Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2011-06-07 Packet
Z P i Fe i EXHIBIT M, %Nei7star Street g eo g raphic zone j RON rh it WEBST ST RE E P 4 AR L�A A:. Benefit Area. B: Benefit Area B LIM ;-ta i VAI II'll Combined Dist of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area: Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St. Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St. Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St. 2300-2499 odd/even Park St. 2501, 2521 Park St. Eagle Ave. 633-707 odd/even Webster St. Encinal Ave. 2300-2499 odd/even Park St. Everett St. 1400-1519 odd/even Park St. Haight St. 629 -728 odd/even Webster St. Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd/even Webster St. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Oak St. 1300-1599 even en only Park St. Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St. Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd. only Park St. 1400 -1499 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125 1198 1200 -1999 Park St. odd/even San Antonio Ave. 23122399 odd/even Park St. Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St. 2300-2599 odd/even Park St. Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St. Times wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St. Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St. Page 1 of 2 Webster St. 1345 -1999 odd /even Webster St. Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone Only Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St. Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St. Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St. odd/even, 1600-1999 Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd /even Park St. Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St. Central Ave. 2431, 243 3, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St. s Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CONFIRMING THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA REPORT FOR FYI 1-12 AND LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FYI 1-12 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article I1 of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter Area); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda desires to continue said Area in FYI 1-12 for the purpose set forth in Section 6 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a report has been filed with the City Cleric describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY10 -11 and describin g the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FYI 1 -12; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting of May 17, 2011 adopted a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY10 -11 and to set a public hearin g for such action; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing regarding each .action was held by the City Council on June 7, 2011. Novo, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the BIA report for FYI 1 -12 with any modifications as directed. by the Council following closure of the Public Hearing, is hereby confirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that an assessment for the Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FYI 1-12 is hereby levied. Resolution #6 -B CC 06 -07 -11 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 7th day of June, 2011, b the following vote to y g wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 8' day of June, 2011. Cara Weisiger, city clerk City of Ala ned-a CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council From: Lisa Goldman Acting city Manager Date: June 7, 2011 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Establishing Integrated Waste collection ceiling Rates and service Fees for Alameda county Industries, Inc. for Rate Period 10 (July 2011 to June 2012) and Allocate $21 0,000 from the Integrated waste Management Account 010412 Eel 2911 1 X On April 16, 2002, the city entered into a franchise agreement with Alameda County Industries, Inc., (ACI) for the curbside collection of solid waste, the collection and processing of recyclable materials, and the collection of organic materials, collectively referred to as integrated waste (Illy). I n April 2009, the term of the agreement was extended to 2022. Through a separate agreement, the city contracts with waste Management, Inc. (WM) for the transferring and landfilling of the solid waste. Act is responsible for managing and paying all costs and fees associated with the collection, processing, and disposal of the IW, including wM charges, as. well as directly billing all residential and commercial customers. DISCUSSION The Alameda Municipal code specifies that the ceiling rates for the collection and processing of Illy will be set by the City council at a public hearing. The ceiling rate is established to generate sufficient revenues to recover all costs and fees associated with the agreements with ACI and WM. The agreement with ACI specifies two types of annual rate reviews: an index -based and a cost -based adjustment. The latter adjustment is a detailed rate review that is conducted every third year of the agreement. An index -based adjustment, which is conducted in the interim years, requires the ceiling rates to be adjusted by three specific consumer Price Index categories. The current rate review, Rate Period 10 (RP 10), is for FY11 -12, and is an index -based adjustment. The next detailed review will be conducted in RP 12. ACI Requested Ceiling Rate A d `ustment In accordance with the franchise agreement, Act submitted a rate application for RP 10 on March 29, 2011, requesting an overall increase of 7.4% to the IW ceiling rates. The City contracted with H F &H consultants (HF&H) to provide staff with a comprehensive analysis of the application. As indicated in H F &H's memorandum (Exhibit 1), it was Cit Council Agenda i a m i. 06-07-11 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council June 7, 2011 Page 2 of 7 determined that ACI is projecting a revenue shortfall of $1,158,631. The additional revenue required for RP 10 is attributed to the following factors: A 0.4% increase is due to increases in organic material processing costs resulting from a combination of a 5.1% increase in organic material tonnage collected from customers and a 1.7% increase in the per -ton organic materials processing fee at the processing facility. A 0.4% increase is due to increases in other allowed costs such as. rent, insurance, and customer service operational costs, based on the annual change in the applicable consumer price indices (in accordance with the Franchise Agreement A 0.3% increase is due to increases in labor related costs. (i.e., union hourly wage rates, health and welfare premiums, workers compensation expenses), based on .the annual change in the applicable. consumer price indices and changes in the union agreements (in accordance with the Franchise Agreement). A 0.2% increase is due to increases in vehicle related costs .such as fuel, liability insurance premiums, vehicle insurance premiums, telephone expenses, and outside repairs, based on the annual change in the. applicable consumer price indices (in accordance with the Franchise Agreement). A o.1 increase is due to increases in the recyclable material per -ton processing costs. 0 A 5.3% increase is due to an actual revenue shortfall from RP8. A 1.0% increase is due to a projected revenue shortfall in RP9. A 0.3% decrease is due to a 4.0% decrease in solid waste collected from customers and includes increases in solid waste tip fees, including the county per tonnage fee. From the above, it is evident that ACT's operating expenses account for only 1.1 of the requested total. The remaining 6.3% is due to a prolonged economic downturn that has resulted in less revenue being generated while having to fund the same costs. A combination of factors has contributed to the revenue shortfall including increased disposal regulatory fees; a decrease in customers, most notably, commercial customers; and a continued shift of residential customers from a 32- gallon service to a 20- gallon service. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 7, 2011 Page 3 of 7 HF &H's Review of ACI's Rate Application for Rate Period 10 is on file in the City Clerk's office. Negotiated Ceiling Rate Adjustment: In recognition of the current economic climate and the adverse impacts associated with a 7.4% rate increase on the City's residents and business community, the City and ACI have agreed to contribute funds to reduce the increase to customers. To achieve this reduced increase, ACI has agreed to a one -time reduction in profit of $100,000, and the City will provide a one -time contribution of $210,000 from the City's IW Management Fund reserves. In addition, ACI has agreed to defer $269,182.88 of the RP8 revenue shortfall from RP1 0 to RP1 In accordance with Section 8.7.B of the Franchise Agreement "In the event actual rate revenues as reported at the end of a Rate Period are greater than or less than those rate revenues anticipated for such Rate Period at the time the rates were Set, then Contractor's Compensation shall be adjusted by the difference... in the year following the year in which the difference is known... The deferral results in a net revenue requirement of $16,188,843.02 for RP1 0. As a result of the negotiations, the necessary increase in rates has been reduced from 7.4% to 3.6 Rate Structure Overview At the City Council's direction, staff has reviewed the existing rate structure to determine what increases would be required to incorporate a service -based component into the rates. Including a service -based component into all service levels will increase the rates charged to customers using smaller 10- gallon and 20- gallon carts by a greater percentage than customers using the larger 32 64- and 96- gallon carts. The rate for smaller cart services will remain lower than the larger carts, as an incentive to continue diverting solid waste from landfills; however, the difference in cost will be less than In previous years and will be more reflective of the actual cost to provide the service. The analysis, conducted by HF &H, determined the following: The IW rate for residential customers is based on the size of the solid waste cart. Four diff=erent cart sizes are available, 20 32 64- and 96- gallons. Previously a 1 0- gallon cart was offered, but the City Council agreed to discontinue this service and this rate is only available to customers who had previously subscribed to this service prior to its elimination. To encourage recycling and increase the diversion of solid waste from landfills, the smaller solid waste collection carts are offered at a reduced rate. Currently, more than 34% of the City's residential customers receive 20- gallon service, while this practice has increased the City's diversion rate, it has resulted in a significant decrease in revenues and inherent rate structure inequities because the cost to drive to, collect, and process the Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council June 7, 2011 Page 4 of 7 materials remains the same, regardless of the container size. As a result, only 6.5% of residents, those paying for 64- and 96- gallon collection services, pay the full cost to provide the service. The current economic environment has impacted the rates and service levels. Traditionally, commercial and debris box services have subsidized the cost of residential service, thereby supplying the required revenue to sustain lower subscribed residential collection service levels. This practice is not unique to Alameda; it has been an industry practice that pre -dates the current. franchise agreement. The number of paying commercial and debris box customers has eroded due to reduced construction related activity. This effect is magnified because this sector's rates subsidize the residential sector rates. when there is less of this type of activity, less commercial and debris box revenue is available to provide a subsidy to keep residential rates low. The lower costs associated with smaller carts has led. to multi -plex, multi- family, and commercial cart service customers using multiple 20- gallon carts, as opposed to fewer 64- gallon carts. Comparing the current rate structure reveals that using five 20- gallon carts (100-gallons of service) as opposed to providing one 96- gallon cart, results in approximately $16.00 per month savings plus four additional gallons of service. By comparison, commercial cart rates are approximately $11,00 less per month than residential rates for the same service. Changes in the rate structure are warranted to remove the existing service inequities and are anticipated to result in additional costs savings due to reduced container costs and route hours. Four rate structure scenarios for residential and commercial service levels were developed by HF &H (Exhibit 1). Each scenario provides the required overall 3.6% increase to generate sufficient revenues for RP10. The following summarizes the assumptions for each of the four rate scenarios: Scenario #1 Maintains the current rate structure and rate relationships between service levels. Each rate is increased by the requested 3.6% increase. This scenario is not recommended because It does not address having the single- family and multi-plex/family rates for smaller service levels cover their service- based fixed costs. Scenario #2 Increases the multi --plea and multi family 20- gallon rate (at a greater percentage than all other rates) so that it is not cheaper to use five 20- gallon containers instead of one 96- gallon container. All other service rates will increase by 3.0 Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council June 7, 2011 Pa 5 of 7 This scenario is not recommended because it onl addresses the service-based fixed costs ine for multi-p1ex1famil and not sin y Scenario #3 Same as Scenario #2, except it also revises the sin rates to include a service-based component, re of container size. This scenario results in si increases to the 10- and 20- rates (68.2% and 48.4%, respectivel while the 64- and 96- rates would .be reduced. This scenario fixes both the sin and multi-plex1fami ine issue,- however, it results in a substantial increase of 48.4% to the 2 (9- g allon rate, more than $9.00 per month. Scenario #4 Same as Scenario #3, except it provides for a more modest increase to the 20- rate. This option also maintains the current 64- and 06- g allon rates. This scenario balances the objective of implementin a rate structure that includes a service-based component while ensurin that the proposed increase does not overl burden an one rate, such as the 20- rate. Staff recommends that Scenario #4 be implemented as part of the RP10 rate adjustments. As proposed, 20- rates will increase b 15.2%, or $3.00 per. month for sin residents, and the 32- service will incre b 1.6%, or $0.50 per month for sin residents. The hi service lev (64- and 96- allons customers will not be increased. Implementin percenta chan .in.this manner is intended to e the overall rate structure. Table 1 lists the proposed increases for residential services. Table 1 Quarterl Inte Waste Mana IWM Rates Cart Size Gallons Existin Rates Proposed Rates IWM Rates Senior Discount Rate Low Income Discount Rate IWIVI Rates Senior Discount Rate Low Income Discount Rate 20 59.01 $50.16 50.16 68.01 $57.81 57-81 32 92-85 $78-93 78.93 94.35 $79.11 79.11 64 $155.01 N/A $131.76 $155-01 N/A $131.76 96 ..$.216.51 N/A $184.02_]l $216-51 N/A $184.02 The list of all proposed ceilin rates and fees is included as Exhibit 2. Honorable Mayor and June 7, 201 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 7 Rates Chat ear By otherAqencies: HF &H conducted a telephone and web survey of the 17 agencies (predominately located in Alameda County) to compare the City's proposed rate with other agencies' rates. Nine of the 17 surveyed jurisdictions are currently considering rate. increases. Since the proposed rate increases will not be available until each jurisdiction's Council or Board has approved the proposed rate increase, this comparison assumes no rate increase for these jurisdictions and may overstate the differences in rates between Alameda's proposed increases and those of the other jurisdictions. It is, therefore, a "worst- case" comparison. In addition, HF &H provided a comparison of the types of collection services offered by ACI with services offered in four of the surveyed agencies. As shown in Exhibit 3, rates for a typical 32- gallon service (the most common service level in the City of Alameda) vary from a high of $47.71 per month (City of Piedmont) to a low of $'16.47 per month (Ora Lorna Sanitary District Hayward (L2 a 190% difference. This broad variation in rates illustrates that rates are directly affected by the diversity of collection services offered and the proximity of an agency to a transfer station or landfill. Services and discounts provided to Alameda residents and commercial customers are more comprehensive than other agencies and the rates, therefore, would be expected to be higher than the average rate in the county. Comprehensive services include; the drop -off of household batteries; the curbside pick -up of used oil including multi- family; and the collection of food -waste for multi- family units and restaurants. -ACI is also required to maintain a fully staffed local office, offer a senior discount rate, and provide no -cost collection services at 12 citywide events for nonprofit agencies, which is not typical for other Alameda County agencies. The City also provides. d iscou nts for. senior and low-- income residents and no cost food waste recycling for commercial customers for the first 96- gallons with a 20% discount thereafter. In addition, unlike other. cities .in the county, Alameda is responsible for the post closure costs associated with the maintenance and regulatory requirements for the Doolittle Landfill. The rate provides a funding source for these enhanced services. A comparison of the proposed 32- gallon rate with the current rates of other agencies indicates that Alameda will continue to be the third highest. This has been the norm since City staff has been tracking the rates of other jurisdictions and reflects the diversity of services provided by ACI. A comparison of the 20- gallon rates indicates that, even with the proposed 15.3% increase, Alameda's rate would be the fourth highest; sixth highest if the two jurisdictions that do not offer this level of service are included. This comparison indicates that the proposed rate increase is reasonable when compared to other jurisdictions and accurately reflects the wide variety of services available to residents through ACI. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 7, 2011 Page 7 of 7 FINANCIAL IMPACT The City receives a 1 franchise fee from ACI on gross receipts. The proposed increase in the ceiling rates will provide approximately $55,000 in additional franchise fees to the City. Funds are available in the Integrated Waste Management Fund 274.1 for the proposed $210,000 contribution towards rate stabilization. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE t Pr nr s consistent With the G Pl The it s Integrated 'waste Managem ;enr o ar?" i i.3 ..iv, .�.r t 0. p ou ff,�aut o u. e �Vl ,e, t Health Safety Element Guiding Policy 8.4.k. No LTJ I neal I kyl ma -61, U 2 a In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), -this project is Statutory Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 (a )(1) Rates, Tolls, Fares and C harges meeting of operating expenses. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing to adopt a resolution establishing IW collection ceiling rates and service fees for ACI for rate period 10 (July 2011 to June 2012) and allocate $210,000 from the integrated waste management account. By, Debra Sue Johnson Public Works Coordinator Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller Exhibits: 1. hF &H Memorandum 2. Proposed Ceiling Rates and Services Fees 3. Comparable Cities Table cc: ACI %Cit Council Exhibit I to A Item #6-C 06-07-11 EXHIBIT 1 HILTON, FARNKOPH. HOBSON (HF&H MEMORANDUM a N Mal 2 �01 In r a'� r w Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today 291 N. Civic Drive, Suite 239 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Telephone: 925/977 -6950 Fax: 925/977 -6955 www.hfh-consultants.com Robert D. Hilton, CMC John W. Farnkopf, PE Laith B. Ezzet, CMC Richard J. Simonson, CMC Marva M. Sheehan, CPA Date: May 26, 2011 To: Maria Di Meglio From: Rick Simonson Copy to: Matthew Naclerio, Debra Sue Johnson Subject: Rate Period Ten (RP10) Rate Review and Rate Adjustment Scenarios Sectolon.1 Rate Structure Scenario summar As requested, HF &H Consultants, LLC (HF&H) prepared an analysis of current solid waste rates and propose a revised rate structure for residential and commercial carts, commercial bins, and .commercial compactors to better reflect the cost of service while generating sufficient revenue to cover the projected collection and processing costs for Rate Period Ten (July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012). This memorandum summarizes: 1) our review of. the City's current solid waste rate structure- 2) four rate adjustment scenarios; and, 2) potential strategies for red ucing the necessary rate increases. Every rate scenario reflects an overall increase in total rate revenue of 3.6 as required to compensate ACI for their RP10 revenue requirement (as discussed in Section 3 of this memorandum Section 2 Current Rate Structure Revi"Iew As we have seen in other jurisdictions over the past few years during the economic .slow. down,. many customers are migrating. from higher- priced large volume containers (Le., 64- gallon, 96- gallon) to smaller lower priced containers (i.e., 20- gallon) to reduce their monthly costs. As. with many jurisdictions, the City's rate structure encourages customers to "downsize" their solid waste container by placing more materials in their recyclable material and organics carts, rather than in their solid waste containers; ultimately, reducing the amount of trash sent to the landfill. As customers reduce their container size, less revenue is generated; however, there is not an equal reduction the cost to drive by, collect, and process the materials is the same regardless of the container size. Only 6.5% of residents (those customers receiving 64-.or 96- gallon service) cover the fixed costs to provide such service. The City has been able to keep the residential rates lower than. necessary because, as is industry practice, commercial and debris box revenues have contributed more than the cost of their services. Because of these factors, in the future, the City should consider iincreasing the 10 gallon and 20- gallon rates a greater percentage than the 32 64 and 96- gallon rates to have them pay a larger percentage of their fixed costs but still be significantly lover than the 32- gallon rate to in centivize customers to reduce the amount of materials disposed of in the landfill. In addition, our review of the current rate structure found the following: Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today Ms. Maria Di IIIeglio May 26, 2011 Page 2 of 4 The Multi -Plex (residential properties with 2 4 units) and Multi Family (residential properties with 5 units) rate for 20- gallon service is lower than the cost to provide service and, because it costs less, the too low rate encourages customers to use multiple 20- gallon containers. rather than one larger container. For example, five 20- gallon containers (100-gallons of service) costs approximately $16 less per month than one 96- gallon container. A change in the rate structure to remove such inequity will reduce container costs and route hours. The Multi -Plex (residential properties with 2 4 units) and Multi Family (residential .properties with 5 units) are being provided a discount to the per -unit recycling and organic charges if the property used fewer recycling and organics containers than the number of units (i.e., a four -plea using less than four recycling containers). This rate structure encourages properties to rec cle less since they can receive a price break if they use less recycling and/or organics containers. The Commercial Cart rates are $10.67 less per month than the comparable residential rates even though commercial and residential customers receive the same services. (i.e., both customer types are provided solid waste, recyclable material, and organic material containe Section 3 Review of ACI's RP 10 Revenue Re and Projected Alameda County Industries AR, Inc. (ACI) submitted a rate application for RP 1O.on .March 29, 2011. The Company's RP10 compensation, and subsequent rate increase was calculated. (in accordance with the methodology outlined in the Franchise Agreement) by escalating the Company's RP9 allowable compensation by the percentage change in: 1.) the Urban wage Earners Index for non- union :labor related costs; 2.) Motor vehicle Repair Index for vehicle related costs; and, 1} All Urban Consumers Index for all other costs). In the case of expenses related to employees .subject to the Teamsters. Union Local 70 bargaining agreement, labor related costs shall be. the actual wages and benefits. for. the Rate Period in accordance with the bargaining agreement (escalating RP9 allowable compensation by O.9 Based on the changes to the above mentioned indices (2.1% increase in non -union labor- related costs, 2.0/ increase in vehicle- related costs, 0.9% in union related costs, and 1.7% increase in all other costs) and the increase in disposal costs and government fees .(which are pass- through costs in accordance with the Franchise Agreement), ACI's allowable RP10 operating expenses increased 1.1 However, ACI's rate application calculated an overall increase of 7.4 to the integrated waste management rates -based on a projected revenue shortfall of $1,155,631. As described above, operating expense increases account for only 1.1% of the requested total. The balance, 6.3 is due to a prolonged economic downturn that we have experienced over the past years which has resulted in less revenue being generated .but having to cover the same costs. A combination of factors has contributed to the revenue shortfall, such as: increased disposal regulatory fees; migration to reduced cart sizes; and rate structure inequities. As customers reduce their container size, less revenue is generated; however, there is not an equal reduction the cost to drive by, collect, and process the materials is the same regardless of the container size. '11111'.12'11 s IBM rte �;�r.,,.,..�> Managing Tomorrows Resources Today Ms. Maria Di Meglio May 20, 2011 Page 3 of 4 In accordance with Section 8.12 of the Franchise Agreement, upon completion of a Rate Period (in this case, RP8 July 2009 through June 2010), the actual revenue received is compared to ACI's allowable compensation. and the variance is either added to or subtracted from ACI's forthcoming rate application. In this case. RP8 revenues came in less than ACI allowable compensation; therefore, ACI is afforded an approximate 5.3% increase in RP10 to compensate for the RP8 loss. As discussed above, rate revenue (assuming current rates) is projected to produce a 7.4% revenue shortfall for the forthcoming year. The additional revenue required for RP 10 (7.4% increase in rates) is attributed to the following factors: A 0.4% increase is due to increases in organic material processing costs resulting from a combination of a 5.1% increase in organic material tonnage collected .from customers and a 1.7% increase in the per -ton organic mater.ials processing fee at the processing facility. A 0.4% increase is due to increases in other allowed costs such as rent, insuran and customer service operational costs, based on the annual change in the applicable consumer price indices (in accordance with the Franchise Agreement). A 0.3% increase is due to increases in labor related costs (i.e., union hourly wage rates, health and welfare premiums, workers compensation. expenses). based on the annual change in the applicable consumer price indices and changes in the union agreements (in accordance with the Franchise Agreement). A 0.2% increase is due to increases in vehicle related related costs .su.ch as fuel, liability insurance premiums, vehicle insurance premiums, telephone expenses, and outside repairs, based on the annual change in the applicable consumer price indices (in accordance %with the Franchise Agreement). A 0.1% increase is due to increases in the recyclable material per -ton processing costs. A 5.3% increase is due to an actual revenue shortfall from RP8. A 1.0% increase is due to a projected revenue shortfall in RP9. OFFSET by: A 0.3% decrease is due to a 4.0% decrease in solid waste collected increases in Solid Waste tip fees, including the County per tonnage fee. rr N �_Wm in 1!1 ii Managing Tomorrow's Resources Today Ms. Maria Di Meglio May 26, 2011 Page 4of4 Understanding rates increased 5.0% last year, HF &H, City staff, and ACI management negotiated an alternative to keep the rate increase as low as possible in light of the current economic slowdown. ACI has agreed to a one -time reduction in profit of $140,000 and to defer a Portion of the RP8 revenue shortfall re a ment as discussed in the p revious p if the City is able to provide a one -tine contribution of $2 from reserves in the City's Inte rate Waste Management Fund. As a result of the negotiations, the necessary increase in rates has been reduced from 7.4% to 3.6%, based on an agreed -upon $16,188,843 revenue requirement for RP10. Attachment 1 provides a summary of four rate scenario impacts on the most common residential and commercial service levels. Every rate scenario reflects an overall increase in total rate revenue of .3.6 as discussed above. All four scenarios will gene the same annual revenue. The following summarizes the assumptions for each of the four rate scenarios; Scenario #1— Maintains the current rate structure and rate relationships between service levels. Each rate is increased by the requested 3.6% increase. Scenario #2 Increases Multi -Plea and Multi -Famil 20-gallon rate (at a greater percentage than all other rates) so that it is not cheaper to use five 20- gallon containers .instead of one 96-- gallon container. All other service rates will increase by 3.0 9/o. Scenario #3 Same as Scenario #2, except it also revises, Single Family rates to "cost -of- service" rates with a fixed component regardless of container size plus a variable ..per gallon d.isposal rate. This scenario results in significant increases to 10- and 20- gallon rates (68.2 and 48.4 respectively), while 64- gallon and 96- gallon rates are reduced significantly. This of rate structure may be more equitable, but may not be reasonable to im plement. all at once; therefore, we have provided a fourth scenario which will allow the implementation of this type of rate structure overtime. Scenario #4 Same as Scenario #3, except the 10- and 20- gallon rates increase is less severe (23.9% and 15.2/, respectively; which equates to $4.00 and $3.00 per. month,. respectively). The less than necessary increases (as compared to Scenario #3) are accomplished by keeping the 64 and 96 gallon rates at their current rates instead of the significant reduction afforded in Sce n a rio #3. City of Alameda Alternative Rate Scenarios Rate Period 10 S:\Clie nts\A\Al a meda, City ot\2011 \5 RY10 Rate Review\Final Report\Rate Scenallo Exhibit 05.19.1lSheetl Scenario #1 S nar ic� naria #3 Hari #4 M y Rate Rate Variance Variance Rate Variance Variance Rate Variance Variance Rate Variance Variance Single- Family 10 gal 1fi 71` 17.31 0.60 3.6% 17.21 0.50 3.0% 11.40 68.2 20-71 4.Cf{3 23.9% 20 -gal 19; 7 20.37 0.70 3.6% 20.26 6.59 3.0% 29.20 9.53 48.4% 22.67 3.00 15.2% 32 gal i 30 9S 32,06 1.11 3.6% 31..88 0.93 3.0% 30.51 (0.44) -1.4% 31.45 €3.50 L6% 64 gal 6]: 53.53 1.86 3.6% 53.22 1.55 3.0 /n 33.99 X17.683 34.2% 51.67 0.0% 96 gal 17 74.76 2.59 3.6% 74.33 2.15 3.0 37.48 X34. -48.1% 72.17 {0.00) 0.0% Multi -plex/ Multi- Family T 20 -gal 9 00. 9.32 0.32 3.6% 13.39 4.39 48.8% 13.17 4.17 46.3% 13.29 4.29 47.6% 32 gal ::.:2C3. 2$: 21.61 6.73 3.6% 20.89 0.61 3.0% 20.55 0.27 1.3% 20.73 0.45 12% 64 gal 1:i] 3 42.48 1.48 3.6% 42.23 1.23 310% 41.53 0.53 1.3% 41.90 0.90 2.2% 96 -gat 7 63.71 2.21 3.6% 63.35 1.85 3.0% 62.30 0.80 1.3% 62.85 1.35 2.2% Commercial Cart 20 gal 8:9.9 931 032 3.6% 3.26 0.27 3.0% 9.11 €3.12 1.3% $13,17 4.18 46.5% 32 gal 2101 €3.73 3.6 20.89 0.61 3.0% 20.54 0.26 1.3% $21.95 1.67 8.2% 64 -gal 4 ;0 4148 1.48 16% 42.23 1.23 3.0% 41.53 0.53 113 fn $42.17 1.17 19% 96 gal 6130 5171 121 16% 53.34 1.84 10% 52.30 0.80 13% $62.57 1.17 1.9 /n Cprnmercial Bin 1 cy, IX 117:21, 121.43 4.22 3.6% 120.73 3.52 3.0 118.73 1.52 1.3% $119.79 2.58 2.2% 2 cy, IX X34:42: 242,86 8.44 3.6 241.45 7.03 3.0% 237.47 3.05 1,3% $239.58 5.16 2.2°/0 2 cy, 2X 473:5.3.: 490.58 17.05 3.6% 487.74 14.21 3.0% 479.59 6.16 1.3% $483.95. 10.42 12% S:\Clie nts\A\Al a meda, City ot\2011 \5 RY10 Rate Review\Final Report\Rate Scenallo Exhibit 05.19.1lSheetl Cit C Exhi U A g e nda 6 EXHIBIT 2 PROPOSED CEILING RTES AND SERVICES FEES CITY OF ALAMEDA Rate Sheets Effective July 1, 2011 Residential Single Family Cart Size Gallons Quarterly 1WM Rates 20 $68.00 32 .$94.35 64 $155.01 96 $216.50 CITT i Rate Multi- Family Customers (5+ Living units) $119.79 $241.98 Recycling Rate Organics Rate Cart Quarterly Rates Meekly Per Living Unit Per Living Unit Size Gallons Service (for carts up to 96- Gallons) (for carts up to 96- Gallons) 20 $39.86 $17.67 $15.03 32 $62,19 $17.67 $15,03 64 $12531 $17.67 $15,03 95 $188.55 $17.97 $15.03 lti- Family Customers 5+ Living Units) Monthly Garbage Bin Rates` Container Weekly Collection Frequency Size yards 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 $119.79 $241.98 $366.55 $493.53 $622.90 $754.58 1.5 $179,59 $362.96 $549.84 $740.30 $93436 $1,132.00 2 239.58 $483.95 $733.11 $987.07 $1,245.81 $1,509.34 3 $359.38 $725.92 $1,099.66 $1,480.60 $1,858.71 $2,264.03 4 $479,7.6 $957.99 $1,466.21 $1,97413 $2,491.61 $3,0318,69 5 $598,94 $1,209.87 $1,83161 $2,467.66 $3,114.52 $3,77336 6 $718.73 $1,451.84 $2,19932 $2,961.19 .$3,737.42 $4,528.03 7 $838.52 $1,693.82 $2,565,88 $3,45432 $4,360.32 $5,282.71 lti -Farr iBy Customers 5+ Living Units; Monthly Garbage Compactor Rates* Container Weekly Collection Frequency Size Yards 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 $239.58 $48195 $733.11 $987.06 $1,245,81 $1,509.34 1.5 $359.37 $725.93 $1,0399.66 $1,480.59 $1,868.71 $2,264.02 2 $479.15 $967.90 $1,466,22 $1,974.13 $2,497..62 $3,018.69 3 $718.73 $1,451.84 $2,199.33 $2,961.203 $3,737.42 $4,528.05 4 $95831 $1,935,79 $2,932.43 $3,948.25 $4,983.23 $6 5 $1,197.90 $2,419,74 $3,567.22 $4,93531 $6,229.04 $7,546.71 6 $1,437.47 $2,903.69 $4,398.66 $5,922.38 $7,474.85 $9,056.05 7 $1,677.05 $3,387.63 $5,131.77 $5,909.44 $8,720.65 $10,555.41 `Note: Multi Family Bin Customers Recycling collection is $4.09 per dwelling unit per month Organic materials collection is $2.72 per dwelling unit per month Commercial Monthly Bin Rates Garbage CITY OF ALAMEDA Container Fete Sheets Effective J 1, 2011 Weekly Collection Frequency Commercial Monthly Cars: Rates Garbage Size Yards 1 2 3 4 7 Weekly Collection Frequency 6 1 Container $241.98 $366.55 $493,53 $622.90 $754 -68 Size Yards 1 2 3 4 5 6 20 $13.17. $26,33 $39,50 $52.67 $65.83 $79.00 32 $21.95 $43.90 $55.85 $87.80 $109.75 $13130 64 $42.17 $84.34 $126.51 $168.68 $210,85 $253.02 96 $62.67 $125.33 $188.00 $250.67 .$313,33 $376.00 Commercial Monthly Bin Rates Garbage Container Weekly Collection Frequency Size Yards 1 2 3 4 7 5 6 1 $119.79 $241.98 $366.55 $493,53 $622.90 $754 -68 1.5 $179.69 $362.96 $549.84 $740,30 $934.36 $1,132.00 2 $239.58 $483.95 $733.11 $987,07 $1,245-81 $1,509.34 3 $35938 $725.92 $1,099.66 $1,480,60 $1,568.71. $2.,264.03 4 $479.16 $967.90 $1,466.21 1.13 974 $2,491.61 $3,018.69 5 $598.94 $1,209.87 $1,833.61 $2,467.66 $3,114.52 $3,773.36 6 $718.73 $1,451.84 $2,199.32 $2,961,19 $3,737.42 $4,528.03 7 $838.52 $1,693=82 $2,565.88 $3,454,71 $4,360.32 $5,28131 Commercial Monthly Compactor Rates Garbage Container Weekly Collection Frequency Size Yards 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 $239.58 $483.95 5733.11 $987,06 $1,245.81 $1,569.34 1.5 $359.37 $725.93 $1,099.66 $1,480,59 $1,868.71 $2,264.02 2 $479.15 $967.90 $1,466.22 $1,974,13 $2,491.62 $3,018.69 3 $718.73 $1,451.84 $2,19933 $2,961,20 $3,737.42 $4,528.05 4 $958.31 $1,935.79 $2,932.43 $3,948.25 $4,983.23 $6,03737 5 $1," 97.9Q $2,419.74 $3,667,22 $4,935.31 $6,229.04 $7,546.71 6 $1,437.47 $2,943.69 $4,398.66 $5,922,38 $7,474.85 $9,056.05 7 $1.,677.05 $3,387.63 $5,131.77 $6,909,44 $8,720.65 51.0,565.41. Commercial Monthly Bin Rates Organics Container 'Meekly Collection Frequency Size Yards 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 $95.83 $193.58 $293.24 $394.83 $498.32 $603.74 L5 $143.75 $290.37 $439.87 $592.24 $747.49 $905.60 2 $191.66 $387.16 $586,49 $789,65 $996.65 $1,207.47 3 $287.50 $5801.74 $879.73 $1,184.48 $1,494.97 $1,811.21 C ITY r ALA R i... rte; S J i 20 Commercial Mon y Debris ox r ontainer Loose ize Yards E EPerPLull Charge Tans Allowed* 10 $48 1.42 2 15 $722.13 3 20 $962.84 4 30 $1,444.27 6 40 $1,925.68 8 50 $2,407.11 10 Commercial Monthly Debris Boy Container ..Compacted Size Yards Per Pull Charge Tons allowed* 10 $516.07. 3 15 $774.10 4 20 $1,032.14 6 30 $1,54$.21 9 40 $2,064.25 11 50 $2,580.35 14 *Note: Per ton overweight charges applied to tons in excess of Tons Allowed Cit Exhibit t A Item EXHIBIT'.')"- COMPARABLE CITIES TABLE w w Jc 4-1 Amok ONO rs IF Ulf) ARk VXM= SIC= 0 wwp I Q) mm'"III M cu 4=1 M LL, m w w Amok ONO rs IF ARk wwp I mm'"III F& C MWA *Am Q 0 c E� C. 0 i ■Oblli Ln •J� 4 fr �r o ��`'.b o�o� t) 0 r 91 6 C9 a eel� Jo o� o� Oj lov o /0 0 C7 CD C7 C7 0 Lti C; LA 6 En Lr) dt m m cv c•t V.-i tn- i/)- -.n• Vn- V)- i/)- tn. V�. 1 1 t ar r r s i i i si i •i i aim i 1►i i i ■rt 7>ri •i r i rt i a 1► Ila s>• i fi >ri r i i i i i i i i 1►i !rr r si i i i t i i 1� i i i r ^�t 0 i i# i N i 1► i '�E i Qj s ul 0 AF i Qj a ii r r •i ii i a s R i s a i °Wt "'r i# i i i f i t IL 'J 1 1 t ar r r s i i i si i •i i aim i 1►i i i ■rt 7>ri •i r i rt i a 1► Ila s>• i fi >ri r i i i i i i i i 1►i !rr r si i i i t i i 1� i i i r ^�t i i# i N i 1► i '�E i AF i a ii r r •i ii i a s R i s a i °Wt "'r i# i i i f i t IL 'J a t i i S i i i s i i i i i i i .4w 0 i yt 111► a j 0 CL Vf bo 11 4e, QOI a� a, s 0 a a, a� ate° QGIr a 4' s, s� c) c) C) c> c� c n o 0 Ln LO d" m m N N -i r-I iu'- LL. Me Me 2 lu 1 W 1 0 1 txo 1 0 =3 cO 0 -0 CL m "A I u l aw 4-J 0 E cu cu a) w 0 Q) LL Ln (V co r4 r-j rvi 0 0 LA CJ x i CL j I a j CL r4 QJ ho u cu C6 w w Q3 LL 0 W E M E 75 4-J Ln t.0 cL x CU 4-0 g o S (U L 0 4mi I I I 4�J id 7 ro LL W LL bb 4-0 75 cu 1 (v cu V) 0 c CO C a C c 0 0 0 cr W cr W cr 0 u Q m C moo" 4-J 0 0 m o o ol o m u u u Q arowx 0 0 u (U E 11 cu w E (U 0 L) L) 0 4 o u- 0 LL 0 le ro (Y) a) M Q0 r--i. a)' r1j m LJD u a) 0) m to: m r cr) j� L Ln 00,00 Y 00 C), t�o o o Ln rn: 00 c r M P 00 0) CO CD: 1� 00 CD C) CD e �.r, n °€.ra- R -cam -Y. N 00 rte N �-o k.0 ro 1%- CD: rH CO: 0 o r m: r-i (M W Ln ewe LI) N r-i rn Lf) m m m (:I) Ln oo :::i- (n Ln Q0 al 9--t x m: Lf), re) rl,4: m r--1 M �.o r-" M Ln Ln un, LO Ln r-4 Ln 0 Ln rl%- r�- �-o Ull) w Ln Ln Ln Ln U-) E -td 00 0 c Ln 00 0; t.0, rj ro Ln 1 00 �.o m r i r j Ln Ln LO N rj �,b m m co w rn 3: 00 0 Ln ro Ln Ln r-4 00 5 m X ro kc N M r m rq M m Ln w r" 00 (n ul: r-4. r Ln m Ln Ln m 0-) m r-4: Ln: m r-- rl-: 0 r 4, 00 r" r 0 0 Z �r CD Z t-q Ln Ln M m Lt) L r) 0 I I ILO Lo r 4 (N (n M r r r CY) U) m C) r'j r-i m Q0 n Q0 C n 4j- 4j)- 4 V)- C) V)- -V)h: -V)- 4 J1 4j Ln r m 00 y) f f" r m Ln �-o r%j r-, �.o LD .0 (y) Q0 r-i 00 N 00: 0 m r--i 7--1 E ul LO Ln 00 KIT E rn C) r'j r i 00 Ln: Lri Ln rj 00 C$ m .6. U- C) LL. Lt) m 00 r�- Lrl !�-i (0) 00 klo i r�-, 17r r%l r co m Ln Ln LA 00 0) Z 00 Ln 00 I Ln r�, c) c rH Ln r e 00 LM (Y) ry') N rJ r4 Ln rn'r,4 00 N m 00 M N r�- r cn fD t C> G -I 00 rq M ry) r N V) C:> cr) (:7) rj (3) 7 (3) N Lr) r-j N 0 0 Q t j C C c (U: CL cu tLo 0 CL (3) M k 4-J Z3 m C3 cu C) E 4--1 4--.; %11 0. m u a) Ln, ca LO LLe 0: U l< u 0 LL 'lo 4) 4) Ora 6_ 4) 4) m 3: 0 bon CL 0 (A ell e) 270�� 0 1 0 0 0 C:) C:) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 Lri C5 Iii 6 Lri C5 Lri C5 Lri Lri Lf) Lr) V). 91 46, ell e) 270�� 0 1 0 0 0 C:) C:) 0 0 0 C) 0 0 Lri C5 Iii 6 Lri C5 Lri C5 Lri Lri Lf) Lr) V). po=Wl% r4 CL a OMPPI 0 LA LM m 0 1 V 00 V�, 0 91 '61 Mr i C5 L Lri C5 L U 1 6: L -t Lr) Lt) m (Y) CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING INTEGRATED WASTE COLLECTION CEILING RATES AND SERVICE FEES FOR ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR RATE PERIOD 10 (JULY 2011 TO JUNE 2012) AND ALLOCATE $210,000 FROM THE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT WHEREAS, in 2002 the City of Alameda entered into a Franchise Agreement (FA) with Alameda County Industries (ACI), for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organics materials curbside collection for a ten --year period; and WHEREAS, in 2009 the City of Alameda extended the same FA with ACI for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organics materials curbside collection until 2022; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 2011, ACI submitted a rate application covering Rate Period 10 (RP10) projections; and WHEREAS, city staff and consultant, Hilton, Farnkopf Hobson (HFH), evaluated the request for rate increase applications in accordance with the existing FA with ACI; and W HEREAS, the city Council finds that the solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection will be consolidated into one integrated waste management fee; and WHEREAS, the city council finds that the integrated waste management rates approved by this resolution provide ACI with a reasonable rate of return; and WHEREAS, ordinance No. 2470, passed by the City council on February 20 1990, states that all subsequent rates for collection, processing, and delivery to the city specified disposal site of integrated solid waste shall be set by Resolution of the city council; and WHEREAS, ordinance No. 2629, passed by the city Council on May 4, 1993, states that all subsequent changes to the method of collection Surcharges shall be set by Resolution of the city Council: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda establishes the integrated waste collection ceiling rates and services fees for ACI for RP1 0 (July 2011 to June 30, 2012) as shown on Exhibit 1. Resolution #0 -c Cc 00 -07 -11 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 7th day of June, 2011, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said city this 8th day of June, 2011. Lara weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council From: Lisa Goldman Acting city Manager Date: June 7, 2011 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Taxes and Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via the Property Tax Bills City of Alameda Ordinance Igo. 2655 added Section 5 -7.2, entitled "License a Debt," and enacted several amendments and additions to the business license provisions of the Alameda Municipal code. specifically, the ordinance provided for the collection of delinquent business license taxes and charges via the property tax bill. In order for this assessment to be valid, it must satisfy the basic requirements of due. process. The. owners must be given fair notice regarding the assessment and an opportunity for a hearing. In accordance with Chapter XXI, Solid Waste and .Recycling, Subsection 21 -20.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), ACI may assign delinquent Integrated Waste Management (IWM) accounts to the City for collection through the property tax. Prior to assigning its rights to the City, ACI is obligated to make four attempts to collect the delinquent accounts. DISCUSSION The Finance Division continually pursues collection of business license taxes from owners and managers of commercial and multi- family residential rental properties with no current business license. Although the Business License Ordinance states that a notice or bill is not required, property owners are notified by mail using the last mailing address shown in the County tax records and are given approximately two months to respond prior to sending the final notices. This year, final notices were railed on April 14, 2011. Included with the notices was contact information written in the s.ix languages .most commonly spoken within Alameda. There mere 113 rental properties or businesses identified as not having current licenses as of March 17, 20 Since then, taxes in the amount of $1 9;098 on 54 parcels have been paid; leaning taxes .on 5.9 parcels unpaid. As in past years, payments will be accepted through June. 30, 2011, the date of filing with the County Tax Collector. Those parcels for which licenses and takes have been paid will not be placed on City Council A Item #6-D Honorable Ma and June 7, 2011 Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 3 the tax roll. In addition to the delin business license taxes, this y ear the Cit is includin delin IWM bills in the propert tax attachment process. These delin bills will be processed alon with the delin businesses license taxes in order to improve efficienc in the collection of both t of billin On March 17, 2011 ACI assi a list of 58 delin IWM accounts, with an unpaid balance of $28,x"81, excludin penalties, interest, and Cit fees, to the Cit for collection.. As part of the Franchise A the Cit is obli to pa ACI for all del.in accounts. In accordance with the AMC Subsection 21.20.6, the Cit m a y send a lett.er.to each account's propert owner re pa and if not promptl received, the Cit ma consider collectin delin accounts b means of the propert tax bills at a noti public hearin Propert owners are notified twice b mail; the first notice is sent followin receipt of the list and the second subse to the s ettin g of the hearin date. The lette notif propert owners of the Cit intent to collect the delin am plus Cit fees, throu the tax roll. Included with the notices is contact information written in the six most commonl spoken lan within the Cit To be consistent with Finance. Division policies, propert owners' pa will be accepted throu June 30, 2011, the date. of filin with the Count Tax Collector. Those properties ow for which delin accounts are paid will not be placed on the tax roll. The list of the delin accounts nts is attached FINANCIAL IMPACT Business license taxes are due and pa on Jul 1 of each y ear and are deemed delin if not paid b Jul 31 st. Collection efforts ensued from Au 2010 .th rou.g h April 2011. The total uncollected license fees are $25,110. A ten percent pen is imposed for each m a tax is delin up to a maximum of 60% of the annual fee, The total late char included in the amount due as shown in the attached list is $8,082. The total amount due for the 36 non-paid IWM accounts, not includin Cit fees, is $18,509. The Cit receives a ten percent franchise fee from ACI, which is revenue for the General Fund. Staff estimates the cost to administer this pro ram is. approximatel 9 $51000 per y ear, and the lien pro is structured to provide full cost recover for the past due accounts. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The collection of business license taxes via the propert tax roll is authorized pursuant to AMC Section 5-7 et se The Cit is authorized to place a lien on the propert of a delin customer pursuant to AMC Subsection 21-20.6 (b). Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION June 7, 2011 Page 3of3 Authorize collection of delinquent business.license taxes and delinquent Ivl M accounts via the property tax bills. Respectfully submitted and approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller Exhibits: Exhibit 1 2011 Business License Lien List Exhibit 2 2011 IWM Lien List -1-t U) C: C\1 U) 0') 4-- 0 CN C- 0 E M C 114 4- 0 T Council Jbit I to A Item #6-D C) CD 0 0 00 C) r- 0 LO CO C) 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 CD 0 C) 0 co C) (D C:) 0 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Co C) 0 C) M C) 0 CD ';;3- M CO M (D (D N 0 C) 0 C) 0. C) 0 CNJ CD C) t CD Co N C.) 0 N u- to M b CD c,� M (6 co' Lo' LO U'� 00 LO CO CD 0 Ict N CD �D (0 0 (D (D V) QD IN CD r- CD 00 QD co I-- M Nr Iq C) U') ter- M M C) (Y) M w P-- M. M M M �D co M co I*,- I;r C3? f�,- U') CY) T- T- N T- 0 Co C) 0 M CD U) CO CD 0 0 CD CD CD 0 CD C CD 0 CD CD Cc CD CD CD CD CD CD r1-- 0 C) CD CD C) M C) Q0 CD r� (.0 CD (D C) CD CD CD CD C) CD c� 0 CD C) CD CD C) CD CD C) CD CD C) (D 0 C) CO U 0 Cq 1-- U (0 (D 0 CD Q 0 N C) CD 0 CD CD C> 0 N C) C: q;*- C :I (0 1*,- CD C) N 1;3- T- (D T r• co CD N NN co N C\j U') OD C) 0 C\1 IT C\1 N CD N 0 U') co w -%r M N NN N N co U-) M M 0 co E a) 0 0 :3 a) w 0 a as (0 7 a) (1) C/) Q) U) .0 0 0 E 0 (D 0 a) 4-A 4-a -&-i 4-j a) a) t€3 Q L Co C: U) a) L-- r-) 70 0 -E-J 0 4-1 0 4-J Co (1) U) (D 4--, a) a) (D (1) a) L- U) a) CU C) 4-a 4-� 7 C- C CU c- 0 C C 7C3 1 3 U) .(1) 0 -1 U) U). U) -4-j U) 0� 0 C) 0 2 M ao) 2 Q) (1) U) a) 0 C- M :t� (10 C: C: c- c CI 0) E C C: (U M q-- 0 0 0 .0 1-j I W M (2: 1 0 1 C) U) 1 CL Lf (U 0 2 M 1 (B TJ (f) ca U)I(/) (5 E .:3 M !E I I--- E M U) M CO (D 0- a) 0- ca M M CL Nr lzr (.0 (D (D (D T- (3) N CD LO C) LO M M 00 N N 0) 00 M C) C) C) C) a) N T- Nt 00 C) CD Lt) N LO LC) T- 4q M (C) N M N�r CD 0 M C%j N C:) 0 N C) o N C\1 C\j 1�-, L0 00 L0 r-- LO 00 Nr N (0 T11- C14 C',-J N IN C\1 c CO V- N (D C) N C) C%4 N C11-j N T.- N I P�- LO T- M (D Lij ly W M U) CL Ui H (n U) 0 M CY) U) C) Cr-0 0 a) .0 -1-4 r- .0 (n: (13 U) Co z 0 U) 0 0- LL :3 L- W U 0 (TJ 0 z 0 (n ca (D C (1) 06 (D rZ -F 06 4-0 CL o6 a) a) F7. CT) M (h 0 W -C 0 o 'Q -6-4 M a) 0 C) 0 4-j 0 5; r z 1... 0 (D C)- 0 4-J Q) 4 U) LLJ C Lf 0 0 :3 04 4-j C) 0 U) 0 06 0,5 tj Q Q 0 4-1 LL1 (T L 0 0 (D (D 015 0 (D 2 >1 M M U n E E E E E M C) a>) o6 o6 M 01 Q- z C: 0 0 -j 0 Z 4- 0 N .0 2 a) 0 LU 0 z L 13 M M M (U -C C) C) C r- C: C: 0 0 ❑0 F= o a) W L- 4-j I.- 0 C: a (n W CY) 0 U) 0 w 0 5. 0 ca C- E C a) 0 0 0 CU C 5Z- co Li a 1 0 1 (3 I M 0.0 0 0 U-% U- j (D 1 0 (D 1 0 (D j (D 1 M M 2i -C -0,,). -r- 2) CD 2 (h �e 0 0 0 co co CO M L oo ❑0 M C) N 0') I LO 00 Nr CY') (D 00 Lr) (.0 LO 0') C N I LO CN I (Z) C) 'Cr" 00 d' d" CY) 0 P.- r�-- 0 CO N N CY) CY) I I I mom 0 C) LO I r�-- 0 I M 1 L0 (D 1*%- 1 0 1 N M N I ;T I CY') I wt I Ict I Lr) T- 1 (D CY-) wt 1 C) 1 C) 1 T- 1 1 0') 1 CY) .1 Lr) LO (D M Lo :t (D M C j M C 1 V- M M M C) C) T.- r- T- T- r- -r- r RCZJ- n- LO LO N IN N M r` N N N C\1 A x T- N Iq 17r Nt T- M N CY) N C\1 CY) qql- CO 01) NT CO CO CY) CY) N cy") C) C) Q. co 0 M�r f*-- CY') cr) d rl*- (D C) a) 1�r C) N L0 L0 Lo. f*-- 00 to 1 (.0 00 00 Nr LO LO 00 P,- 0') (Z) CD CY') MOD OD r`- CN rl-- (C) C) 1� CN N N OD M T- M C) CIIA rte- M N N (D N3- LO 0 T- 00 qr 00 v- LO 01) r- rn L0 (D (C) C) (Y) C) CO. cr) v© C) CY) CD M o 00. qT N L0 NT CY) NT 0') It 0c). OD rl-_ N. C) CY-) U) N CD CO CD CY).'V- C\1 co C-0 Co 00 C) CY') M city L) IO 0 N C d" L0 (0 1-- 00 OF) N Cy) NT L LO (0 1`- 00 0") C) C\' N C\j M N "-,r N LO N (D N P-- L N IN 00 IN CF) IM, C) CN E x. C 114 4- 0 T Council Jbit I to A Item #6-D -P-0 2) C:) CY) 4- 0 C) c a) E M C) CD CD CD 00 CD CD 0 CD C) CD 0 0 C� CO CO C) 0 C) 0 C) 0 CO CD CD C� 0 CD w (D C\1 0 0 m CD CD "zi- CD c� 0 CD co CD (D c� C) o (D C-0 (D C) CD C) CD 0 CD N m U-) QD N 0 m N C\l 194- m N CD N CO Lo (D m C\j C\I: C� LO U") 0 N it (D C� CD 0 C� co co I-- to m co t-- CD I-- CD t-- C) Q0 co m ti rl-- N m m n r-- m co LO M CD UL. C6 a) to Q 0 I;r CD C) CD CD. 0 CD 0 C7 0 CD CO CD CD CD C) CD 0 CD co CD CD (D CD CD (D CD CD CD C) C) CD CD CD 0 CD C\ CD C> C cz CD C: CD M CD (D CDCD0CDmCoCYOCa0CoCoo m CD m CD C6 N N N a N N co co N N N It 00 CD 00 N CD C-4 00 it m N N C� Nr N N U") LO C\l N 0 N 0 E EAEE 4-j 0 (D a) a) a m :3 A-� 0 (L) 4--J C/) a") o 'E -1--' a) U) :3 0 a) (D c-) U). r -Fu m M CO 0 4-, w L a) -1-j 4-a co (D ca �-a a) a) c 0 4-a U) m 0 LT-- L- C: a) E 3: 4� CO m CO C5 -a E E �1- m L c 0 4� C cn E L- a) 0 C -'-.4 C: a) I�e L- 0 0 m :3 L- -E 0 c S-- a) M:0< co m C) 2p (u w c) M m m u) I M U) M 1 :3 1 m M 0- 0 0- M CL C W M U) 00 m H 0 S� I*-- N CD T-- co r- (D CD CD co m co �r- co CO Co C114 U') 0) CY) N CY) I CD C) v'r 0 v- NT Nr CY) N Nr cr) N Nr XT co C) co Nr N I-- C) V) (D N (D CD C-4 C) CC) CO N N 00 0 C\l CY) LO N N co N C) M m CO co L.- (D C) (h rZ E 00 LL =3 co U) 0 m Q L- J-3 U) o C) Q C] W CU !E a) m a) m a) m ca 0 c: a) X LU L- ll�. w E C: cu >1 U) ca m uj M rZ r 'ca C: C: 0 m a) 06 CO (D -0 ca En 2 m 2 06 (D (1) 0 a) co LL -C U) ob Lr co Cie C) 06 06 05 4-j C) 0 6 C6 06 —D C: m 06 c y C M m C: m 0 _0 tf (1) S— 0 0 M (1) T M m L.L. LL 0 C: n 0 m o M 0 a) L- u) N N 0 d 0 d 0 -j 4-J L (1) m 0 L) m Z (1) m m a) =3 C) a) 5 0 0 M CL 0 M cy) M U) (D :�5 1 0, 2 o r C) 2; 2 z a) o a) cL., a- QC ry CO C) U) I CID j :D C/) I m M m N LOS c�� C� (D co 6 C� CS NI c Lo' N M W Qo 6 Iql- N N N M M LO LO N C) N (D 1,*-- 00 to 4�3- N i M I I I 0 I N 1 CO 1 U-) M I a M P,- M 0 N M M M ';t C\j M qqt N M M M U") U-) N ;t M CD M v- T-- T- M N CO P*- GHEE rl�- t�-- CD r*-_ I r*�- r*�- rl�- r�-- t*-- rl-_ IS- r �ti co co q;l 0 LO LO rl co 00 ;;r M m N LO T- C) M Irli CO LO (D CO -r- m (D C 4 CD C D N cow llqr CO N o C\l CO U-) CO LO N N Nt co U) V) ❑0 00 M N m C) N 0 U') C� m CN V3 co z C) m co NT C) CY) co co "Izr NT m q3- 0 CYO 0 CYO 0 00 N. C) N C� CY) CD 00 (D 0 LO (.0 00 0 C) N CO q;l- LO (D f 00 M 0 C\l CO it V) (C) 1'-- 00 G) co cyo) CY) I cy') I cn vt C\j 4- 0 (N CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lisa Goldman Acting City Manager Date: June 7, 2011 Ike: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Administrative Citation Pees Via the Property Tax Bills for Subject P ro erties 9MM City of Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Subsection 1 -7.12, entitled "Recovery of Administrative Costs," allows for the collection of any past due administrative citation fines or late payment charges by means of a judgment lien against real property on which the violation(s) occurred. City of Alameda Municipal code (AMC) subsection 13-- 11.13, entitled "collection of the Administrative Penalty" and 13 -12.5, entitled, "Failure to Pay Fee; special Assessment or Lien," allows for the collection of any past due vacant building monitoring fees and administrative penalties by means of a special assessment .and /or lien against the real property determined to .be vacant and in violation. DISCUSSION The Code Enforcement section of the Community Development Department. issues administrative citations for violations of the Alameda Municipal C When a property owner fails to respond to or to comply with repeated notices sent by Code Enforcement staff, an administrative citation may be issued. In cases where the property owner refuses to comply with the citation by obtaining required permits and abating the violations, additional citations may be issued. Property owners are sent notice. of. the citations, including the amount of any outstanding fees for the .underlying violations), by both first class and certified U.S. mail to the property address There the violation(s) occurred, and, if different from the property owner's address, to the rrailin g address on file. owners are given sufficient time to correct the violations before code. Enforcement sends a final notice. staff recommends that those parcels for which administrative citation fees are due and unpaid as of June 30, 2011 have a judgment lien recorded against the property on July 1, 2011. In addition to recommending the collection of past due administrative citation fines and late payment charges, this year staff` is including past due vacant Building Monitoring fees and Administrative Penalties as assessed by the Hearing officer. These past due cit Council A Ite it 06-07-11 Honorable Ma and June 7, 2011 Members of the Cit Council. Pa 3 of 5 has permitted voluntar inspection of his propert and attended earl compliance meetin he has not appealed the. administrative citations or since responded to subse letters sent. The propert remains in violation. 2319 Santa Clara Avenue The owner of this commercial propert has been issued a total of ei administrative citations for ille alterations to a storefront, ille installation of a handrail, and exposed wirin in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13-1.2 (c) (Permits Re The total amount due as of April 27, 2011 is $5,750-00. Althou the propert owner has permitted voluntar inspection of his propert and attended compliance meetin he has failed to appeal administrative citations and the propert remains in violation. 1726 Nanon Street The owners of this residential propert have been issued a total of 17 administrative citations for interior remodelin without permits, includin the kitchen, bathroom, laundr back porch and windows installation, in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13-1.2 (c) (Permits Re The total amount due as of April 27, 2011 is $14,750.00. Althou the propert owners have permitted voluntar inspection of their propert and attended compliance meetin the have failed to appeal administrative citations and the propert remains in violation. 1321 Caroline Street The owners of this residential propert have been issued a total. of 17 administrative citations for reconstruction of the front porch and hazardous stairs, in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13-.1.2 c Permits re q uired The total amount due as of April 27, 2011 is $14,750.00. Althou .the propert e ners have permitted voluntar inspection of their propert and attended compliance meetin the have failed to appeal administrative citations and the propert remains in v.iolation. 46 Garden Wa The owners of this residential propert have been issued a total of 11 administrative citations for maintainin a dan buildin the rear-detached g ara g e had burned and was maintained in a dan condition, in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13-10.3 (Maintainin a Substandard Buildin The total due as of April 27, 2011 is $9,500.00. Althou the propert owners have permitted...voluntar inspections of their propert and attended compliance meetin the have failed to appeal administrative citations and the propert remains in violation. 545 Pacific Avenue The owners of this residential propert have been issued a total of 12 administrative citations for ille conversion of a patio structure into habitable space containin a famil room, bedroom, bathroom, laundr room and hallwa in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13-1.2 c (Permits Re The total amount due as of April 27, 2011 is $9,750.00. Code enforcement permits were applied for, but the work was never completed and the permits have since expired. Althou the property Honorable Mayor and June 7, 2011 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 5 owners have permitted voluntary inspection of their property, they have failed to appeal administrative citations and the property remains in violation. 1027 Fair oaks Avenue The owners of this residential property have been issued a total of seven administrative citations for illegal conversion of an attic into habitable space containin g a bedroom, bathroom, tankless mater heater and furnace installations, in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13 -1.2 (c) (Permits Required). The total amount due as of April 27, 2011 is $4,750.00. code enforcement permits were applied for, but the work was never completed and the permits have since expired. Although the property owners have permitted voluntary inspection of their property and. their contractor attended compliance meetings, they have failed to appeal administrative citations and the property remains in violation. 1521 Broadway The house is in a blighted and dilapidated condition in violation of Alameda Municipal Code subsections 13 -11, 13 -12 and 13 -10.3 (Vacant Parcel /Boarded Building and Maintaining a Substandard Building It has become an attractive. nuisance and has caught fire from trespassers. The property owner has undertaken hazardous work including electrical and structural alterations to the building in violation of Alameda Municipal Code, subsection 13 -1.2 (c) (Permits Required). A total of two administrative citations have been issued. The amount due for the administrative citations is $750.00. Debris has been dumped in the front yard and the vegetation is overgrown. Due to the hazardous nature of the violations, the property has .been declared a public nuisance and was secured. Abatement costs to secure the building amount to $125.00. In October 2010, a hearing was held for the assessment of an administrative penalty for the vacant building per AMC 13 -11.4 and the hearing officer assessed in penalties. The total amount due through calendar year 2010 for the above mentioned costs is $8051.00. Although .the property owner permitted voluntary inspection of her property and attended early compliance meetings, she has failed to appeal the administrative citations or the hearing officer's decision and the property remains in violation. FINANCIAL IMPACT Delinquent administrative citation fees will be determined at the close of business on June 30, 2011. This is the final day of the acceptance of late payments. should the fees remain unpaid, a lien shall be recorded against each real property for the administrative penalties due. The total fees currently due to the Community Development special Revenue Fund, should the lien be approved, amount to $'113,252.90. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE This action is authorized pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsections 1-7.12, 13- 11.13 and 13-12.5. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council RECOMMENDATION June 7, 2011 Page 5 of 5 Authorize collection of delinquent administrative citation fees via the property tax bills for the subject properties. Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller CITY OF AL.AM E DA Memorandum To. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lisa Goldman Acting City Manager Date: June 7, 201 Re: Receive an Update on the Associated Communit Action Program BACKGROUND The City of Alameda is a member of the Joint Powers Authority Associated Corn mu nity Action Program (ACAP). ACAP is comp riled of each city within Alameda County, with the exception of Berkeley and Oakland, as. well .as the County of Alameda. ACAP's Governing Board consists of an elected representative from. each of its member agencies. For decades, ACAP has been a provider. of services intended to enable low income families and individuals to become economically self sufficient through jo.bs.and housing linkages. Earlier this year, ACAP was .faced with financial problems and could .not meet payroll. Since that tune, City Managers and City Attorneys of the member agencies have. met to determine how to minimize .liability and wind down the authority. In .furtherance. of those efforts, the agencies entered into a cooperation. agreement that, among other things, created a resolution committee and management committee to resolve any claims. there may be against ACAP. For example, ACAP employees needed .to be paid thrdugn their final work day, and vendors needed to be paid for services provided .to. ACAP.. Pursuant to the cooperation agreement, each mernber contributed $25,000 toward the outstanding debts of ACAP and to pay for a wind -down specialist, Management Partners. On May 3, the City Council approved an additional contribution of for this purpose. DISCUSSION ACAP's financial problems prompted the ACAP Governing Board to take a number of steps earlier this year: Notify ACAP's subcontractors to cease operations. Lay off all but three ACAP employees, who would be needed to assist in the wind down of the operation. Those three employees continue to work for ACAP. De- designate ACAP as a Community Action Agency. Cit Council Agenda 06-07-11 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council June 7, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Appoint Management Partners, the firm hired by the County city Managers Association, to serve as the administrator for winding down the ag ency. Compensation for Management Partners is being provided by the member agencies via the contributions described above. Since Management Partners' engagement, Mr. Richard Ambrose, the senior Partner on this project, has taken a number of steps toward winding down the agency and disposing of its assets. He has worked with ACAP's landlords and equipment vendors to terminate leases and vacate satellite facility sites. He. has conducted a public auction of the furniture and equipment from the various facilities. He has paid a number. of outstanding bills. He has worked to close. out a number of ACAP's grant- funded programs, such as AmeriCorps. He has entered into an agreement with .a certified Public Accountant for financial consulting services to help determine whether ACAP will need to repay various grantors for grants received by ACAP. He is working with Alameda county to find space for ACAPR staff and files after June 30, 2011, when they will vacate the offices in Hayward. Management Partners has estimated that the preliminary cost to wind -down ACAP's affairs, which includes the payment of back gages to former employees, is approximately $1,280,000. Member agencies have already paid this amount through their previous contributions of $100,385, as described above. The ACAP Joint Powers Agreement provides that the debts, liabilities, and obligations of ACAP shall be the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the signatories to the agreement, to. be shared equally. The member agencies have requested that Management Partners also provide an estimate for costs that the member agencies might be required to bear related to potential liabilities that will not be known until after. the. plos.e -out process. Management Partners has provided a rough estimate of $000,000. for such potential liabilities, or $46,154 per member agency. city Managers from some member cities have already received authority from their City councils to pay this additional amount. Alameda City staff will return to the City Council at a later date for authorization to contribute this amount or some alternative amount based on clear documentation of need. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from this update. RECOMMENDATION Deceive an update on the Associated community Action Program. COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM Name of Councilmember requesting referral: vice Iola or Bonta and Councilmember deHaan Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the Council meeting requested): May 30, 2011 Council Meeting date: June 2011 Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the city council and public of the nature of the referral On May 3, the city council discussed next steps regarding :reviewing the City's Commissions. We were appointed to work with staff. to develop. a public engagement process around this issue. We have developed the following process for council discussion and direction: 1. staff prepares a generic staff report that will be submitted to each Commission containing the following information: 0 Background 0 summary of City council's goal to improve the efficacy and efficiency of Commission advisory activities Is Outline available options: reduced members, meetings, consolidation, work plans, work groups, improved council communication Outline process Ask for feedback 2. Staff presents the report to each Commission between June and September (Youth Commission does not meet in July and August). 3. The city sets up a public feedback mechanisms on the City's website in order to obtain information from members of the public who do not serve on or attend commission meetings. 4. The city holds a public workshop in the fall, seeking feedback on the goals and options outlined in the staff report. 5. staff reports back to the city council on findings via a city Manager Communication. The next phase of the process of reviewing the city's Commissions will entail a final clean up of the Alameda, Municipal Code to incorporate any changes City council Agenda Item #9 -A 06 -07 -11 identified in the process described above. The city will also look at more substantive changes that are needed to ensure the governing language for the various commissions accurately describes the duties, activities, and processes being undertaken by the individual body,