The garbage rate hike

|
(14)

Yes, your garbage rates are going up. As much as 23 percent, maybe. That’s what Recology, the local trash monopoly, announced March 15.

The rate hike isn’t as bad as some people expected, nor is it as high as earlier predictions. More important, the way the company charges for the three bins we all use is going to change rather profoundly: No more free recycling and compost bins, but you can save money if you cut back on the amount of unrecyclable crap you shouldn’t buy anyway that’s headed to the landfill.

Here’s how it’s going to work:

Instead of paying $27.31 a month flat rate for garbage service, every household (and every apartment unit) will pay a $5 a month fee, plus $2 for every standard-sized green (compost) bin and recycling (blue) bin. Then there’s a $25.51 charge for a 32-gallon black (landfill) bin.

You can downsize to a 20-gallon black bin and upsize your recycling and compost to 64 gallons (that’s a LOT of compost for a city dweller; dude, quit throwing so much food away) and the monthly tab would be $26.94 -- a little less than what you pay today.

The idea is that the city has mandated Recology to reach the level of zero waste -- that is, 100 percent diversion away from landfill -- by 2020, which means there won’t be any black bins any more, and an economic model based on charging for a service that won’t exist isn’t going to work.

Plus, the cost of fuel is going up, labor costs continue to increase, etc. We all know the story.

We also know that Recology never has to bid on the lucrative deal to collect waste in the city, and recently defeated a ballot measure that would have required competitive bidding. And unlike garbage companies in other cities (and other companies like Comcast and PG&E, that do business on city streets), Recology pays no franchise fee.

To make the whole garbage thing more complicated, a group from Yuba County is suing to overturn the deal that will allow Recology to haul San Francisco landfill waste 125 miles north to the Ostrum Road landfill in Wheatland. It's really complicated, but essentially Recology did have to bid on that part of the deal (since the waste hauling takes place out of the city), won the bid against Waste Management, Inc., and is going to be loading about 400,000 tons of waste onto a rail line out to Wheatland.

This is, if the San Francisco Superior Court doesn't toss the deal on the grounds that the Environmental Impact Report wasn't adequate.

The Yuba Group Against Garbage petition for an injunction will be argued March 27 -- and in the meantime, the group, along with some San Francisco advocates, is calling for the city to re-open the bidding process. YuGAG, obviously, doesn't want the Ostrum Road Landfill to expand. The group's lawyer, Brigit S. Barnes, sent out a statement March 20 outlining here case:

By failing to conduct any environmental review prior to its decision to enter into a Facilitation Agreement with Recology San Francisco, the City violated procedures clearly defined by CEQA, the terms for its own Request for Proposal, and the City’s own Administrative Code. Approving the project prior to completing a satisfactory CEQA review amounts to a failure to proceed in a manner required by law. The City’s subsequent attempt to fix the CEQA violation by terminating the 10-year agreement with Recology is ineffective because the statutorily mandated order of actions [first to certify the EIR document and then to consider the project, including any essential mitigations] is reversed.

Waste Management Inc., tried unsuccessfully to block the deal; WMI, which runs the landfill in Alameda County, wants the city's trash to continue going there, which isn't a perfect option either (and WMI is hardly a flawless company). So garbage is a mess. What else is new.

Comments

FWIW, Recology do a pretty good job.

BTW, why is there so much criticism here of PG&E and Recology, and yet SFWater is, in my experience, much worse and you never utter a word of criticism?

Oh wait, SFWater is public. That's why.

Posted by anonymous on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 11:02 am

SF Water doesn't gouge people

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 11:45 am

And I cannot even buy shares in them to try and offset my liability.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

Decades of corruption (Hello, Dianne Feinstein?) drained capital from the Hetch Hetchy system, the $4b bonds impose increasing water bills over the next few years. The system was gouged for so long, and there is no free lunch, so tomorrow's rate payers will be gouged for yesterday's irresponsibility.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 12:08 pm

When PG&E struggled financially a few years ago, they were able tod eclare bankruptcy to ease themselves out of the liabilities - not an option available to SFWater when it royally screwed up.

Personally I'd like to see SFWater privatized, and Hetch Hetchy decommissioned and returned to it's former beauty.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 12:28 pm

We could have escaped that debt load if the ideology had not been IBGYBG and we'd paid our freight instead of chasing a free lunch.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 1:27 pm

fund the unfunded city workers pension and healthcare liability.

OR, of course, reduce those benefits.

That's a 4 billion dollar liability that we are also not "paying our freight" on.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

Restore the valley by degrading the quality of water we drink? Fool!

Posted by Richmondman on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 2:59 pm

it is the same water either way, regardless of where it is stored.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

in healthcare and pension benefits than private-sector utilities, which of course are paid for by those of us who pay water bills, who of course have far inferior benefits.

That's why we should not want public power or public anthing else - it merely increases the vast unfunded liabilities for unsustainable promises made.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 21, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

That Recology rate hike is more like a gouge to me. But hey I guess we allowed ourselves to be duped into voting against opening up the city's garbage services to a bidding process that would have benefited the city and our pocket books. It seems to me that this company has far to much incentive to take advantage of SF citizens. They are even under investigation for inflating recyclable material diversion rates to get bigger pay off from the city government. Beware of Recology folks: http://hesmadnotcrazy.blogspot.com/2013/02/a-pretty-trashy-story.html

Posted by Imjasonson on Mar. 25, 2013 @ 6:24 pm

Ideas For SF Recology & SF Rate Payers
Being Green Means Reducing Total Costs

First We Propose A Solution To Reduce The 21.5% Rate Hike Needed By Recology To Pay For Increased Costs Roughly $6 Per Dwelling.

Lets Brainstorm Ideas "By Taking The Bag Money Collected At SF Stores We Could Offset The Increase" Roughly How Much ?
Hmmm At Least A Fist Full Of Dollars.

Now The Bag Law Charge Of $0.10 A Bag Was Said To Reduce Bags In Recology's Waste-stream Whether Waste, Compost Or Recyclables...

It Only Seems Right And In Accordance With ABC Cost Accounting To Give The $0.10 Per A Bag Money To Recology To Offset The Rate Increase.

Now I Demand We Do Something To Reduce The Recology Rate Increase. Any Ideas!

Steve
Designer
SF Knowledge

Posted by Guest SF Kropfl on May. 01, 2013 @ 9:43 am

Ideas For SF Recology & SF Rate Payers
Being Green Means Reducing Total Costs

First We Propose A Solution To Reduce The 21.5% Rate Hike Needed By Recology To Pay For Increased Costs Roughly $6 Per Dwelling.

Lets Brainstorm Ideas "By Taking The Bag Money Collected At SF Stores We Could Offset The Increase" Roughly How Much ?
Hmmm At Least A Fist Full Of Dollars.

Now The Bag Law Charge Of $0.10 A Bag Was Said To Reduce Bags In Recology's Waste-stream Whether Waste, Compost Or Recyclables...

It Only Seems Right And In Accordance With ABC Cost Accounting To Give The $0.10 Per A Bag Money To Recology To Offset The Rate Increase.

Now I Demand We Do Something To Reduce The Recology Rate Increase. Any Ideas!

Steve
Designer
SF Knowledge

Posted by Guest SF Kropfl on May. 01, 2013 @ 9:46 am

this is the thanks SF gets for allowing recology to be the exclusive refuse collector, we get better rates and service by allowing competitors and disallowing monopolies

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2013 @ 5:17 pm