The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0225.095.. ) TO: A TTElliTION: FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: REPORT IN BRIEF -,"' ~-. -", '" : ~ . i" O'l \;;;..f City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE COMMlTI'EE CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: P.blic Works May Z, 1995 CMR:215:95 PASCO ABdit -Administrative lDilialives Rrsp<>DdiDg 10 Andit Recommendations This is OD hlonnational report ODd requires no a--"tion by ('-eunei!, The attached CMR.: 179:95 was discussed by the Finance Committee on March 21, 1995. n", work spe<:ified in the scope 0( servkes for Phase n includes items discussed or recommended by the Anditoc in the recent Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO) coo.tract aU<!it. BACKGROUND 00 Jannary 23, 1995, the City Auditor presented fiOOmgs and recomrneod.atioos 10 the City Coun<:il on ways !o improve the administration and managem<:nt of the City's eootra<."'t for Refuse and Recycling Services provided by PASCO, The report was referred to the Finaru:e CommiIIee for discussion 00 May 2, 1995. After release and referral of the Auditor's Repot1, Public Works staff proposed 10 modify • request for proposal being dralled for • cost O(;;ervice study 10 include the Auditor', recommeodat:ions. The FlIllIllCe Committee reviewed tIle scope of services and approved the staff proposed addition of the Phase n items. POI.ley lMPIJCAIIO@ There ale DO p<>!icy impfica600s related 10 this project. flSC,4J.IMFACT Addition of $60,000 of costs in the 1995 Refuse Fund Operating Budge\. ENYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There is no environmental assessment required for this report. .~., , . : '""~. ". ATTACHMENT CMR:I79:95 PREPARED BY: Mkbael Miller, Deputy Director, Pubik Woru Operations DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: -& 1. ~ GLENN S. ROBERTS f'l)1irec·\<l< of I'll -...--~ ". '- . "-." ~-... -.- @ City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO, ATTENTION: HONORABLE on' COtINClL Fmanc:e Committee FROM: CIIT MANAGER DEPARTMENT: hblic Worb AGENDA DATE: Marcil 20, 1995 CMR:I79:9S SUBJECT: Refuse Fllnd CO!I of Sonic. Study REPORT IN BRIEF This report detrlls the prt>J.'<>Sed scope of servH:<5 for the refuse cost of service study opproved and funded in the 1994·95 Refuse Fund operating budget. This study was amoog those the FmilIlCC Committee indicated it wished to review in <!raft form prior to staff soliciting TC'II1"st foc proposal. BACKGROUND The C,;y Courn:i1 selS refuse collection rates and schedules foc .11 classes of customers. In addition 10 refuse collection fees, the rates include funds fa< .11 solid waste programs (Le. materials recovery. strett ""'''ping, landfill <>pen6cns. regulatory programs, household hazardoos waste and Iong.:enn disposal commitments); capital projects; and landfill closure and post "losere. AJ. .. result <If bo& regulatory mandates and expanding solid waste programs, Palo Ah"'. ntes Iur-"., bcreased signi5<:antJy in the last IeB ytars. During the last few years. residents and the C.ouncil have expressed concern all both the cost 0( refuse collection and the rales charged for refuse related sonices. DISCUSSION TIY! goals of I'has<: I 0( this request f"" proposal are 10', I. Develop cost 0( services methodology and calculate cost of services by tategory (it. collecnoo, disposal, recycling, sweeping, compo&ing. hazardoos waste, administration and S1lpport); 2. Develop cost aIIocatioo methodology for .nocafing cost of services 10 customer class (Le. residential RI, R2, Rl, e\<:, t<>mmercial, industrial). lnclu<!'mg the development of • typical bill at full cost of scnices itemized by cost cvmponenls; and 3" Rev!cw the current customer classes and re commend revisions or expans10n of rate s<:hedules similar to oIher communitie. in the greater San Frllndsro Bay AIea (Le, multi-family more than 10 unilS. mobile homes, hospital. government, researcll and manufacturing). Phase n of the scope of services is proposed 10 include the following: CMJI.,17HS .' -~ ; '.:. ".;;" .. '--." ,-----.-- " , .-. o I. Evaluate the efficiency of Palo Alto Sanillltivo COOlpaIlY (P ASCO) ~rvices, including an anal)";is of routes, scMdules, use aOO maintenance of equipment and facilities; 2. f.,1I1uate !he level of cost and profit foe PASCO compared t, ofuer «fuse colle<:tion firms in the San Francisco Soy Area; 3. E"a..iuate the (:UITent compensation formula and compare it Vw;th other fonnulas used in the San Francisco Bay Area for determining profit. and recommend the most appropriate one, including hsis foc determination; 4. Review iJr appropriateness and define !he CllITent list of allowable costs in the refuse c oDcction agreements "ilb PASCO and make recommendations for additions and deletions; and 5. Complete an analysis of the r.tes schedules both current and proposed (Ph2se I). which would compare rates with otlJer similar jurisdictions offering siIlUl..,. servi<:es (i.e. backyard roDection, recyding, compesting, street sweeping. commercial recycling~ POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy implications related 10 this report. FISCAL IMPACT Phase I funding of $60,000 is included in the 1994-95 refuse fund operating b'J<!get; Pbase n would require the addition of $60,000 in the proposed 1995-96 refuse fund operating budget ENYIRONMF.!\'T AL ASSESSMEl'I'T TheIe is no tIlvironmenlal asseSisment required foc approv~ of dus funding Iequest STEPS FOLWWING APPROV.<l.L Sl2Jf will prepare a request foe proposal for solie italion to consultants and return to CotllKil with a recommended consultant ATIACHM£l'o'TS None PREPARED BY: MIChael MI.lIer, Deputy Dire<:10£ Public Worles Operations AL A 1?iJt+--DEPA-ttTMENT HEAD REVl.EW: GLENN S. ROBERTS DireclO£ of Public Wor!.:s CITY Mfu'i"..GER APPROVAL: Faze 2 oil ',~.~~!';~~Jf(tr .. ~ ~ ~ c '~~,~~" -~-. . -'} -.. ~ ,. .---------~ ~ ~