2005-91 AUTHORIZING MAXIMUM RATES FOR REFUSE HAULERS

Home Browse Search

paid each time a truck empties its load from $1.07 per ton to $2.22 per ton. Also, state vehicle registration fees increased from $1698 per vehicle to $2310. Petitioners have also claimed an increase of 44% in diesel fuel costs since January, 2004. � In January, 2005, the City increased the license fee and the per vehicle registration fee by 100%. The license fee was increased from $300.00 to $600.00 for each hauler and the vehicle fee increased from $100.00 to 5200.00 per vehicle. Generally speaking, such fees are not imposed for the purpose of raising revenue, but are imposed to implement and enforce the particular ordinance for which the fee is imposed. There is no evidence available as to the actual cost to the city to enforce its ordinance or the number of vehicles in use by the haulers. However, Petitioners closing azgument indicates that the cost to the city is approximately$0.17 per customer or approximately$4700.00 annually. If, in fact, these figures are accurate, at the rate of $300.00 per Iicense,$3900.00 of that cost is recovered. The number of vehicles registered needed to offset the balance would be eight [8]. Presumably,the haulers, as a group, would have more than that number of vehicles in use annually. Therefore, unless the city can justify the license fee increase is needed to offset enforcement costs, those fees should be rolled back to the pre-January, 20051eve1, i.e., $;00.00 per license and $100.00 per vehicle. As noted above, the last rate increase of 2% was in January, 2004 at which time the $17.65 fee for single family-twice/week pickup and the $15.20 fee for single family- once per week pickup, went into effect. In that regard, petitioners pointed out that the increase in the city licensing fees absorbed 15% of that 2%; the state"tipping fee tax"increase absorbed 30% of the 2% increase; and, that additional fuel costs absorbed another 44% of that 2% increase. In other words, 89%of the January, 2004 increase of 2%was absorbed by these increased costs. The 2% base rate increase of January, 2004 cost the customer$0.35 per month. That means that$0.31 was absorbed by these increased costs. Presumably, the remaining$0.04 was either additional profit or it went to the increase in labor costs, insurance and ma.intenance. If the majority of the haulen s�rvice 1000 residences, they were collecting$44.00 per month more than the increase in cost. Onyx, servicing 14,850 customers was collecting$564.00 more a month than the increase in costs. While petitioners claimed additional cost increases in labor, maintenance, insurance, etc. no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim other than referring to the Consumer Price Index for the past year. It may well be that the"extra"from the last 2% increase was sufficient to cover these monthly cost increases. What Petitioners fail to recognize is that the 2003 and 2004 increases were"cost of living"increases -not"base rate" increases. It would therefore appeat that the cost of living increases were adequate to cover the additional costs. There was no evidence presented by Petitioners as to the effect of these increased costs on their net profits over the years the rate increases they received were implemented. The only evidence presented was as to how the increases affected the last Z% increase of January, 2004. While costs have increased, those increases were not analyzed relative to the total increase of 3 I.3% which the haulers have received since January, ?002. If it is eonsidered that no increase was received for six years prior ro 200?, then the haulers have received an average increase of approximately 4% over each of the last eight yean. Based on the evidence presented, such an increase would appear to be more than adequate to cover the increased costs and still allow the