Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05092000 - SD8 s TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i Contra Costa FROM: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & Count INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Supervisor John Giola, Chair Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema DATE: May 2, 2000 SUBJECT: REPORT FROM TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE AND RATES IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA SERVED BY PLEASANT HILL BAYSHORE DISPOSAL SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVE changes in the solid waste collection service and rates in the unincorporated County franchise area served by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal as recommended by the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee. The proposed monthly solid waste rates are as follows: 20 gallon ($18.14), 32 gallon ($21.14), 64 gallon ($42.28), 95 gallon ($63.42) and 32 gallon for mobilehome residents ($17.30). These rates include solid waste, greenwaste and recycling collection and the cost of carts. FISCAL IMPACT No impact to the general fund. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This matter had been originally presented to the Board of Supervisors on March 7, 2000. At that time,the item was referred to the Transportation,Water& Infrastructure Committee (Tail&I Committee)for review and recommendations. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE K APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : VISOR JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR S ERVISOR AYLE B. UILKEMA ACTION OF BOAR04N sr�. � APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER xx The Board took the followin action: DIRECTED that the Community Develo ment staff work with Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal regarding a greenwaste add-on program and a paper recycling program for solid waste collection service, and present that information to the Board of Supervisors. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - } AND CORRECT COPYOFAN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Linda Moulton (925-335-1238) ATTESTED may-9,_ 2000 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF County Administrator's Office THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY DMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY Approval of Changes in the Solid Waste Collection Service May 2, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT'D) Transportation, Water& Infrastructure Committee Recommendation The TW&I Committee has reviewed the background information concerning changes in services and rates in the Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (PHBD) franchise area during meetings on March 10 and April 17, 2000. The Committee recommended approval of changes in the solid waste and recycling collection service and rates in the unincorporated County franchise area served by PHBD. The background information contained in the original Board Order dated March 7, 2000 is shown below. Background Prior to 7V1/&I Committee Review On July 27, 1999, the Board of Supervisors directed the Community Development Department to coordinate with Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (PHBD) to develop a collection program which would facilitate the achievement of the County's solid waste reduction goals. Exhibit A is a copy of the July 27, 1999 Board Order. Staff was directed to do the following: A. Simplify and Standardize the types of service offered in the unincorporated areas served by PHBD so all the customers in the service area have the same services. B. Redesign the rate structure and standardize the rate schedules in the unincorporated areas in order to provide all customers with the same rates. C. Institute variable can rates in accordance with the County's waste reduction goals as outlined in the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). D. Institute greenwaste curbside collection service in accordance with the County's waste reduction goals as specified in the SRRE. E. Expand curbside recycling to include mixed paper in accordance with the County's waste reduction goals as specified in the SRRE. Previously,the Community Development Department had surveyed all of the customers in the communities served under the County's franchise with PHBD. The communities surveyed were Alhambra Valley, Clyde, Pacheco, part of Bay Point, unincorporated areas in the Central Sanitary District(CCCSD), Morgan Territory, unincorporated Concord and Canyon. Eighty percent of the respondents indicated they would recycle mixed paper and chipboard and 73% indicated that they would use a greenwaste program. Over 40% of the respondents indicated that they would be interested in having mini-can service (20- gallon can) at a reduced price. During the fall of 1999, the Community Development staff and a representative from PHBD held community meetings in the various communities to discuss the proposed changes in service. The meetings were as follows: Date Place Communities Invited October 13 Pacheco Community Center Pacheco/Alhambra Valley/CCCSD October 14 Clyde Community Center Clyde October 28 Ambrose Community Center Bay Point November 4 Canyon Elementary School Canyon November 8 Clayton Library MorganTerdtory/Unincorp. Concord Exhibit B is a copy of the postcard notices sent to all customers regarding the above meetings. At the time of the fall meetings, the exact costs of the new services were not available and customers were Informed that another meeting would be held concerning the rates. Postcards were sent to all customers and the meeting was held on February 16, 2000 (see Exhibit C). Approval of Changes In the Solid Waste Collection Service May 2, 2000 Page 3 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT'D) Below is a summary of the proposed service/rate changes related to the Board's direction of July 27, 1999: A. Simplify and Standardize Rates Current rates include 44 different types of service ranging from 20-gallon (g.) cans (only three customers are using this service)to three 95-gallon cans. The rate structure shown in Exhibit D has been changed to five basic rates for 20 gallon,32 gallon,64 gallon and 95 gallon service and mobilehome service. The five basic rates are: 20 g. $18.14/month 32 g. $21.14/month $4 g. $42.28/month 95 g. $63.42/month 32 g. (mobilehomes in parks) $17.30/month B Redesign and Standardize the Rate Structure The redesigned rate structure would apply to all the communities served under the County franchise. Currently some areas are paying$16.66 for 32 g.monthly service and some are paying $19.51 for the same service. The new rate structure assures that consistent rates are charged to all customers based on their level of service. C. Institute Variable Can Rate This rate structure implements variable can rates for 32 g.,64 g. and 95 g.customers. The 64 g. rates are twice that of the 32 g. rates and the 95 g. rates are three times the 32 g. rate. Variable can rates(rates based on volume)are called for by the County's SRRE. The County's SRRE also calls for mini-can service (20-gallon). Lower rates for smaller can sizes should serve as an incentive to reduce solid waste. D. Institute Creenwaste Service Every customer, except mobilehome residents, will receive 95 g. carts for greenwaste which will be picked up on alternate weeks. The cost of the 95 g. carts is included in the overall rates. Mobilehome parks are responsible for the landscaping in the parks. Therefore the mobilehome residents' rates do not include the cost of the greenwaste service. Staff from the County and PHBD has met with customers from Canyon concerning the service constraints related to the roads in that community and has worked out a solution to the greenwaste collection issue. E. Expanded Recycling Recycling will be expanded to include mixed paper and chipboard as well as the currently collected cardboard and newspaper. Customers will receive 14 g. bins for all paper products. There will be unlimited paper recycling as extra paper can be put in bags. Customers will keep their current recycling bins for glass, plastic and metal cans. Conclusion The proposed rates will be volume based variable can rates and will be uniform for all areas served by PHBD. Included in the rates will be the following: 1. Weekly collection of solid waste in 20 g., 32 g., 64 g. or 95 g. carts 2. Bi-weekly collection of greenwaste in 95 g. carts 3. Bi-weekly (on alternate weeks from greenwaste) of glass, plastic, cans and mixed paper In recycling bins. 4. The cost of carts and the new bin are included in the monthly cost. Approval of Changes in the Solid Waste Collection Service 1 May 2, 2000 Page 4 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT'D) Customers will be sent a notice which informs them about the rates and offers a choice of service. Exhibit D shows the projected number of households in each of the service categories. It is expected that most customers will reduce the size of cans they will need for solid waste. In other areas of the County approximately 10%to 15%of customers have opted to use 20 g. can service. Thus it is projected that approximately 400 (13%) of the non-mobilehome customers will choose the 20 g. cart. Currently a customer with 32 g. service has 128 g. of solid waste picked up in four weeks. If the same customer chose 20 g. service, they could have 80 g. of solid waste and 190 g. of greenwaste picked up for a total of 270 g. Table 1 demonstrates that the addition of greenwaste would allow customers to decrease the size of the solid waste container while increasing the total amount of solid waste and greenwaste collected. Thus if customers are currently putting yardwaste in their solid waste containers,they can choose to have a smaller solid waste container but actually have even more volume in the two containers combined. This does not include increased volume of expanded recycling services (e.g. unlimited quantity of paper). TABLE 1 Volume/Week Current Volume/Month Proposed Volume/Month Solid Waste + Greenwaste = Total 20 g. 80 g. 80 + 190 = 270 g. 32 g. 128 g. 128 + 190 = 318 g. 64 g. 256 g. 256 + 190 =446 g. 95 g. 380 g. 380 + 190 = 570 g. After the program has been in effect for several months, (probably at the end of the year 2000) staff and PHBD will review the number of households using each service type compared to the projected number of households assumed in Exhibit D and actual and projected revenue. At that time there could be an adjustment of the rates. Exhibit E is attached to show current(as of February 2000)solid waste rates and services in various cities and communities in the County. Exhibit A July 27, 1999 Board order Exhibit B Postcard notices for Fall 1999 meetings to announce proposed services changes Exhibit C Postcard notice for 2/16/2000 meeting to announce new proposed rates Exhibit D Current PHBD rates and services as well as assumptions of customers'service changes Exhibit E Current solid waste/recycling collection rates for jurisdictions in Contra Costa County s:consery/linda/5-2-00 bo -50-,f--4010 EXHIBIT A Centra TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS • M Costa FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP _ County COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: July 27, 1999 SUBJECT: DIRECT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO INSTITUTE CHANGES IN THE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE IN THE UNINCORPORATED COUNTY AREA SERVED BY PLEASANT HILL BAYSHORE DISPOSAL SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT the report conceming the survey of the unincorporated areas served by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal. DIRECT the Community Development Department to coordinate with Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal to develop a solid waste program which will facilitate the achievement of the County's solid waste goals. A. Simplify and standardize the types of service offered in the unincorporated areas served by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal so that all customers have the same services. B. Redesign the rate structure and standardize the rate schedules In the unincorporated areas in order to provide all customers with the some rates. There may be some differences for hard to service areas where smaller trucks are necessary. . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ,k YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMi E1 APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON "?� ;_p APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED , , OTHER„� APPROVED the above recommendations with the understanding that a proposal will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration before any changes are implemented. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS ! HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE T UNANIMOUS ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Linda Moulton (925) 3351238 ATTESTED cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL c H- ELOAR CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY Chan es in.poOd Yyaste Collecton Service Pan 2r.> C. Institute variable can rates in accordance with the County's source reduction goals as outlined in the County's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), D. Institute green waste service in accordance with the County's SRRE. E. Expand recycling to include mixed paper, FISCAL IMPACT . No impact to the general fund. AC ROUND/REASQNS FOR RECQMMENDATIONS On June 23, 1998 the Board of Supervisors adopted changes to the solid waste collection rates charged to the customers in unincorporated Contra Costa County served by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal and instituted a five percent franchise fee. At this time the Board directed the Community Development Department to survey all the unincorporated areas as to service preferences and incorporate suggestions into the service pians as appropriate. Surveys were sent to customers in these unincorporated areas along with their bills in April, May and June of 1999. Table 1 shows the results of the surveys for the various communities. Overall there was a 15.3% response rate. 1. �URVEX ,RESULTS Table 1 shows the results of the Customer survey and Exhibit A is a copy of the questionnaire which was mailed to the customers. The results are grouped by communities with the same billing periods. Some of the results are: (1) Seventy-four percent of the respondents rated their service as good or excellent. (2) Twenty-five percent of the respondents felt that once a month greenwaste service would be adequate while 28% favored twice a month service and 20% felt they needed weekly greenwaste pickup. (3) Eighty percent responded that they would recycle mixed paper and chipboard (including magazines and cereal boxes). Many customers (68%)also would recycle plastic containers (plastic codes#3, #4, #5,#7) and 49%would recycle polystyrene (code#6). (4) Most of the respondents live in single family detached housing (84%) or single family attached (111%) . (5) When asked if they would consider mini-can service if additional recycling and greenwaste programs were added, 43% of the respondents answered yes. (6) Of the 5686 households which were sent surveys, 1089 or 16.3% replied. The results for the three groups are similar. For example, the respondents from the communities of Mt. View and Alhambra Valley had the highest proportion (84%) responding that they would recycle mixed paper but the other areas responded positively too with 77% and 78% answering that they would recycle mixed paper. (7) There was an open-ended question asking for suggestions concerning expanded service. Although a limited number of customers answered this question, there were 39 comments concerning the need for more recycling, 34 concerning the need for adding greenwaste and 53 suggesting weekly recycling. Seventy-three respondents were concerned about cost of service. (8) Question 1 concerning rating of service also had an open-ended question concerning service. Fifty-four respondents expressed the need for more recycling and fifty-nine expressed the need for weekly recycling. The comments concerning service delivery varied with 34 respondents expressing a need for containers, 25 respondents reporting recycling misses, and 30 respondents having concerns about litter or spills. The replies to the open-ended questions have been low, Changes in Solid Waste Collection Service Page 3 categorized and are shown in Exhibit B. When individuals gave a name, address or phone number, Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal contacted them if they wanted additional bins or needed containers. Ii. REASONS FOR RECQMMENDATIQNS The Board order of June 23, 1998 directed the Community Development bepartment to perform tasks A through D listed above. Item E was to expand recycling to include all materials listed in the County's Materials Diversion Ordinance (Ordinance No. 92-105). 1. RECOMMENDATIONS A AND B As noted in the June 23, 1998 Board order, there are currently 44 unique service types in the overall service area ranging from one 20 gallon can to three 95 gallon cans. Some areas have no yearly cleanups and some have two such cleanups. As of 1998 there were actually 39 different types of service being used by customers. Recommendation A would simplify and standardize the types of service offered in the unincorporated areas. When the rates were changed in 1998, there was an across the board increase. However, the rate structures were not standardized. The reasons for the many variations In service type and charges stem from the historical rate structures and types of service which were in place when BFI took over from the original owners of Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal. The rate structure needs to be standardized in order to provide all customers with the same rates for the same service. The only difference may be for hard to service areas where smaller trucks may be necessary. This would be accomplished by Instituting Recommendation B. 2. RE-COMMENDATION C The County's SRRE calls for the County to institute variable can rates (i.e. customers with 64 gallon cans pay twice as much as those with 32 gallon cans). Variable can rates are already in existence in many parts of the County. Variable can rates encourage residents to recycle more and use smaller or fewer waste receptacles. Recommendation C would allow for implementation of this program. 3. RECOMMENDATION D AND E The results of the survey show that the majority of the customers answering the survey want greenwaste service. Only 16% stated that they did not need greenwaste collection because they compost or have no yard waste. Seventy-three percent expressed a preference for some type of greenwaste service and 11 percent did not respond to the question. It seems that a large percentage would use the greenwaste/composting service. It is estimated that mixed paper makes up 12.7% of the residential waste stream and there is a market for mixed paper. Since 80% of the respondents indicated that they would recycle mixed paper and chipboard, staff recommends including mixed paper at this time. Currently there is not a market for the plastics (#3 -#7). However these items would be added when this market develops. The additions of greenwaste and mixed paper to the County's curbside recycling programs should help considerably to achieve the County's AB939 diversion goals. Creenwaste and mixed paper were estimated to be 12.8% and 12.7%, respectively, of the 1990 residential waste stream. Ill. SUMMARY The provision of variable can rates at the same time that additional diversion opportunities are offered should maximize a movement away from disposal and toward more recycling and composting. Recommendations D and E would provide for regular greenwaste pickup and the addition of mixed paper to the recycling program. This additional service has the potential for increasing recycling tonnages by up to 25%. R Changes it 1(iiid ftste Collection Service f . .Paye 4 Implementing the five tasks should be a big step in helping to meet the County's AB939 goals. Although the implementation of all five tasks at once will be a major change,staff feels that the piecemeal changes would probably take two or three years. Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal has indicated that they are willing to work with staff to implement these programs. As part'of the process, staff plans to have public meetings in the various unincorporated areas to explain the need for these programs and to allow community input concerning the program changes. The cost of the new services could be offset for customers who elect to have mini-can service and maximize the use of their recycling and greenwaste opportunities. The most significant rate increases would be for those customers who continue to dispose of the most solid waste. The use of 64 gallon and 96 gallon containers for solid waste would become more expensive when variable can rates become effective. The arcane service structure would be standardized such that all customers could choose either 20 gallon mini-can, 32 gallon, 64 gallon or 95 gallon solid waste service in combination with recycling and greenwaste service. Other services would also be standardized such as the number of cleanups. The target date for the implementation of these recommendations is January of the year 2000. M:h/7-27-99.bo TABLE 1 Its of Customer Survey Y > 1. How do you rate your garbage and recycling service? a)Poor 7% 5°,6 8% 7% b)Pair 20% 19% 19% 19% c)Good 50% 511A 51% 61% d)Excellent 23% 22% 24% 23% 2.what level of greenwaste would meet your needs? a)64g/monthly 20°k 25°h 29% 25% b)64g/twice a month 30% 26% 28% 28% c)Ug/weekty 27% 220 14% 20% d)compost/no yard waste 13% 1511/0 3% 16% a)would use a Christmas tree program 34% 32°h 30% 31% 3,what of the following Items would you recycle If service was available? a)plastic containers(codes#3•#5,#7) 72% 71% 84% 88% b)polystyrene(#6) 55% 49% 44% 49% c)mixed paper&chipboard 840 77% 78% 80% 4.In what type of housing do you five? a)single family detached 58% 78% 54% 84% b)single family attached 9016 10% 13'/0 11% c)condo/townhouse 20A 50h 1% 20A d)apartment 1% e)other 1% 7% 1% 3% 5.!f you had expanded recycling and greenwaste service,would you be interested in having mini-can service(20-gation can)at a reduced price? Yes 39% 42% 47% 43% No 41% 45% 48% 44% No answer 20% 13% 7% 13% Number of returns 358 251 480 1089 Number of customers 2038 2304 2344 8888 %responding 18% 11% 20% 18.3% Word/h/custsurtb€ EXHIBIT A Customer Survq ,Mort Let Ur Know Who You 7bink ofClrrrmnt Smricrs and }• �,.�, of Pro,posed Semuv 4n go r � Please till out the questionnaire below,told and tape shut and mall back to us.'Che survey to self-addressed and postage pald. Aft ontra Costa County franchises the hauling of solid waste with Pleasant Kill Sayahoro Clbhposal for ytuor COmmunity. The Board of SupoMears has dlrocted County staff to Survey all the unincorporated communities recolving service from Pleasant Mill Bayshors Disposal concerning current setvtce and proposed service changes. In order to most the State waste reduction requirerhanis,the County plans on Instituting greanwaste service and oxpanding recycling to include all materials Noted In the Counys materials dlvsrsion ordinance and is Interested In the customers*conlons concerning this expanded service. 1. Flow do you rats your gerbsgo and roCVC tng service?(✓Check spproprtats lime) (a) poor �.�. (b) fair (C) good (d) excellent If you have any Comments on your service,please Comment: 2. What level of greenwaste collection*Ovid meet your needs?(✓Check appropristo tine) (a) a 64-gallon container coiCscted monthly (b) a 84-gallon Container collected twice a month (c) a 64-gallon Container collected weekly �:) ,."�"..Ywt�iYi"irY;,reenwas}e uw}y,/t161/1 YlGauaa � I compost Cr have no yard waste (a) would use a Christmas tree colleatlon program 3. Which of the following items would you recycle If aaMca was available?(✓Check appropriate line) (a) plastic Containers(plastic codes 03 through N5 and sly (b) Polystyreno(code sd,Inctudee Daps,packing materials) (o) Mixed paper A chipboard(Includes magazines.Cereal bme) 4. in what type of housing do you Ove?(✓Cheek approprista One) (a) single family detached (b) single family attached (c) Condo or townhouse (d) apartment (e) other ..,._. a. What Is your xlp code(optional? 6. If you had expanded recycling end grearwasis service,would you be Interested In having minyan sarvtcs(20-gallon can)at a reduced price?(✓chock appropriate tins) yes no 7. Do you hove any suggestions Conceming expanded service?ff so,please Comment Pleasant Hill EXHIBIT B a y shore D 1 S P © S A L July 12, 1999 TO: Linda Moulton Contra Costa County Community Development FROM: Susan Hurl Community Affairs Manager RE: Customer Survey Results for Clyde,Pacheco,Hay Point and Central San I have attached a copy of the Customer Survey sent out to 2,304 customers in the Clyde/Pacheco/Ba5° Point/Central Sanitary District areas and a detailed report of customer responses. There were 251 responses or an 11%return,which is fairly good. The results were from 6/2./99.6/23/99. Overall, 72.5%of our customers rated their service good or excellent. The 27.5%that rated their service poor or fair had comments about our service delivery or the type of service offered: #/Type of Comments #/Type of Comments Service Delivery Type of Service Offered 5 Larger recycling bins 15 Not enough recycling 7 Litterlspills 10 Clean ups 10 Need containers 10 Weekly recycling 2 Don't pick up extras 7 Need yard waste program 8 Recycling missed 10 Costs too much 12 Miscellaneous 2 Part time yard waste program If a customer had service complaints or issues and gave us his/her name,the customer was called. Customers would prefer biweekly yard waste recycling and would definitely like to recycle more material and more often. The mini can met with a mixed response. The suggestions for expanded service ranged form more recycling to composting: # Comment 2 More mixed paper 3 Recycle oil and oil filters 10 Cost is too high 2 Part time yard waste program 2 Compost Is More recycling 0 Pick up extras 7 Add greenwaste 3 Senior/disabled rate 10 Weekly recycling 7 Litter 10 Scheduled clean-ups I I Miscellaneous .4.4l N. Buchanan Circle / Pacheco, CA 9.4553 j 925.685..4716 / Fox 925.685..4735 30%post-consumer Pleasant Hill Bayshore D I S P O S A L July 12, 1999 TO: Linda Moulton Contra Costa County Community Development FROM: Susan Hurl Community Affairs Manager RE: Customer Survey Results for Morgan Territory,Concord,and Rodeo 1 have attached a copy of the Customer Survey sent out to 2,344 customers in the Morgan Territory, Concord and Rodeo areas and a detailed report of customer responses. There were 480 responses or a 20% return,which is very good. The results were from 5/4/99-6/20/99. Overall, 75%of our customers rated their service good or excellent. The 25%that rated their service poor or fair had comments about our service deliver},or the type of service offered: #/Type of Comments #/Type of Comments Service Delireny Type of Service Offemd 9 Larger recycling bins 14 Not enough recycling 13 Litter/spills 7 Cleats taps I I Need containers 35 Weekly recycling 3 Don't pick up extras 14 Need yard waste program 7 Recycling missed 16 Costs too much 13 Happy with service 6 Part time yard waste program 16 Miscellaneous if a customer had service complaints or issues and gave us his/her name,the customer was called. Customers would prefer biweekly yard waste recycling and would definitely like to recycle more material and more often. The mini can met with a mixed response. The suggestions for expanded service ranged form more recycling to composting: # Comment 5 More mixed paper 5 Recycle oil and oil filters 22 Cost is too high 6 Part time yard waste program 5 Compost 14 More recycling 3 Pick up extras 15 Add greenwaste 6 Senior/disabled rate 35 Weekly recycling 13 Litter 7 Scheduled clean-ups 16 Miscellaneous 441 N. Buchanan Circle / Pocheco, CA 94553 / 925.685.4716 / Fax 925.685.A735 30%Poo-re i . PLEASANT HILL BAY'SHORE DISPOSAL May 27, 1399 TO: Linda Moulton Contra Costa County Community Development FROM: Susan Furl Community Affairs Manager RE: Customer Survey Results for Alhambra Valley/Mt,View I have attached a copy of the Customer Survey sent out to 2,038 customers in the Alhambra Valley/Mt. View area and a detailed report of customer responses. There were 358 responses or an 18%return which is very good. The results were from 4/5/99-5/4/99. Overall, 73% of our customers rated their service goad or excellent. The 27%that rated their service poor or fair had comments about our service delivery or the type of service offered: #/Type of Comments #/Type of Comments Service Delivery Type of Service Offered 14 Quality of work 25 Not enough recycling 10 Litter/spills 4 Clean ups 13 Need containers 14 Weekly recycling 8 Don't pick up extras 3 Need yard waste program I 1 Recycling misses 4 Costs too much II Misc. If a customer had service complaints or issues and gave us his/her name,the customer was called. Customers would prefer biweekly yard waste recycling and would definitely like to recycle more material and more often. The mini can met with a mixed response. The suggestions for expanded service ranged from more recycling to composting: # Comment I More mixed paper 3 Recycle oil and oil filters 41 Cost 29 Misc. I I Limited greenwaste material 6 Compost 10 More recycling 1 Pick up extras 12 Add greenwaste 2 Disabled/senior rate 8 Weekly recycling 2 Mini can I Litter 2 Scheduled clean ups 441 N. BUCHANAN CIRCLE • PACH CO, CA 94553 (025) 685.4716 # VAX (925) 685-4735 ew waste collection and recycling services! EXHIBIT B Come to a neighborhood meeting to learn about new ` and expanded services, including. c*• collection of mixed paper C; collection of yard waste C; new waste containters Wednesday, October 13 at 6;30 p.m. Pacheco Community Center ; 5800 Pacheco Blvd. in Pacheco Questions? Call (925) 335-1238 Sponsored by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department New waste collection and recycling services! Come to a community meeting to learn about new and expanded services,including: Q0 collection of mixed paper Cp collection.of yard waste Co' new waste containers Monday, November 8 at 7:00 p.m. The Clayton Community Library Meeting Room 6125 Clayton Road Questions? Call (925) 335-1238 r Sponsored by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department New waste c6llecti EXHIBIT C New waste collection and recycling services! ces! New services inctude: Co biweekly collection of mixed paper& other curbside recyclables 0 biweekly cottection of yard waste Q0 new carts for solid waste &yard waste ptus an additionat 1+49. bin for mixed paper New rates include all recycling, yard waste, sotid waste & carts Mobitehomes $17.34 209. solid waste containers $18.14 328. sotid waste containers $21.14 649. solid waste containers $42.28 959. solid waste containers $63.42 (att service types except mobtiehomes Witt receive 459.carts for yard waste) Wednesday, February 16 at 7:00 p.m. County Supervisors' Board Chambers (Room 147) 651 Pine Street in Martinez Questions: Concerning the Meeting& Rates cat(CDD (925) 335-1238 Concerning New Services Sponsored by the Contra Costa County catt FHBD (925) 685-4711 Community Development Department '"� ..... y.....,.y. ,.�. ,s ..... ..f..-..yy� ...r....'.. .sY1r..71n ..yye` ++i 'Vic• "1M•++bn"0�"'�►' '!iI'-%w 'aw .aw Centra Costa County Communi y pevetopment Dept. �{;y�r't 4r p1&��+S.�o�te�xes�i i b5i Pine Street` `:., _. . FST-40 A1�7».M'eZL 4th Floor, Horth Wing POSTAGE { Martinez, CA 54553 Pleasant HiM,CA r Permit No.12.2 rei pl@asa WsP fl , ` cam ' #riftd`mreqAWPawl {`i�:+h ,� ''•'�.Yt:rx, ,. ir:;i.lt' M' '�.�•'''rii {"` •=i'cT,':t -.r.`..'t' �q��°'ti ,aa t. 'i. ✓+�' a i:tr +} .wC, . ��»-' x .+•r'^i,-r. Y ���• ` � � 'drt �Wi R.$;.��,iCw',-.`•,tz.WTi."M�Sr•�9��•�!x}irt•�a7f'�M 1i.�A,� �y�-�.R �'°r.6°����;,�° i»4t � � F��'�''�'''"1 rry.'aY�" ���'��,a�•!y':Tw�,�'a••�?� � ��ti.a Af 4'�.°hay. R. •ro•.ii«. '..,... � ..,» A. { � kA` �, 4�� � y "..t '{,r9s•s.Nn.t.a �"t .�'jj A^�4'"' �+,�.'+�. a ., •W'g�"3' . "31fi'., y` ;at, ' t. J��"C��ydj'h!' W" �: 4 .ar. � h�•yvX:.} %., :�v.F. •.�..f � A �,i. t ��++ y, " y�p •{.f!�.'Y;v'y,�i '4 `.i".y#' by 't•ri ... 't d' 'dt .47"1 . #� TN .F�..r "R' ' • Y3'+',"f�"#.".•'_�,M:.., .. :' .1,., �rr'�' .•r-`... �.:, ty_�,t,* l•"'r Que# a,�"Lii .. i7t ��..._,d'tl.�k._:' �: ..w,� +3i+' )• •,• ^r', r �•r' �a,i,-}t: r Y �S .lt�.µ'�"r:` 2 i 't t 'K*F ` t�Rti y�.t;+tr:,* � {t�,Cr}N �i.�i�F°•°__.#."yr. yCr '7'.ai}�:�i. t 1 c� � •• 4 .W is t F t s. '."7w''isTlll�i l"F �.;4F•...: '.,�,�,t�'W� �_. i� 'R � 9 ,F1. 'C. .Y�:�,�'+...:Y �' ,.a .ru. .y i ' ,:.r:ti. ick,., F ��i : t s. ♦ r a r;y•"q.•r. .r �..rf•+,p, e �,,,y + e s e a ,w+t{a�*''e,•a9'Yt 'k`k1N i..re .. = fi r.�'trf '.•43 r•r.'f'+d.'x'i:�° r •r,= .'.{ERt� 1IRr./a'". .. r xar*.► ay.s' .7a Y '{ ' Y: "'9�. Y L„ LLQ •�. (r. •`•'' its,ti "a:..,..�. yriri;r ��.!°. i♦♦ SpQt'tS6T8d 4 '� �r`Ott � �.. r;�.,:�'••, k i r ti, "# t,,� �.a'-'f'.°. t>. :�. = P'1.IC� "S.+W.+ '' ,':�w �a .' '�'vr.'° . . •!�°.` Y-ee=i Yti'° 4 t v;'y.:.�'.°r+'t•,W:�n ..�' i.r i�a iM�:«f...r .. z'` t-�m ro,1 a v t, � i.}rCk.SO. ":� °. ,;'F� '.i• ..P•t�.�i .i^... . °».. : EXHIBIT D y Residential Rate Structure Current Service Current Current New Service Projected proposed Categories Number of Rates' Categories Number of Rates Households Households 1-20 gallon 3 _ $16.46-17.51 1-20 gallon 403 18.14 1-32 gallon 1434 $16.66-18.51 1-32 gallon 2029 21.14 1-32 gallon for 900 $12.20-13.60 1-32 gallon 900 17.30 mobilehomes for mobilehomes (no reenwaste 1-64 gallon 164 $19.01-36.21 1-64 gallon 359 42.28 2-32 gallon 190 $24.38-33.01 1-95 gallon 1086 $19.66-28.06 1-95 gallon 112 63.42 3-32 gallon 7 $30.38-46.51 2-64 gallon 4 $37.71 2-64 gallon 84.56 4-32 gallon 1 $60.01 2-95 gallon 13 $42.38-66.01 2-95 gallon 126.84 3-95 gallon 1 $63.38 3-95 gallon 190.26 Total 3803 3803 Varies by service area due to pre-existing rate structures in place before the County franchised the service. cconservAindatress rete strut •r W %-W Mr v 70 N S to 4s ��y N ? eta fi g C 140 W �3 V. t�r to • ISG00 N q � Job Ito� spl Ike r- °� w t � 'a y � ' 10 lo Orni G4 PC `� Q5 if g 111 O � py C1' " O CD O @ A. K K 63 tG � gLM ca tp CD C Q C. K K C 7m m " Cn CS L 17 O CL ch CL o � sc � 2!:(Z K i" CDD K K CM Cc m rn ro w �� : w ,C C. pr m m Cb '00 + y tD O t? lD O Cy Cid co u.• as �e '2: N O C1 O VZ CD CD CD M to LM n f to ° y cm -4 K CD jtNTi OD Z C r- O 0 C > K Z d tA rD T ID Z O co cc