The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-28-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDACITY OF SARATOGA Initial: AGENDA BILL NO Dept. Hd. �. AWWAM C. Atty C. Mgr. s SUBJECT: RE -IN RODUCTION'OF ORDINANCE CONSOLIDATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH JUNE PRIMARY Issue Summary Council adopted Ordinance No. 67 consolidating the municipal election with the June primary election on December 16, 1981, pursuant to SB 230. Subsequently, the con- stitutionality of SB 230 was called into question because it was passed as urgency legislation, which may violate Article IV of the State Constitution. The California Secretary of State, however, believes that SB 230 nevertheless became effective as of January 1, 1982. She recommends that cities which adopted consolidation ordinances before January 1, 1982, re -enact them and have them re- approved by the boards of supervisors. Recomnendation Read Ordinance 67 by title only, waiving further reading. Introduce Ordinance 67. Fiscal Impacts Discussed when ordinance originally introduced; re- introduction will not have further impacts. Exhibits /AttachTenis 1. Letter dated 1/14/81 (sic) from Office of Secretary of State 2. Ordinance 67 Council Action 2/3: Jensen/Clevenger moved to read by title only, waiving further reading. Passed 5 -0. Jensen/Clevenger moved to introduce. Passed 4 -1 (Mallory opposed). IX GF T C � CALIFO RNA' Office of the Secretary of State March Fong Eu 1230 J Street Sacramento, California 95814 January 14, 1981 *I Elections Division (916) 445 -0820 TO: CITY CLERKS OF ALL CITIES WHICH CONDUCT ELECTIONS UNDER GENERAL LAW Dear City Clerk: Our office recently advised you that the Attorney General has been requested to issue an opinion as to the constitutionality of Senate Bill 230 (Stats. 1981, ch. 1013) as an urgency measure. We have learned that the Attorney General will not issue an opinion on this matter since there is pending litigation in Los Angeles, San Mateo and Ventura Counties involving the constitutionality and operation of S.B. 230. The pending litigation and the uncertainty as to the constitutionality of the urgency measure contained in S.B. 230 have created a cloud of doubt as to the authority of a city council to adopt an ordinance to consolidate its general municipal election with a statewide election or school district election. The uncertainties created by S.B. 230 will ultimately be resolved only by the courts. The courts could find that S.B. 230 is valid or invalid in its entirety, or they might find it to be valid except for the urgency clause. In the meantime, it appears necessary that the Secretary of State, as Chief Elections Officer, provide guidance to cities which have attempted to implement, or wish to implement, the provisions of S.B. 230. After researching the legal issues involved, it is the opinion of this office that the urgency provision contained in S.B. 230 probably violates Art. IV, 98 subd. (d), of the California Constitution. However, it is also our opinion that S.B. 230 nevertheless became effective as of January 1, 1982. Cal. Const., Art. IV, §8 subd. (c) (See People v. Phillips, 76 Cal. App. 2d 515, 521). Therefore, it is the opinion of the Secretary of State that effective January 1, 1982, city councils could adopt an ordinance pursuant to S.B. 230 to consolidate their general municipal election with a statewide or school district election. As to cities that have adopted an ordinance pursuant to the provisions of S.B. 230 prior to January 1, 1982, we would adviso these cities to re -enact their earlier ordinance and that this ordinance be reapproved by the board of supervisors as a precautionary measure. City Clerks y Page 2 It should be emphasized that the advice provided herein is neither directive in nature nor dispositive of the issue. Such final resolution can come only from a court of competent jurisdiction. City clerks should consult with their city attorney regarding any action taken under the provisions of S.B. 230 in light of this letter of advise and recent litigation involving S.B. 230. I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Sincerely, WILLIAM N. DURLEY Assistant to the Secretary of State Elections and Political Reform WND /rb cc: All County Clerks and Registrars of Voters 12/8/81 ORDINANCE NO. 67 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONSOLIDATING THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WITH THE JUNE 1982 PRIMARY ELECTION AND IN JUNE OF EACH EVEN NUMBERED YEAR THEREAFTER WHEREAS, Senate Bill 230 has been adopted to amend Section 2601 of the Election Code, and Section 36503 of the Government Code, and to add Section 36503.5 to the Government Code, providing for the consolidation of General Municipal Elections with statewide or school district elections; and -- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Saratoga deems it in the best interest of the people to consolidate the General Municipal Election to encourage voter participation and to achieve the related cost savings, "- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the General Municipal Elections of the City of Saratoga shall be consolidated with the day of the statewide primary election of June of 1982 and in June of each even numbered year thereafter. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk is directed, within thirty (30) days of the operative date of this Ordinance, to cause a notice to be mailed to all registered voters informing the voters of the change in the date of the General Municipal Election, and that as a result of the change in the date of the General Municipal Election, elected City officer holders' terms in office will be extended and that no terms will be decreased. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance, upon its adoption, to the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County for their approval. This ordinance shall be published by the City of Saratoga as required by law. The above and foregoing ordinance was regularly intro- duced and thereafter passed at a regular meeting of the City Council -1- -`r�4f`x y dos a of the City of Saratoga held this 1982, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk day of Mayor CITY OF SNUU) GA A=- A BILL N0. pZ Q�p DATE: January 28, 1982 DEP ., : Administrative Services SUBJECT: Green Valley Disposal Company Rate Increase Issue Su =ry Initial: Dept. lid. C. Atty. C. Mgr. The City of Saratoga has a franchise agreement with Green Valley Disposal Com- pany for residential and commercial garbage service. Green Valley submitted a request for a rate increase in late November, 1981, to be effective January 1,- 1982. Following extensive negotiations between the cities of Saratoga, Los Gatos Campbell, and Monte Sereno, with representatives of Green Valley, the original rate increase (up to 17% for commercial and 15.9% for residential), has been substantially reduced, and the effective date is proposed to be March 1, 1.98.2. The overall average rate increase for both commercial and residential is recommended to be 7.4 %. The four cities involved with the Green Valley franchise have agreed to work on the development of a new master franchise agreement by January, 1983. The City of Saratoga franchise agreement expires March, 1982. In order to allow time to prepare a new franchise agreement, staff is recommending a one -time extension of the current franchise agreement from April 1982 - January 1983. Campbell's franchise expired in June of 1981 and was extended. Monte Sereno extended their agreement in June of 1977, until such time as a new agreement is negotiated. Los Gatos' agreement expires in 1984, but they will be also involved with the new master franchise in January, 1983. Recommendation Adopt new rate structure specified in Exhibit B, effective March 1, 1982.. Authorize Letter of Agreement with Green Valley to extend the franchise from March, 1982 - January, 1983. Fiscal Impacts The Green Valley franchise requires payment to the City of a 10% franchise fee based upon total revenue collected, less bad debts. In fiscal year 80 -81, Saratoga received $90,177 in franchise fees from Green Valley. A rate increase will have some favorable impact upon the amount of franchise fees to be received in the future. E:fhibits /Attacim)enis Background memorandum Exhibit B - New Rate Schedule, effective March 1, 1982 Franchise report inf=ormation submitted by Green Valley Council Action 2/3: Mallory/ Watson moved to accept rate increase described in Exhibit B with provision that Green Valley Disposal notify residents of rate structure and service available. Passed 4 -1 (Jensen opposed). :1�IE.ailORW311 Exhibit A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867 -3438 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Green Valley Disposal Rate Increase Request RECOM.IENDATION DATE: January 29, '1982 Conduct the public hearing on the rate.request from Green Valley and adopt staff recommendation of an overall rate adjustment of 7.4% for residential and commercial services, effective March 1, 1982. Authorize Letter of Agreement to extend the franchise agreement from March 1982 - January 1983, to allow time for the cities of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell and Monte Sereno to develop a new master franchise agreement, as recommended in the 1980 Ralph Anderson report. BACKGROUND In late November, 1981, the cities of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Campbell and Monte Sereno received a request from Green Valley for a rate ad- justment to be effective January 1, 1982. The rate request increased some residential rates by as much as 15.9% and commercial rates by 15 -17 %. Staffs from the four cities have been meeting over the past two months 'to review and analyze the rate request and the information presented by Green Valley representatives. The primary basis for the rate increase was increased operating costs associated with salary and benefits, materials and supplies, and costs associated with operational improvements recommended in the 1980 Ralph Anderson report. Green Valley's 1980 -81 financial statements show a deficit of $122,442 at year end. Based upon a detailed review of budget information presented by Green Valley, the staffs of the four cities do believe a rate adjustment is warranted, however, not at the level requested by Green Valley. Green Valley January 29, 1982 Page two RATE REVIEW The rate review committee, composed of staff from the four cities, agreed upon a process to mview the rate request by analyzing Green Valley's 1981 -82 proposed operating budget. The committee raised a series of questions about certain budget costs which were thought to be inappropriate, unsubstantiated or questionable. Green Valley was given an opportunity to present both written and oral information in response to the committee's questions. The result of this process reduced the rate request from a 16% level to an overa11.7.4% increase for both residential and commercial users. A chart of the actual rate adjustments being recommended follows. Residential No. of Cans Current Proposed 1 $ 3.45 $ 3.70 2 5.70 6.10 3 7.95 8.55 4 10.20 10.95 5 or more 12.45 13.35 Commercial No. of Pick -ups Per Week 1 -1/3 Current Yard Bin Proposed 2 -Yard Current Bin Proposed 3 -Yard Current Bin Proposed 1 $ 26.50 $ 28.50 $ 37.50 $ 40.25 $ 52.80 $ 56.70 2 45.70 49.10 65.90 70.80 95.90 103.00 3 64.85 69.65 94.55 101.35 138.95 149.25 4 84.00 90.20 123.20 132.30 182.00 195.50 5 103.15 110.90 151.90 163.15 225.10 241.80 6 122.30 131.35 225.10 "241.75 268.15 288.00 Green Valley January 29, 1982 Page three BUDGET REDUCTIONS 1981 -82 Estimated Costs Adiustments Made by Review Committee $4,761,641 - 10% reduction in disposal (dump) fees. This reduction recognizes the need to capitalize dump improvements over a period of years. It also makes the dump charges more consis- tent with other dumps in the area. (42,895) - Reduction of Reserve Account. The committee reduced the amount the company had included for reserves, and added a 1% contingency listed below. (123,960) - Reduction of Professional fees. The committee agreed to allow the payment of some pro- fessional fees paid to the three former officers and owners of Green Valley, but reduced the amount allowed as operating costs. (147,945) - Reduction of estimate for bad debts (refunds and returned checks). The committee agreed some allowance for bad debts must be made, but provided an allocation no greater than the 1980 -81 level in order to provide a further incentive for improvements in collection. (35,000) - 'dotal Reductions (349,800) Total Accepted Costs $4,411,841 Add 1% contingency account 44,118 $4,455,959 Add Pretax return on equity (profit) of 27% 132,883 $4,588,842 1981 -82 Total Allowable Revenue $4,588,842 1980 -81 Total Actual Revenue 4,109,453 Additional Revenue Necessary for 81 -82 $ 479,389 A rate increase in both residential and commercial rates of 7.4% is necessary to provide the needed revenue for 1981-82. Green Valley January 29, 1982 Page four IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED IN THE 1980 RALPH ANDERSON REPORT Green Valley Disposal Company has shown substantial progress over the last year in achieving recommended improvements in operations as recommended in the Ralph Anderson report. The Company appointed Robert Stephens in September, 1981, as General Manager to supervise refuse collection and business operations. Further improvements have been made in the areas of refuse measurement at the dump site, upgrading the maintenance shop and yard facilities, billing and collection activities, development of the first annual operating budget (1981 -82), continuing work to improve the data processing capa- bilities as a way to develop better cost accounting, regular equipment maintenance and equipment replacement, free "clean -up week" information and publicity, improved rate review information, and development of a draft master franchise agreement to be reviewed by the four cities between now and January 1983. The rate review committee did agree Green Valley Disposal Company has met, or is in the process of meeting, many of the goals set by the Anderson report. Progress remains to be made in the areas of cost accounting, debt collections, as well as in the development of a new master franchise agreement. The four cities will be involved in this process with Green Valley representatives in or.der:to meet :the January, 1983, deadline for a new agreement. Patricia M. Mullens ck Exhibit B GREEN VALLEY RATE SCHEDULE RESIDENTIAL (Effective Date - March 1, 1982) One Can Two Can Three Can Four Can Service Service Service Service $ 3.70 $ 6.10 $ 8.55 $10.95 Five or More $13.35 COMMERCIAL (Effective Date - March 1, 1982) Pick ups 1 1/3 yard 2 yard 3 yard per week Bin Bin Bin 1 $ 28.50 $ 40.25 $ 56.70 2 49.10 70.80 103.00 3 69.65 101.55 149.25 4 90.20 132.30 195.50 5 110.90 163.15 241.80 6 131.35 241.75 288.00 Five or More $13.35 GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT *Results of Refuse Operations FISCAL YEAR ENDED - 1980 81 REVENUE * Source of Date - Financial Statement, October 7, 1981 Residential Commercial Drop Off Boxes Total Campbell $ 370,152 $ 728,744 $ 208,356 $1,307,252 Los Gatos 455,994 432,283 156,003 1,044,280 Monte=Ser -eno 68,792 1,082 19,947 89,821 Saratoga 588,755 136,371 177,496 902,622 County and Unassigned 466,679 112,006 180,841 759,526 Interest 5,952 Total $1,950,372 $1,410,486 $ 742,643 $4,109,453 Expenses 4 ' 231 895 Net Income ($ 122,442) * Source of Date - Financial Statement, October 7, 1981 i GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT SUMMARY OF REVENUES FOR FISCAL AE 1980 -84 Residential Effective Date One Can of Rates Service Two Can Three Can Service vice Service Four Can Five Service vice or More July 1, 1980 3.00 4.95 6.90 8.85 10.80 April 1, 1981 3.45 5.70 7.95 10.20 12.45 Jurisdiction Mon_ t_ hly Revenue *Annual Revenue Campbell Los Gatos Monte Sereno Saratoga County /Unassigned ;301846 38,000 5,733 49,063 38,890 370,152 955,994 68,792 588,755 466,679 $162,532 $1,950,372 *Actual Revenue - Fiscal Year 1980 -81 - Financial Statement ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT SUMMARY OF REVENUES .FOR FISCAL YEAR 1980 -81 COMMERCIAL Jurisdiction Monthly Revenue *Annual Revenue Campbell 60,729 728,744 Los Gatos 36,024 432,283 Monte Sereno 90 1,082 Saratoga 11,364 136,371 County- Unassigned 9,334 .. .112,006 $117,541 $1,410,486 DROP OFF BOXES Campbell 17,363 208,356 Los Gatos 13,000 156,003 Monte Sereno 1.,662 19,947 Saratoga 14;791 177,496 County- Unassigned 15,070 180,841 $ 61,886 $ 742,643 * Actual Revenue - Fiscal Year 1980 -81 - Financial Statement GREEN VALLEY DI'SP'OSAL COMPANY ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT SUMMARY OF REVENUES Projected for Fiscal.Year 1981 -82 RE'S'IDENTIAL Effective Date One Can Two Can Three Can Four Can Five or Of Rates Se'rvi'ce 'S'ervi'ce Service Service More April 1, 1981 3.45 ..5.70 7.95 10.20 12.45 Current Rates March 1, 1982 3.70. 6.10 8.55 Proposed Rates Jurisdiction Monthly Revenue Campbell $ 36,568 Los Gatos 40,749 Monte Sereno 6,330 Saratoga _ 55,527 County- Unassigned 35,306 $174,480 Annual Revenue $ 438,829 488,972 75,961 666,338 423,658. $2,093,758 Amended .1-27-82 ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT SUMMARY OF REVENUES Projected For Fiscal Year 1981 -82 COMMERCIAL Pick ups 1 1/3 Yard 2 Yard 3 Yard Per Week Bin Bin Bin Current Rates 1 26.50 37.50 52.80 2 45.70 65.90 95.90 3 64.85 94.55. 138.95 4 84.00 123.20 182.00 5 103.15 151.90 225.10 6 122.30 225.10 268.15 March 1, 1982 1 28.50 40.25 56.70 Proposed Rates 2 49.10 70.80 103.00 3 69.65 101.55 149.25 4 90.20 132.30 195.50 5. 110.90 163.15 241.80 6 131.35 241.75 288.00 Revised 1 -27 -82 GREEN VALLEY DISPOSAL COMPANY ANNUAL FRANCHISE REPORT SUMMARY OF REVENUES Projected For Fiscal Year 1981 -82 COMMERCIAL Jurisdiction Monthly Revenue Annual Revenue Campbell $ 67,831 $ 813,968 Los Gatos 37,131, 445,579 Monte Sereno 138 1,659 Saratoga 12,854 154,243 County- Unassigned 8,239 981869 $126,193 $1,514,318. DROP OFF BOXES Campbell $22,725 $272,692 Los Gatos 18,069 216,839 Monte Sereno 2,092 25,104 Saratoga 20,541 246,490 County- Unassigned 17,509 210,114 $80,936 $971,239 _ I,