March 06, 2012 Page 10 of 13
(ID # 2409)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Ra
t
e
Minican
32-gallon
64-gallon
96-gallon
128-gallon
Figure 6 uses the two levels of service with the lowest and highest rates, the minican
and 128 gallon service, to compare the four options that use a three year rate phase-in
(Options 2, 6, 7, and 8)
March 06, 2012 Page 11 of 13
(ID # 2409)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Ra
t
e
Option 2: Minican,
eliminate conservation
pricing
Option 6: Minican,
eliminate sector
imbalance with fixed
percent
Option 7: Minican,
eliminate sector
imbalance with flat
increases
Option 8: Minican,
eliminate sector
imbalance with
combined approach
Option 2: 128-gallon,
eliminate conservation
pricing
Option 6: 128-gallon,
eliminate sector
imbalance with fixed
percent
Option 7: 128-gallon,
eliminate sector
imbalance with flat
increases
Option 8: 128-gallon,
eliminate sector
imbalance with
combined approach
128 gallon
Minican
Staff recommends that new rates that eliminate the sector imbalance, but that do not
immediately eliminate conservation pricing, be phased in over a period not to exceed
three years. Further, it is recommended that the increase in FY 2013 be a combination
of a flat increase of $2.09 and a fixed percentage increase of 5.3%. The residential
rate increase in FY 2012 consisted of a flat monthly charge of $4.62. This charge
currently appears on customer bills as “Fixed Resid. Monthly Charge”. The current flat
monthly charge can be changed to a fixed charge of $6.71 for Street Sweeping (as
derived by the cost of service model), an increase of $2.09. A further increase to
residential rates of 5.3% would also be applicable in FY 2013. This approach, which is
shown in Figure 5, would eliminate the sector imbalance over a three-year period while
beginning to address conservation pricing. An additional benefit is that the fixed charge
on customer bills would represent the actual cost of street sweeping services, while the
current fixed charge does not align with any specific service. Staff is not recommending
using the General Fund loan at this time. No increase is recommended for the
commercial structure.
March 06, 2012 Page 12 of 13
(ID # 2409)
Commercial Reserve
As described earlier and depicted in Figure 1, the Refuse Fund base financial outlook for
FY 2013 includes revenues over expenses of $1.25 million. The recommended
residential rate increase for FY 2013 is expected to generate $0.88 million. If staff’s
recommendation for FY 2013 is adopted, revenues over expenses for FY 2013 would be
expected to total $2.1 million. The commercial sector is projected to generate revenues
in FY 2013 that are greater than expenses by approximately $3.9 million. In lieu of
lowering commercial rates in FY 2013, staff recommends that the surplus of $2.1 million
be designated as a special commercial reserve. This reserve would be dedicated to
commercial purposes such as commercial rate stabilization and enhanced commercial
programs. The reserve could also be used to fully fund the commercial share of the
Palo Alto landfill post-closure costs.
Table 7 provides the Refuse Fund Financial Outlook through FY 2013 assuming
adoption of staff’s recommendations for residential rate increases and establishment of
a commercial reserve. It should be noted that the remaining Residential/Commercial
imbalance of $480,000 at the end of the three year phase-in (FY 2015) is due to the
assumption of a three year phase-in of residential rates calculated for FY 2013. These
rates will need to be adjusted each year to account for year to year inflation of
expenses as well as any expense reductions that are implemented.
Table 7: Refuse Fund Financial Outlook With Recommended Residential Rate Increases
FY 2011
(actuals)
FY 2012
(projected)
FY 2013
(model)
FY 2014
(model)
FY 2015
(model)
Revenues 31,488 31,083 29,834 30,709 31,585
Expenses 31,435 31,116 27,711 27,439 28,059
Change in Net
Assets 53 0 2,123 3,270 3,526
Commercial
Reserve NA NA 2,123 5,393 8,919
Remaining
Res/Comm
Imbalance
NA NA 1,814 958 480
Timeline
Following direction by Finance Committee, staff will finalize the refuse rates for FY
2013. The Refuse Fund projections and rates presented in this report will be updated
as the FY 2013 budget is refined. Staff will return to Finance Committee with the final
proposed rates in April 2012. Staff will then begin the Proposition 218 notification
March 06, 2012 Page 13 of 13
(ID # 2409)
process in coordination with the Utilities Department. Following City Council adoption,
the new rates will become effective on July 1, 2012.
Resource Impact
The recommended residential rate increase is estimated to result in revenues over
expenses of approximately $2.1 million in FY 2013. This surplus would be designated in
a special commercial reserve dedicated to the commercial sector.
Policy Implications
The proposed Refuse Rate increase is consistent with current City Policies.
Environmental Review
The proposed actions do not constitute a project pursuant to CEQA.
Attachments:
·Residential Rate Options (PDF)
Prepared By:Brad Eggleston, Manager Solid Waste
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Option 1: 2 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance and conservation pricing)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Minican $ 20.52 $ 33.21 $ 45.89
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 44.22 $ 50.96
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 68.47 $ 64.47
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 92.19 $ 77.99
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 118.43 $ 96.56
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Minican NA 62% 38%
32-gallon NA 18% 15%
64-gallon NA -6% -6%
96-gallon NA -13% -15%
128-gallon NA -16% -18%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 2: 3 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance and conservation pricing)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican $ 20.52 $ 28.98 $ 37.43 $ 45.89
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 41.97 $ 46.47 $ 50.96
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 69.80 $ 67.13 $ 64.47
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 96.92 $ 87.45 $ 77.99
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 125.72 $ 111.14 $ 96.56
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican NA 41% 29% 23%
32-gallon NA 12% 11% 10%
64-gallon NA -4% -4% -4%
96-gallon NA -9% -10% -11%
128-gallon NA -10% -12% -13%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 3: 5 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance and conservation pricing)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Minican $ 20.52 $ 25.59 $ 30.67 $ 35.74 $ 40.82 $ 45.89
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 40.18 $ 42.87 $ 45.57 $ 48.26 $ 50.96
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 70.86 $ 69.26 $ 67.67 $ 66.07 $ 64.47
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 100.70 $ 95.02 $ 89.35 $ 83.67 $ 77.99
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 131.55 $ 122.80 $ 114.06 $ 105.31 $ 96.56
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Minican NA 25% 20% 17% 14% 12%
32-gallon NA 7% 7% 6% 6% 6%
64-gallon NA -2% -2% -2% -2% -2%
96-gallon NA -5% -6% -6% -6% -7%
128-gallon NA -6% -7% -7% -8% -8%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 4: 7 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance and conservation pricing)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Minican $ 20.52 $ 24.14 $ 27.77 $ 31.39 $ 35.02 $ 38.64 $ 42.27 $ 45.89
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 39.41 $ 41.33 $ 43.26 $ 45.18 $ 47.11 $ 49.03 $ 50.96
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 71.32 $ 70.18 $ 69.04 $ 67.89 $ 66.75 $ 65.61 $ 64.47
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 102.32 $ 98.27 $ 94.21 $ 90.16 $ 86.10 $ 82.05 $ 77.99
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 134.05 $ 127.80 $ 121.55 $ 115.31 $ 109.06 $ 102.81 $ 96.56
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Minican NA 18% 15% 13% 12% 10% 9% 9%
32-gallon NA 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%
64-gallon NA -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2% -2%
96-gallon NA -4% -4% -4% -4% -4% -5% -5%
128-gallon NA -4% -5% -5% -5% -5% -6% -6%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 5: 7 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance in 3 years, and conservation
pricing in 7 years)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Minican $20.52 $25.94 $31.56 $37.34 $39.84 $42.07 $44.08 $45.89
32-gallon $37.48 $41.90 $46.32 $50.74 $50.81 $50.86 $50.91 $50.96
64-gallon $72.46 $75.32 $77.81 $80.00 $75.46 $71.40 $67.76 $64.47
96-gallon $106.38 $107.80 $108.49 $108.60 $99.64 $91.65 $84.47 $77.99
128-gallon $140.30 $141.12 $140.92 $139.87 $127.21 $115.89 $105.74 $96.56
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Minican NA 26% 22% 18% 7% 6% 5% 4%
32-gallon NA 12% 11% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
64-gallon NA 4% 3% 3% -6% -5% -5% -5%
96-gallon NA 1% 1% 0% -8% -8% -8% -8%
128-gallon NA 1% 0% -1% -9% -9% -9% -9%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
FY
2012
FY
2013
FY
2014
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 6: 3 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance with fixed percentage increases)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican $ 20.52 $ 22.71 $ 24.91 $ 27.10
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 41.49 $ 45.49 $ 49.50
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 80.21 $ 87.95 $ 95.70
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 117.75 $ 129.13 $ 140.50
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 155.30 $ 170.30 $ 185.30
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican NA 11% 10% 9%
32-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
64-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
96-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
128-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 7: 3 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance with flat increases to rates)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican $ 20.52 $ 24.63 $ 28.74 $ 32.85
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 41.59 $ 45.70 $ 49.81
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 76.57 $ 80.68 $ 84.79
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 110.49 $ 114.60 $ 118.71
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 144.41 $ 148.52 $ 152.63
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican NA 20% 17% 14%
32-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
64-gallon NA 6% 5% 5%
96-gallon NA 4% 4% 4%
128-gallon NA 3% 3% 3%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon
Option 8: 3 Year Phase-in (eliminates sector imbalance with combination of fixed
percentage and flat increases to rates)
Rate Increase Schedule
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican $ 20.52 $ 23.69 $ 26.86 $ 30.08
32-gallon $ 37.48 $ 41.54 $ 45.60 $ 49.66
64-gallon $ 72.46 $ 78.36 $ 84.24 $ 90.05
96-gallon $ 106.38 $ 114.06 $ 121.71 $ 129.22
128-gallon $ 140.30 $ 149.76 $ 159.19 $ 168.38
Rate Increase Percentages
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Minican NA 15% 13% 12%
32-gallon NA 11% 10% 9%
64-gallon NA 8% 8% 7%
96-gallon NA 7% 7% 6%
128-gallon NA 7% 6% 6%
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Year
Rate
Minican
32‐gallon
64‐gallon
96‐gallon
128‐gallon