Amador County – Sutter Creek City Council unanimously approved a 5.26 percent rate increase for solid waste services Monday.

ACES Waste Service requested the adjustment based on a “Refuse Rate Index,” per the franchise agreement struck with the city in 2009. The Council made the 5-0 approval vote without reopening a public hearing that was closed at the last meeting in mid-May.

ACES accountant Paul Timba made a written response to a letter from Bill Condrashoff of the “Ratepayer Protection Alliance.” The letter asked about rate methodology, and also for credit for customers who leave recycling on the curb for ACES pickups. Timba said ACES agreed that the rate adjustment should consider savings for customers based on recycling.

Timba said Condrashoff’s comments were relevant to the third year of the franchise schedule, when a “detailed rate adjustment” takes place using “Rate Adjustment Methodology.” City Manager Sean Rabe agreed, saying “I do not believe that the detailed information requested” by Condrashoff “is relevant to the proposed action for this year’s increase. However, the information is very relevant to any increase proposed for next year.”

Councilman Jim Swift asked Timba to compare the city’s 5.26 percent increase, with the 2.13 percent recently approved by Supervisors for ACES Service Area 2. Timba said he could not specifically answer that without the county’s figures before him, which he did not have. He said generally, things like distance driven and routes affect the adjustment. ACES President Paul Molinelli said “given the fact that we’ve increased it 5.26 percent” means that “people with a 32-gallon container will be paying 17 cents more.”

Adjustments are made based on salaries and all labor costs, and costs of fuel, repair & maintenance, depreciation and all other costs. Disposal costs are adjusted based on actual costs.

Mayor Tim Murphy introduced the issue, saying the council needed “to focus on the issues related to the decision we need to make tonight.” Later, Councilman Gary Wooten said he would like to make a decision and did not want to reopen the public hearing. Councilwoman Sandy Anderson agreed, saying most of Condrashoff’s issues were “not relevant.”

City Attorney Derek Cole commented on the applicability of a Proposition 218 notice of the rate increase, which would allow for public protest to stop the increase. Cole said the “city is not providing the services, so this is not a fee that is subject to Proposition 218.”

He said a private entity is not subject to Prop 218, and he would be concerned that if the city represented it as a Prop 218 issue and it failed, then the city might be obligated to not approve the increase. Cole said some municipalities have taken the step, but “I don’t think it is necessary.”

Story by Jim Reece This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.