The letter for this eNEWS concerns the cost of garbage collection which affects every one of us in every neighborhood in Berkeley. The letter is forwarded to us by BNC eNEWS reader, Nigel Guest, who lives in the South of Campus area. Mr. Guest is not the author of the letter. He received it from a local recycler who requests anonymity, and who raises some very important and disturbing issues. The letter was forwarded to BNC on April 7, 2014 and is printed exactly as received.
This whole debacle would be laughable if it weren’t so backward and upside-down. Neither Bayer nor for-profit outside garbage contractors have anything at all to do with this mess.
The 24.7% increase approved by City Council results from a rate analysis done behind closed doors by the manager of the Solid Waste Division — now Zero Waste Division — who will begin a new job in Central Contra Costa County tomorrow. This rate revision was his last act. When he and his hand-selected consultant made their first report to the Zero Waste Commission in November, the commission unanimously voted that the report was “inadequate.” But the restructuring went forward anyway, without any change as far as I can tell. The second and last report was made to the commission the day before it went to Council.
The garbage rates include full financing for recycling services. The outgoing manager told the Zero Waste Commission that inside City Hall, people think the citizens of Berkeley want to think recycling is “free,” so they went along with that wish. They didn’t tell people that the costs of recycling are bundled into the garbage bill. Therefore people pay a rate determined only by the size of their garbage can.
Consequently, when people waste less and shrink their garbage can, then recycle more, there’s less money for the recyclers who are doing more work.
This rate increase helps pay for the new garbage trucks the waste division bought because of a recommendation from another consultant a couple of years ago. That purchase cost $6 million, which the division didn’t have, so it borrowed from the General Fund — with interest to be repaid. The new trucks permitted layoffs of garbage collection staff. But there weren’t as many layoffs as the consultant projected, because the new trucks can’t be used in all Berkeley locations, because the consultant failed to notice that Berkeley has more hills than Emeryville, which they used to make their profile for the trucking needs.
The SEIU union, which represents the City garbage staff, was upset about layoffs. They said there shouldn’t be layoffs, because they could do the work of the recyclers. Staff of both the Ecology Center and Community Conservation Corps are represented by the ILWU, which scolded the SEIU for trying to put other unionized workers out of work. Thus the City set the unions against each other.
In the end there were some layoffs, not as many as feared, and increased borrowing and useless capital investment.
Now there’s this upside-down rate increase.
The division has been mismanaged and basically driven into a ditch since 2005. It now runs at a deficit.
The whole mess should be turned over to a new developmental department in the City Manager’s office. Now I’m off to the Chapter Zero Waste Committee’s meeting. Later I’ll send you a copy of a new initiative we’re about to start circulating that will protect West Berkeley and that also asks the City Council to evaluate a bunch of changes in the Zero Waste structure. Long overdue.
Meanwhile, tell anybody who inquires that they should send back the rate protest card!
BNC’s Response
This is interesting stuff that BNC will check out. We didn’t know that there was money in the General Fund that could be used for a $6 Million loan. This seems to have slipped by a whole lot of people. Where did that money come from, what is the interest, how much, if any, has been repaid, and how much of the proposed rate increase is because of that loan? We also would like to know how much of the deficit in the garbage service is related to the loan and how much is related to “unfunded” pension costs of personnel who do this work. It will take some time, but BNC will delve into the public records to see if we can find the answers.
At this time, what we do know is that the proposed increase in refuse fees will be over 24% and that to impose this “Property Related Fee” increase, the Council will use what is called a “majority protest process” that was set up when the voters approved Prop 218 in 1996. Homeowners received a notice about this in the mail several days ago. If you’ve thrown away that notice, ignored it, haven’t dealt with it, are a renter that pays for your own garbage, or whatever, this is what the notice says:
This notice concerns the City of Berkeley’s proposal to increase the rates it charges for both residential and commercial Zero Waste Services: garbage collection, transfer & disposal, recyclables collection and processing, and organics collection and composting. These rates have not been adjusted since July 2009. The proposed rates are needed to fund: (1) annual cost increases that include landfill disposal expenses, labor costs, fuel charges and composting and recycling expenses; and (2) required improvements at the closed landfill and the transfer station. The proposed rates result in a $7.32 per month increase for the average 32-gallon container, with one pickup per week. Rates in future years beyond Fiscal 2015 will include an annual inflator equal to the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) or 3% whichever is greater. (Emphasis has been added)
Only property owners have a right to submit a written protest to the proposed rate change on a form provided in the mailing. These written protests must be received no later than 3:00 pm on May 20, 2014. Property owners, whether they have filed a written protest or not, and all others have the right to comment at a Public Hearing which is to be held on Tuesday, May 20, 2014, at 7:00 pm, City Council Chambers, Old City Hall, 2134 Martin Luther King Jr. Way.
Following the close of the Public Hearing the City Clerk will tally the written protests and report the results. If a majority of the affected property owners submit protests, the proposed rate changes will not be imposed. Otherwise, the rate increase will become effective on July 1, 2014.
If you didn’t receive such a notice, misplaced it, or have questions about the process, BNC suggests you call the City Clerk at (510) 981- 6900.
The letter also mentions a new West Berkeley Initiative. BNC can confirm that such an initiative is currently being circulated by a group called the Berkeley Bayfront Coalition for the West Berkeley Initiative. The Notice of Intent to File for Initiative was submitted to the Berkeley City Clerk and City Attorney on March 13, 2014 by Richard P.C. Rodgers, M.D. The Notice describes the initiative as follows:
To affirm support for the West Berkeley Plan, to stop rezoning and granting variances on a piecemeal basis, and to support the increase in sustainable, economically viable recycling-based industries that the West Berkeley Plan set as a major goal.
That any amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of City of Berkeley, the Official Zoning Map, or of any developments standards, allowable or conditionally allowable uses, or zoning procedures that would apply to the area of the West Berkeley Plan shall be submitted by the City Council to a vote of the people at the next General Election.
Readers may recall that the West Berkeley Plan was a highly-lauded consensus plan written by a broad coalition of business people, residents and environmentalists and approved by the Council several years ago. It called for buildings for most of West Berkeley to be no higher than 45 feet (4 + stories). In 2012, the City Council put Measure T on the November ballot. Measure T would have allowed 75 feet (7+ stories). Measure T was rejected by the voters. Yet, a variance for a 74-foot building has already been given and others may be on the way, piece by piece. This continuing undermining of the West Berkeley Plan:
- supports speculators’ short-term gain at the expense of diverse and sustainable community development;
- blocks views of the Bay;
- risks damage to Aquatic Park’s sensitive riparian habitat;
- increases congestion of key arterial intersections and freeway approaches;
- threatens long-established residential neighborhoods and the continued existence of affordable space for artisans, light manufacturing, and innovative technology as well as existing small scale retail and service firms;
- threatens the viability of recycling operations; and,
- requires all Berkeley taxpayers to pay for new infrastructure and services to accommodate the speculators’ developments.
The Initiative would prevent such variances from happening again without voter approval.
One priority of the West Berkeley Plan was to develop recycling-based business in the area. Among the things that have happened is that funds for recycling have been cut, garbage rates are rising (see letter above), and a 2005 plan that the Council funded for $100,000 and a Zero Waste Facility designed by Berkeley architects that was privately funded and given to the City seems to be ignored. This Initiative would approve a non-binding advisory requirement for the Zero Waste Commission to evaluate these and other matters that include looking at the innovative El Cerrito Recycling Center. (Special BNC Note: we urge our readers to take a good look at the El Cerrito Center and compare it to the Berkeley Center. The difference is mind-blowing.) The called-for evaluation is to be guided by the ideal of achieving zero waste, involve the public and be completed within one year.
This Initiative will be discussed at the next BNC General Meeting to be held, Saturday, April 26, 2014, 10:00 am to 12:00 pm, at the Art House Gallery, 2905 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley. Come and find out all the details.