HomeMy WebLinkAbout0519.0934). .. -~
'11 .".,-'
September 30. 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, california
Palo Alto Lavdfil1 Rate Schedules
Members of the Co~cil:
Report in Brief
,'-
This report summarizes the Landfi 11 opel."ating practices for
determining rates charged to various customers for disposal. This
is an informational report and no Council action is re~4ired. The
last staff report on this subject. was presented to council October
9, 1986 (CMR:511:61; a copy of that staff report, along with
minutes of the meeting. are attached for reference. Recently.
enforcement and verification of cuetomer categories resulted in
some Palo Alto resident gardeners complaining of a rate increase.
Eac}cground
In OCtober 1986 staff presented a report to Council recommending
revisions to the rate schedules for the Palo Alto Landfill. The
report recommended a. r<ite increaser as well as clarification of
customer categories~
In the October 1996 staff report, category definitions of customers
were classified as "resident" and "'commercial." Resident and
nonresident gardeners generating compoetable material from work at
Palo Alto residences were then recommended to be included in tl!e
"commercial" category. The report also discu9.E'1ed a proposed method
of verifying whether non-resident garaeners were bringing in
material from outside of Palo Alto.
The diacussion by Council of the staff recommendation focused
primarily on a staff proposed process to verify origination of
compostable material by non-resident gardeners.
During the public comment period, a number of the speakers were
Palo Alto residents who provide ga:r-dening services. Concern was
focused on whet a Palo Alto resident in the landscaping or
gardening bUsiness would be charged. At this point there was some
discussion of the difficulty classifying gardeners, and the fact
that it was hard to determine whether they ..... ere involved in
commercial endeavors.
Ultimat~ly, a motion was made and seconded to adopt the proposed
rate schedule and revised cus~omer clessifications effective
November 1, 1986.
CMR.:519;93 -1-
•
o
An amendment to the motion deleting a procedure for verification
'Was discussed. A substitute amendment was then introduced (and
passed) to allow non-reside~t gardeners to dispose of compostable
materials.
A sUostitute motion was subsequently introduced which proposed non
resident gardeners be allowed to dispose of compostable materials
at the same rate as resident gardeners. 1'his substitute motion
failed, which brought Council back to consideration of the
original motion of staft's recommendation to:
-adopt the proposed rate SChedules and revised customer
classifications for the purposes of rate assessment at
the Landfill effective November 1~ 1966.·
This motier., as amended. passed unanimc1usly. No
to the motion to change staff revisions
classifications.
Discussion
amendment was made
to th~ customer
Recently~ the Landfill staff was instructed to pay closer attention
to the category cl~ssification for which an individual is assesssd
fees. Within a few days three customers complained that they had
previously beer;. charged residential rat.E."S for cornpostable material
and refuse disposal J even though they j n fact-were in the business
of landscaping and/or ga~dening. They are frequent users of the
Landfill, and are now being charged commercial rates. As a result
of the complaints that they are being assessed higher fees, the
City Manager requested that staff in Public Works research the
earlier counci~ actions to determine in which category they ehould
be classitied. One of the three customers is a licensed contractor
(california contractor's license) and pe:::-forms landscaping and
gardening out of his home; a second individual is a landscaping and
gardening person also operating out of his horne, and staff does not
know whether he is a licensed contractor or not; the thi.!"d
individual also operates a landscaping business out of his home and
has a number of employees. Each of these individual~ has expressed
their opinion to staff that they should be classified under the
"resident" versus the "commercial!> category. One of the three
gardeners felt that an advance notice of 30-90 days would have been
a more equitable way of implementing the change; staff maintains
that it was not a change. just better enforcement at existing
categories. Under the revised classifications adopted in 1986~ all
three of the customers are classified as ·commercial~ customers,
not -residential.w
Conclusion
Although the discussion at the Council meeting in 1986 involved a
number of issues, staff was unable to find any digcussion in the
minutes which proposed ch~=<.ging categories for individuals, ""ho
reside in Palo Al to and are in the landscaping or gardening
business. from the ~commercial" category to the "resident~
category. Unless directed otherwise~ staff will continue to assess
-2-
.'M.
.~, .
--
ehose individuals in the business of gardening and landscaping and
who reside in Palo Alto, as commercial customers.
Respectf, ... lly submitted.
~.~" t... 1J, "yt,,:aOJJt,.
MI~~L H. MILLER J)} Di10~Opmtions
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Pub' Works
Attachments: A CMR:511:6
B -Minutes of Council Meeting 10/14/86
C -Palo Alto Disposal Area Fee Schedule
-3-
OctobeT 9. 19B6
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alt~, California
./:
Revlsed Rate Schedules for the PaTe Alto Landfil T
Members of the Council:
.;....
This report requests Counc; 1 approval of a rate l11crease fQr use of the Palo
Alto lanrlf", fDr Palo .'.lto residents., Palo Alto blJ::,in<:5~es ~nd f1on~res.id€nt
gard~ners performing work fQr Palo A~to residents.
Background
At the City Councn meeting of August 18, 1986, staff prEsent€d a report on
s.o1id waste planning (CMR:374:6}. Co";)nci1 directed staff to prohibit
non-resident individual and C0rJJT1p.rcia1 customers from fJsing the Landfill
effec.the No .... ember 1. 1986, and to antlw non-resident gar6ene1"S 'wo'orking at the
homes of Palo Al to residents cant inued access to dispose of compostable
materia1s. Council directed staff to ret:urn with re\l1s.ed rate s.chedules fer
Palo Alto residents, Palo Alto businesses and nOfi~resident garderl~rs workinq
at the homes of Palo Alto resicents~
Oiscussiofl
The landfill currently has two T'at~ s.chedules.; "Resident .. and "Nol1·residenL Il
City pol icy deffnes "resident .. as a person residir.Q within the City of Palo'
Alto. Pers{!ns..no O·~11 and pay taxes on property ,n Pale A1to, but do not 1ive
there. or persons having Pa1a Alto business addresses are not included in the
definition of ·re-s.iJj~nt"; and they 'Current1y pay Mr.~res.~dent rates. After
November I. 1986, non-residents will be prohibited frem using the Landfil J, and
t'flO rate schedu1es st~n will be rieC'2ssary: uResident'" and "CorR'ilerciaL"
Reside~t and non-resident gardeners generating t:.ompostabTe material from work
at Palo Alto residences WGuld be included in the nComrnercia1~ category.
In oraer to verify that non·resideflt gardenel"s an~ performir.g work for Palo
Alto residents. and are not bringing material to the Lartdfill from outside of
Palo Alto, 11: veri"fic.at;;o'!'o p,.-ocedl..lr'e has been developed. The rmn-r-esident
gardener would be required to present the original utility bill, from the most
recent bi.11ing cycle, for each Palo A.lto cus-tamer 'fffiel"'e work is done. lne
refuse attendant will va1idate the IJtility bi11 for each use. This validation
procedure will provide the resirler:t "itt') a record of the nurnD€r of times the
gardener has used the utility bill for access to th~ Landfill. This procedure
7
o o
also allows staff to verify that the mated31 is originating at a Palo Alto
aljdr~ss 'n .ease of slJspected abuse.. If nOI'l-resident garOf.m€rs fail to pro ... idf
tne original C;ty utility bills, they wjJl be denied dCCeS$ to the Landf; II.
Non-re.sident gardel1ers w,n be prtl\llde-d-with an info'(mation sheet describing
this procedure .. fot" distribution to their Palo 1~.ltO cv'stamer's.
New Fee SCheduie
In flscal year 1985-86. $222,000 in Landf; 11 re'.lenue was generated by
indiilidua1 and commerclal nan-res1dent custo~ers. Non-resident gardeners
disposing of compost able materiC!15 accounted for 15,400 of this total.
To offset a substanti!i pot"tior. of ttle non-resident revenue loss arid to
encourage additional wa~tf reduction through recycling. staff recommends
increasfng the landfill rates for" Palo A.1to R.esident and Com.ercia1
classifications as follows:
RESIDENT CLASSIFICATION CIJRRENT RATE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE (I)
Pas:;enger cars or !l.DO/pass $2.DO/pass lOO~
Stat ton Wagons
Other Two Ax1-e l/eh.ic1es. IS.oo/c.y." $) .OOIc.y. 40~
01'" Tri1ilers
Three or More Axle SZO.oo/c.y. ~22.oorc.y. lO~
Veh~c.les
Compostat>le Matedal s S).OO/c.y. S4.001c.Y· 331:
Any Fraction Over a 12.50 B.SO 40%
Cublc Yard
COMMERCIAL CLASSIF!CATION CURRENT R..u.TE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE (l)
Pas. se.'1ger Ca.rs or 114.00 116.00 15~
Stat ion Wagons (minimum) (minimum)
Other Two Axle Vehicles S14.00/c.y. Sl~.OO!c .y. 15~
or Traj lers
Three or Mare Axl~ S20'{X)/c.y. 522.00/<.y. 10l
Vehicles
Any Fracti{Jn Clver a 17.00 $8.00 15%
CuMc Yard
Compostab1e ~aterials .$7.00 19.00 30%
"Cubic "lards
-2~
CMR:511:5
'~ :'
>-.::' f
::;:G~~~. ______ _
Special charges, made in addition to t"'e regular rates, will remaili uncnt'ing.:-d
as follows:
S~ECIAL CHARGES IN
ADDITION TO REGULAR RATES
Tires -36" dia~ or less
Mattresses/Boxsprings
Upholstered or Stuffed
Fu:"'nlture
Appl hnces
Special Burials
(Confidential records)
Notices to Public
RESIDENT RATE
12.00 each
52.00 each
52.00 each
-0-
SlO .00 each
COMMERICAL
54.00 each
14.00 each
14.00 each
S5.00 eden
S20.00 each
staff will take the following actions to 11'1forlTl the public: of the re\lised
regulations for use of the Landffll ar.d, upon approvdl, the rE!ViSed rate
schedules.
o Beginning October 1, 1986, handouts of the new restrictions with
eff~ctive dates have been distributed to landfilT customers.
o Upon Council approval of the increased rdte scheduie~, an expanded
handout will be distributed. new signs wilT be placed at tne landfill
entrance and notices wilT run in local newspapers.
Re(OlI'mendation
Staff reconmends. that Council adopt the
tustomer tl assification-s for the purposes
effective November 1, 1986.
RespectfulTy submitted,
M1CHA£l H. MIllER
Superintendent. Public Works
~Uo·~~~~'(\~
JUNE FLEMING
~.ssistatlt City Manager
CMR,SlJ:6
-3-
pr{lp05ed rate schedules and rev ised
of rl!ote assessement at the 1 andfi 11.
O/l,V IO G. ADAMS
Director of Public Works
-
(;)
7. REVISED RAIE SCHEDULES FOR PALO ALTO LAKDFILL (1072-GII
(CMR:511,~)
Director of Public Korks David Adams said Council asked fer p~o
posed rate schedules fo~ use of the LandfiJl prio~ to nc~resiaent
restrictions going into -effect on !>iovem:"er 1~ The p!'cpcsed rates
were based on .hat seemed reasonable considerino ~at~s in the area
and with an a5sumption that approximately 50 perce!"1t of the non
resident and commercial t'evenues .... ould disappear. If tha.t assuwf'
tion va! good, the proposed rates ~ould compen5ate for losses in
reven~e. The utility till ~as used for several cth~r identifica
tion mettwds end ..,as one -... a~· a check could be put on .... hD ",as us.:i.ng
the laodfill~ Staff .ould deal ~ith individual c=ses as problems
ill rose ~
Coul"lcilmcmber Henzel asked if the l.:tility td.l1 ",'ould r,ave-to be
photocopied if people ... anted to keep a. copy and tr,e original ..... ent
to the garden~r.
Mr. Adac3 said that was one ~ay, or the 9a~de~er could return the
utililj" oill after use.
7 7 ~ I
10/14/66
CQuncilmember Patitl.lcci =.oelieved the rate structure ':I"!d intent
~er~ appropriate but asked fQC clarification on the mechanics. He
asked jf possession of the util ity bill allo'We6 tl",e gerde-ner t~
dump once or contir.uously~
S":fedr.tendent, Public Works, ~.ike ~iller said ~s the t;ierd;;""1~t
dumped at the landfill, the ~tility bill ~ould be walidated.
Coun=ilm~mber fatitucci asked how it would be k~own that the gar
dener .iIIS not dumping for se·.·.a-ral djfferent jotJs. ~'cssibly fro:;.
outside the City, only one of .hich relinqujshed a Fdlo ~lto utll
ity bill.
Mr'. Mlliec said t~ere .. ere loopholes with
busines.s during t.he same day from t~le same
peet. Staff \,Iould take some 'Of the ;.:tility
tion letters, check. the resider.tsl and see
done ~
anr s':"ster~ .F.epe~t
oerso:; .'o~ld be sus
"bills .it~~ \'erifica-
if re:;ent .ork .'as
Councilmemoer Patitucci as~ed if ~he ~~mes of the ~arj~ners ~ould
be teken to develop a list of Palo Alto-qualifl~d gatd~ner5.
Mr-. roiller said the utility bill \liould oe relied on and 00 list
d~velo~ed. Further checks ~ould be ffiade if abuse ~as found.
Councilmember Patitucci ~as also concerned ~i~h the langua~e prob
lem as many gardeners did not spec~ English.
council;r,.aClcer Bechtel had not expected SLiCr. an
and i!ske-o if a compcsting area separate f:-om
feasir:le .
elacot"::t te system
the larrdfill "";:IS
• '1("~ ~Iiller said e\"en'thing that cCl.~e to the landfill 11.U'st go
through tr;e toll booth. The cars had to be countec and tne, cas-h
collected. To establish a separate area and differentiate between
the loads dOUbled the work 1060'. An area .... a.s set aside strictly
for composting~ after the fee ~as paid tha vehicle ~as directed to
the comp05t area.
Councilmember Bechtel said a gardener theoreticallt could work 30
different properties a week, and asked if the gardener ~~eded 30
utility bills.
~r. ~iller said yes~
Council member Bechtel believed th~ idea ~as good b~t could be a
problem logi~tlc~lly.
~t". !".iller said staff lookej at alterroatlve lr.ethoOs !:lut t.; ... d;:..c~
ments cowld be celied on.
,:.;
7 7 6 2
10/14/86
o
COl.lncilm€-~be[" f'letchet" .as also I.L'lcv:r,fc'rtable .. .lt~ t~,.;-rr:ethoC ..
The language facto~ and re~ognizin~ mcst h~~e c~~ers ~e~e srrployed
else~here ~~j not pre~e~t whe~ the Q~rdener c~me could lead to a
lot of cCl~jf·Jsion. She 1intiC'i~ated irate ,",OiTIi? o.'''ers callU"lg or,
the iesue. ~any r-,OlJ1e o."ne:-s ... ante:::5 to keeJ.' tt":eic :,;ti~lty tills
and copying theffi ~3S an i~position •
Ma ~'or
bills
the! t"
Coob asked
as opposed
garcener-s.
j fit
to •
... as ceally e:sder tc VSe or-igir..e;l utility
perlT.lt ",'hieh re5iden~s couJd p:cvico; to
Mr. ~iller said staff locked fer a rr:-acbanism :.h,:lt ;..:as aleeady
available without establis~ing a ne~ ad~inistr-~ti~e prcced~re and
ne~ type of identific~tion.
Coun.::::i1member Renzel asked if it .... es e);pensi\'e to use so::-.ething
like NCR paper for a utility bill 50 th~ horne c~ner co~ld provide
50mething identlfiable as an original t~ a ;arje~er.
Mr. ':'cams tlelieved it .auld be e.xpe.nsive. .":"e ce::l.eveo a Xez-c,x
COPt" ,.·ould be acceptE'cl j anc staff _auld get s .... s;:·icious of dupli
cates of the s~me address.
Councilmember Levy aSKed if compost materials .. .er-e considered c
benefit and other materials a negati~e.
r.:r~ Miller-said yes, the compost material ...-as '.,;sed to rr.ake a final
planting cover for the landfill.
Councilmernoer Levi assl.!rr.ec \·irtu311y all ",=.ter-i~l =. gardener
brought in ... ·as of a compcst type.
Mr. ~iller clarified the plan~ debris that did not incl~de aCldics
and succ~lents ~es accep~a~le, bu~ other materl=.ls s~~h as plastic
conta.iners, cans, etc, w.:re 110:. Staff .. a~ told to rr.::.l::e an allol.i
ence tO~ compost material.
Councilm~mc~r Levy did not se~ an allo~a~ce for cc~;cst materials
in the plan and asked if consideration was giVEn to looking in thE
vehicle to see if the materi~l ~as of ~ compost type o~ not.
~r. Miller 5~id ~ech load ~as inspected, and th~ deter~ination was
made at the booth.
Tom C~rber, 1224. Waverley Street, ciid hauling \o-0rk and said an
average load ~as about five cu~ic yards. At the curre~t rate the
load ~as $25, but at the ne~ rate there ~ould be a S10 differen
tial. Some taulers frem Mountaln View and scwth~rn cities could
chJltp ::It les:se:r rates , and $10 u,acie a dlffer.erlce in tidding en
jODS. Th9 revenues to the landfill ~ould also be lest oecause of
776 3
H/l4/eo
o
.:;o:np12titio!'1. He ask.ed that the rates re.rr;~in Jo~ SS pE:r cubic yar-d.
l'nere '",,:!:s a potential for p,-':'o)e,r,s 'With !1o!1resic~nt gardeners ~'ho
.... ould nCJt ,,,.;s,nt to dump at the landfill because they could ~c!}' a
lessE~ f~e; therefore. he asked reside~t ~~rd~~€rs oe alf[ere~tj
ateo (rorr, nonresic.cnt gard~,.ers In t~e fee paid so r!!'siderH
gardenerE ~aid ~4 a loaj for com~ost ~at€ria15.
Brian ~auck, 238J ~iddlefi.ld Road, believed ~~inte~~nce g.rde~er5
~o~ld put grass clippings in bags, deposit the b3gS in front of a
Palo Alto residence, 'tiier. _0;,;]0 end up in the landfill. M['",
Millet' h"d clarified his grvu.p loIol!ld contir.'..Oe to fall I!rlder t~e
!'"e.;;,tdent's classification and go fro:r; 55 to Si on lancflll loads
and $3 to $4 on compost ~ateria15. He askeo fer clarificaiion of
thE' discussion in the staff report (C"-:P.:!:11:6), .. ·hlCh saic,
·R~5ident ~nd non-resident g~rdeners generating CO$postacle mate
rial froil'; ,,"ork at Palo ".Ito reSl~ences ... ·owld be i!"lcluj~c i" U,s
I Commercial t category ....
Hal Roche, 1760 Channin; ~venue, did tree ~or~ a~j ;e~erated more
tnan tl.e gardeners. His .orK ',,,,,,,.5 all in F.glo Al to and i'le gener
a ted about 1.( cubic }'ar-cs a: ioOeek.. Hi: .... ,as co;"",cer:1~d a:Dout ttle
residential comm~rcilJll rat'S". If the t'at.es 'rose to ~ point .. '!'Jere
it .... as not practical to dJlli.? In Pa!.o Alto, t",e "'ould r.a:ve to drive
tc .here the rates ~ere $1.75 a cubic yat'd fer his type of load.
~ayot' Cobb asked staff to respond to the ~uestions t'aisej ~y Mr.
Mauck.
Mr. ~ille~ said Palo Alto had three cl~ssilications of gardene~s:
Non~esident gardeners ~~o wo~kej for resij~nts: t'esident gardeners
who h~d no busin~is address, no ide~tiflcat10n on th~ vehicle, 6~d
ev~rything registered to t~~i~ pr:-ivO\te e:ddress: and cODl.rnercial
gardeners who had si~ns o~ th~ exterior cf t~e vehicle, registered
to iii busin'S"ss aciJres.s, .and tha lic.:!r.se, etc'i id~nt.lfied the
vehicle as commercial. The City charged t~e re5identi~1 ~arden~~s
~3 for compost materials. It .as r,ard to track .!:nd ilr'possible to
identify if they ~ere i~vclved in ~cmrnercial endeavers. rtey we~t
lo the landfill infrequently. The C~ty could publish a clsrific~
tion bet.'een the tyO di!ferentiaUolu; for ~cmwercial \;ersus a
resident address.
Cou;"/cilrnezr:ber 5echtel said the ratio:1ale for in::reasir,i,J the rate
and ma~ing the usage ~cre r~strictive ~a£ t~3t the land~Jll would
t'un OIH of spe;ce after 1999. Th~ pIer'!: "'ould extend the life of
the l~ndiill a couple of years but not forever. An increase in
fees ilJas not unreasonable nor "'as Council being unreasonable by
rcstrictin1i1 wsage to residents or to th::~e .'n:: did residential
g~rd~ning fer residents. The ~ethod was cu~bersome, ~nd she hoped
staff ... culd l'"6't'Urn to Council to refjne or:-imr'rc"'e H-,e a;eth~d if
there were problems aftet' a !a~ months.
7 7 6 4
10/14/8.
.~ ... ,
· .. ,
o
MOTIO!h Councillnellber Beochtel moved, seconded by Woolley, to
apprqve the .taft recos •• n~.tion to adopt the p~opo •• d ~.te
Ich.~ul ••• nd revised cUlto.~r el.s.ificationa for the purposes of
rate aSless.ent at the l.ndfill, effective Nov~mber 1, 1986.
Councilmem~er Klein guerled a procedure wh~re~y a ~onre5ljent C0~
mercj4l gardener applied for a Ijeense to cu~p l~ Falo Alto ~nl~h
required him to list ~ho he ~orked for.
M=~ Adams said such a procedu~e could be done but would take Con
sider-eble staff time to set up. Staff believed th;;: subject
procedure could be done ... ·ithout any big ne· .... proce~s, even thou,;r.
It sounded clum~y.
Cour,cilrr.ember Klein .,Ias ske;,tical. He bellE-ved a l'Ot ot ~eoiJl~
hardly 5a~ their gardeners, making it difficult for the gardeners
to obtain the utility bill. He as~,ej no.' ~2.r.y nonresl:ier,t g.3;C
deners ~ere in the category_
~Ir. Miller sale from July 1 to S-eptembet 3,:;, 193:0, the City
received 324 cubic ysrds from nonresid2nt g~rde~ers.
Assist:!nt City !fI1an~ger-June Flel<ling said sta U realizej tne pro
posal was rather cumbersome, bl!t It .·as the only proposal they
could have ready to implement by the November 1, 1986, cieadlin-e.
One alterniHive action ""ould be to put the propos.51 in place,
monitor it for two months to see ho~ it ~orkej, and report back to
Council. In the meantime, if staff found a~other solution such as
licensing w~ich ~ould not piggyb~ck on a system alr~3dy in place,
they could ask for a revision at that tinle.
Ccuncilmenber ~atituccj ~a~ sufficiently s~aptlcal of the process
to believe staff should start developing en altern~tive process.
The proposal should be an in~erim step, ~nj they should ~ttempt to
come up with a more perffianant, cost-effe:tive, and les~ c~mbersome
process in three months. He sa ... the pr(Obler:-. \oij th re-;ider.ts :::10
the 4~kwardness of remembering the utility b~ll ~very ~anth.
Counci ll:r.ember Levy was reI uctant to :i rn?I~1iien t the process on ~
two-or three-month basis because tr.at .. oula I:.e disorienting.
~ention ~as made that 324 cl.ioic yaros .. ere collected: from • .1ull' 1
to S.;ptelT':ber 30, 1986 from nonresident g.aroi:ners. Be asked what
the size was of a normal pickup truck.
", .. r. Miller sa id a norn-.al :nin i pick up truck I 5 eapa c:i ty t,o'a 5 about
two cubic yards. For comparison, r~sidE-"t compost in tt"Je same
period was 4,500 cubic yards.
CouncilmeUlber Levy c-larified 324 c'ubic yards ~as boetlo.'eer: lea to
150 trips into the landfill. He asked what per~entage of the full
y~ar July to September represented.
7 7 6 5
JO/J4/86
.-
.;.' .
~r. Miller said about 25 pe~cent.
Councilmemb~r (evy aske~ ~hether Palo Alto~s fee5 ~ould be hiGher
than most of the s~rrounding landfills.
Mr. Miller ~al"" y",: :~!' ~.":.;; ;-,0".cesl0ent rate st~ucture. The roesi
dent rate structure llio;,;ld be consistent lIoo'ith sc~oe lancI.i115 and
higher than some.
COlJncjl~mber Levy believed tTl'S proble:rr. .as minor in te-r.'l'\!J, of nco.
resident ganiene~s gardening out of to.,'1 and uSlng Palo ".lto's
ltndfill particularly ~ith the new prcposej rate structure.
Council should adopt the new rates, but not atte~pt to distin;uish
out .. oi-tololn, nonre:sj dent gardeners .... ho gardened in Palo Al to.
There were 50 many loopholes in the process, Co~ncil should not
get involved, particularly ~hen it amounted to s~ch a sm~11 vol
I.:ll1e.
Councilmelr.ber Fletcher agreed ... ·It.''l COl.!r,cilmE:r,',oer Lf'vl'~ She askeo
whether the time frame ~as too short to educate the residents and
goa rdener s.
Councilrnember Bechtel
redesign the process.
'll'ork; •
b~li~ved Council s~ould ~Ove for~ard and not
St~ff co~ld ~etu~n If the process did not
UlENllMENT.
delete the
bill. "
C()uncih • .,mber Pa t itucci moved, seconced cy Levy I to
Otility Proc&:$ure r-e;ardin; .... rification of utility
Councilm.ellloer-Patitucci believed titiO procedures .·ere confusing.
The people at the ~ate could probably ~ecognize commercial opera
tors and not /r·uch ""ould be lost. He oid not .ant i!ii procedul:.s
~hich Mad to be replaced. be ~anted staff to corne up ~ith a bet
ter procedure.
Cownci ll<lember Becht€' 1 sa id unde:r prE: sent pol icy, nor.res ider.ts
could ~ot ~se the landfill regardless cf ~hether they ~orked for
Palo Alt3ns~ If a person's 9~rdener did not live in Palo Alto, he
could not take ~ re~jdent's clippings to the Falo Alto landfill.
She believed the policy ... ollld present real problems, gnd the staff
proposal ~as intencied to meet the need of being able to serve t~e
nonresicient gardener r,,'::rrking for Q Palo Alto re-sicel'lt. She
encouraged her colleagues to vote against the amendment.
\lice Mayor ior."oolley agret<o "dth Councilme:r;ber Bechtel. Staff had
to ca.rn' out the p~ocedure an:::i 5 tn· did not believe staff Io'ould
deliberately set up e: proces~ ~hich .es hard for thern to deal
with. She suspected gardener:;. did not go to the lC!:ldfill after
they serviced e~ch customer and they would not really need utility
bills from each custom~r. It mi9~t not be nearly as djfficult as
Council feared. She 'Was reluctant for staff to come up ... ith an
e:lternstive ~hen the proposal was not evaluateo4
7 7 6 6
lC/14/S6
."
o
COl.lncllme~tlC'[" Slit')CiU5 s,aid the s~,dit rep;:,rt (n:;;.:51~:6) ;.n~lCa~€:i
nonresident gard~~ers dlspo~in~ of C~~90st matari~ls acc'unt~d for
$5,400 of th~ $222,000 total ~evenue fer fiscal ye3r 1925-SE. f~
~sked if tne 57 rate was in effect for t~e entire !isc~l ye!r.
Cou:ncilr.l~lT,b.?r SiJt?:riU5 saleS at S1 a c'J':lic yard. it ~,e.::~t i11 cu~ic
yards in an entire fiscal year. He ssked if there ~~s s~6denly an
inc-rease in the 3.1T10unt of nonre$id-enti.,l g:H·::lSO:ler CCC",;'.8St r.!t.e
r hI.
Mr. !>'.illet" saio that ,,'-==-CO:'"r-eCt.
Councjlme~~e~ Sutoriu.s ~as conc~rned a~o~t th~ dramatic increase.
I':r. ~.iller galO tr.e landfill ,-,ould ;~ '..:,? to 1,296 c:Jtic ;·~=-ds in
1986-87 with the figure an~uali~ej.
Councilrnemoer So.:tcri~s ,.:as swr?r .. sej to le:;rn It .. ·a.= C!;j in·:rE-3Sing
proble~ because it was contrary to ~~at t~e ra~e incre!ses ~~o~ld
haVE-cs.LJ~ed a.na be;:a·..Jse .o;.a:'1y ncnresijs,;"",t ~ardene:::-s ... ·"S:1t a;:!":s::.s tt.:
Sa.y to ge~ rid af th~ir ruobish. ~e o~pcsed the ~~e~drne~t tecause
as he understood th~ main motion, thee. ~ould still CE C! ~~~le~ of
the process and procedL:t"e~ He believed tr,e Clty IT.i~t",t fl.nd !rIore
grass cuttings and leaves b3gged and left for PASCO pic~ up, which
IDeant the City lost the compost ~3terial because it ~Quld enj u~
ir: the landfill and {lot in the COIi·P;:lst area under pres-ent ;:ro
cesses. It might also me9n ~ore mate~lal left in the street ~hieh
a.dded" to the war-I< of the street .s ... · .. ep~I". He belie· .. e-.:i it ... ·35
appropriate to reVle ... · the cc.'")ce;:t .es ex~·erje:-Ice <.·ag g~ir,e6.
StJ.&STITCT.E ANe:NDPlENT;. Ccuncilileaber IUein .l:QVI!'-d., secoo~ed: by
~enzel. to .llow nonresiden~ ;.rder.ers to du~p thei~ ~aterial up~n
preaenting acceptable proof te> .ateff on a. teaporar,' besis unt.il
atlff can wotk o~t a Lore foraalized lic~nsing pro~edwr ••
Cou~cil~~~cer ~lein said pric~ Co~ncil action fo:b~de th~s~ In tne
nonresident gardener category frem ~Sln; Falo Alto's facility. He
.. antej s·;:)m-e U1-=.crlanism \ritere::.y people i~ such cat~gQt"ie5 cculd t:.se
the ?alo Alto facility. tie f£3t"€.j LJsir.g tJulitj' bills l ar,d
pending s:taff'·s de ... ·eloprr.ent of e licensing pt""ocecure, r.:mresid-atlt.
gardeners should be 311o~ec to ~se t~e landfill by ;=e5~~ting ~~y
accepteble proof.
Council~ember Levy believed non~esidents shculd te ~ll~~ed tc
oring compost ~aterial to the d~~p. It see~ed to oe a ~i~or pt"oc
lern .and OJ" saying it w.:as a ~rO\oi;1.; i=-t"obleCl, ~taff '..:as .... dtipll ... ing
the Jul:: to $spt€-mber-fi;w.:-es cy fou.r '"d,i:-r, .. ·as not n~.:e$s3t"il~·
the prapar method. It might De the cs. of tne landfill 6uring the
7 7 6 7
l{l/l<./BS
Juty to Septerr.bet" '.as highet" tr.en the average !o:-the ['"e;!~=ining
nine months~ t';or.resicenls ... ·puld rro.ozbl~' not use t~e p~lo 1<.ltD
land!ill urole$$ they ""ere se.rlllng Palo Altans because if they
S:l?rve-:! -':'th-er-s:, th.et ,",C"j!d I_!!=-~ a landfill clcset" to th:;se patror!s~
He would oppose the staff recor.:r.:e.1aatic.n and 1 f tht: :'e--.:ised Ci,;.S
tomer classifications all faileo, he .'ould suggest allowin:; r".)n
residents to use the lan6:;11 for compost materlals4
Councilmember Renzel supported the substitute .3:C",e'rl.::fmEcnt
~ould i!lllo .. a va-rietl' of possloilities .. '~dch rdght
City's needs in the interim.
Mayor Cobb supported the s..lbstitute a~endment.
beca'..lse it
ser\le the
sueSTITUTE AMENDMENT PASSED by • vote of 8-1, Woolley voting
-no ••
SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Cocnd l.llERber-Levy m-oved, seconded by
Wool14Y, to 81iE.in&te t.h. revia.d e~5t.oaer clasiiific:ations and
allow nonresident Q.~de"e~s tQ ~5e the laDd(lll for co.p~st .at.
riel. _t res!d~Dt r.tes~
Councilmernber Fletcher. said the proble~ the~ d~cse ~ith ~ardeners
who ot"ou:gtlt non-compost r;;aterjals from ra.10 Alto resident gar
dens.
Councilr.1ember RE-rlzel oC!lieved -staff thought through .~a:"ly of the
problems of the City's rate structure and Ilo .. to limit usage of
the la;,dfill while c=lloiiing reasonable use to Palo ".lto citizens
whether directly or through their gardeners. By eli~inating con
trols altoQ6!.her, tte City ran t.'1e riSk. 0-: h~'''lii; the :t,ark.et
els-e .. "r.ere beco.r::e rr.':'re of oS ceten:1.lr,a!"',t ","s tc .hetbe:-t:eople u6ej
Palo 1;.lto's landfill. Co 1.inc:i1 shculd be c.:?:'.lticLJ-s. She cppcsej
the -substitute motion~
Vice Mayor Woolley said as long as a fee was charged for compost
materi~ls and the City ~anted It to create topsoil fo~ t~e landfil
3~d it ~as not part of the landfi11 area, she did nct see ~hether
it m3tt~red ~hether only residents used the landfill. She assu~ed
ot.'1C!r tr.aterials could either be taker'. along .. ith the Gar·:ener to
.enotl"ler source or .cur,cleo anti left .. ith the reSIdent. She pre
ferred to simplify the rr;atter and not get into licensing. S~e
suspecte-d a licensing program ... hich had to pay for itself .,'ould
cost gardeners more in tne long run ~ecause tney would have to b~y
a yearly license 4:1d ~ls:::;, pay U",e lcnjfill fees.
SCESTITOTE JIIOTION FAILED by • vote of 3-6, lfIloolley, Fletcher,
Levy voting ·Iye~·
KOTIOH AS &MEliOED PASSED unelni ... ouEly.
7 7 6 8
10/14/56
~E!JLSE CtSPOSAl AREA RULES AND ~E[iUlATlCmS:
1. QlIlDROI A.1rjC= ~ETS 1"1.15T STAY IN VE"!CLE
i1'. fijO :iCAV.E.~[iH'[i: NO Sf«J~:IHG.
J. N() TOXIC WASTES OR ~,'ZARDOlJS ruT[ ~TERIAtS..
4. NO LIQUIDS.
5. frI) KJIlE TKI!.t( THRE (3) Tl~£.S PUl lOAD.
IS. NO STlM>S.{ll'1lS. GREATER T~M 12" I,.. DIAJ1ITER l 18" LENGTH,
7. NO DOOUTl~ SPD1LS GRU\TER rrlA~ 12" l e" It 6"
B SPEED LInlT IN RErUSE AREA 15 H I'IPH.
9. trro ADMITTANCE TO PER5OttS. USIIiIi FOUL OR ABUSE LANGU~"'E TOfiAiWS EM:PL<:''fEES.
10. PtO ;;()HeRnE 'JjITII REBAR OR \Jill.J M[S~,
llJOLATHlhS or REFUS[ AI{EA RH"U~,D,T1ONS ARE VDLII.T!OHS. Of P~O ALTO Mi;fUC1Pf...L COOE
StCTlOl'l 5.20.2]0(9). "'iclat~ons are misdernearocrs wIlitt! c",n tie p!'Hli~h€il tl.:t LJ~ to
:1:'00 fine '!'lel !oix (6) IOOrlths in jail.
8/E7
.', ..
ClASSIF1CATIOfi:
Passenger Clr Qr StatiM "a90ft
'.
ClT~ OF PALO ALTD
REFUSE OISP'OSAJ.. AREA
!.!..L~
HFECTIY[ AUGUST 1, 1981
!ESHlE"~T
$2.00/iM's-~
C{)~E<l.(IAL
U6.C'D
(~iroimum C:ha~!'J (.Mi rllfmr:-, cl,~r;e;
p,OQ/cubic yaN! $l6 .QO/e'.t)',c y!n~
Thr'e'l! or Mor~ Axle Vehieles
Any Fraction Over Cubic '"'rcI
Compost_ble ~~ria1s·
S22.ca/clJb i e ,ilr'~
'3.50
S4.OC/l:ubic yard
$22 QC'iclJb ; c
1£ 00
$' . DQ(c~tJ ic
·HATEIHAlS prjOT COI1P{;STA.BLE.: ~terl"! 510\00' to break dO\ljI1 or .. ill ddmagoe 9rinde.-.
*·NOtt-RESJDE~TS "'l1n .2!!..ll be allowed to br;rl9 lro CQW'DSTAEL[ ~TEf.;:iALS.
yare:!
yt rC"·
Orher's Licen~e ."d 'l'et1ide l1eg-inry SIlOWjrl!; it ct.lr~~t P..:lo .1\1 to ad1~~
and QUite e"l'id!1ltVbeTorlllill:> to pHron ji.t'.~ by photograpn-)c. ____ _
Mel OISC.Q!a!L.£Q~_ .ll,rp SNCE -H[ASURE"IENT ali; VOL~Mt OF LOA.c
ADD ITLDfW. FEES
THt£S -36" "fila. or TE'5S
KATTRfSSE S/BOXSPR I1fr;S
UPHOLSTERED ()r STUFFED FURNlTURf
APPlIAftCES
$2. CO ... R~guldr Fee 54.Cr: ea Rf!glJlu Fe€-
SZ .00 e'! + ~l!'9lJ~ar Fee 54.00 ., /;!!':;:ular F~"
W,11nerlOryer/stoye
IIJ!frigerator-/Water tieater
Freeler
SZ.CY.I
Sl-l.SO
$n.{lO
S30.00
". Regyl !l;r F"
each
",'
each
$4.0C " Reo;u-l i!r 'eo
Sl';.5{) each
:ill.OC pach
13[1.00 .. ,'
SPECIAL BURIAlS SW.Oo + ReqL1 1a r F" SZO .OCJ .. ReljtoTar FE'''"
~: rake "eteh to the P::e<:..\Icling C~ntl!r
RiSIDOO lDE"tTlH{;ATlOf{; A reiideflt is dehned tJy Section 5.20.1300 a~. ~anJ per..on
~ W1unn thill" ~orpo:-ate 1 j"it of the City nf Palo Alto.· It h the respOM10rlit.Y
orpersons chinfnq residency to esublish tl1e fact of tIleir residence b.1 preserltio,ior:
of a valid ",lifom;", Driver's i.1c:ens@ and Ve1"Iicle Registration CO!!rtificate bear;n!; i1 en'" OF PALO ALTO .ddres~. Fees col1e.:ted becaus.e ()f fillure to ~rOlje residl!'nc:y cannot
be rl!!'f ... n.dlll"d.
Po "resident" is a person resIding within tI1e CH,y of ralo Alto. People owning anci paying
ta)(es on property "in Palo Alto, b .. t n<lt 1 iving in the City. perSOIlS hi!\ling • Palo Al to
b\lsiness &OI.Iress, or traniients rl!'g{stert'd irl a hotel/motel in the Citi' are rlot inch;de~
in t!'is designatio". The City ."ill reqlJire documentation or iderltifiUioJl a~ re~ide~t
at the point c1 adflli.B1on to City hcil itles, or registrilltior. for cl'r-t~in ... .,'rt'illtiorla 1
or I;IoIH.ural actiw-ities, or use of SPf'cifieci City servic&s. In t~e e~eJ1t res)derlc.y cannot
tle pro\len. the indill"icu.l is e.xpl!cted to pay nOrl-resident rates or be 1 i!"1it(>{l to :-eslrict·
hms ap~licdble teo nCJn-residents.
~E:AATlNG MOORS: T"e FleFus~ Disposed Aru is open from !i:00 it m. to '5:00 p.m., TlJE's.ddy
t~rougF, Sllflai), foIHt1 Handily I"Iwr.\, frDll', !i:[lD a.m. unt' !.DC p.m. fhe Ref~o;.e Are .. iii closet!
or. Cnrist&as, PIN Years, Thdnksgivin~ iII'1::J Ellster.
... ;