Item 5 Additional Material posted 6-01-201 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5M EM ORAN DLJ M City of Poway ADDITIONAL MATERIALS (Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the Agenda Packet for the June 2, 2020 Council Meeting) DATE: TO: FROM: CONTACT: June 1, 2020 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Faviola Medina, CMC (858) 668-4535 or fmedina@poway.org SUBJECT: Item #5 -Resolution for Solid Waste/Recycling Collection Service Rate Increases Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline. Reviewed/ Approved By: Wendy Kaserman Assistant City Manager Reviewed By: Alan Fenstermacher City Attorney App roved By: Chri~ City Manager
2 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5Ana Alarcon From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL Carol Legg Monday, June 1, 2020 7:55 AM agendadocs resource Chris Hazeltine; Eric Heidemann; Izzy Murguia Additional material Item #5: Vote Regarding Resolution for Solid Waste Recycling Collection Service Rate Increases (June 2nd City Council Meeting) Poway Solid Waste Letter.pdf; Lost Jobs San Diego Region.pdf; CPI San Diego.pdf; City Item #5 Agenda Packet.pdf From: Dan <dnguyen619@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2020 3:27 PM To: Steve Vaus <SVaus@poway.org>; Caylin Frank <CFrank@poway.org>; Dave Grosch <DGrosch@poway.org>; Barry Leonard <BLeonard@poway.org>; John Mullin <JMullin@poway.org> Subject: Vote Regarding Resolution for Solid Waste Recycling Collection Service Rate Increases (June 2nd City Council Meeting) Good Afternoon Mayor and Councilmembers, I do not know if I am able to attend the upcoming June 2nd meeting, so I am submitting in advance my signed letter regarding Item #5, Resolution For Solid Waste Recycling Collection Service Rate Increases. Kindly please review the letter and supporting evidence, and send confirmation that the vote is received and will be counted. Thank you and be safe, Dan Nguyen 1
3 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #531 May, 2020 Poway City Council 13325 Civic Center Drive Poway, CA 92064 To the Honorable Mayor Steve Vaus, Deputy Mayor Caylin Frank, Councilmember Dave Grosch, Councilmember Barry Leonard, and Councilmember John Mullin: This letter is in response to the proposed Resolution for Solid Waste Recyding Collection Service Rate Increases, which is Item #5 on the Agenda of June 2, 2020 council meeting. WHEREAS I am both an EDCO customer and city resident/owner-on-record, I hereby protest the above proposed resolution, in its current form and during the current meeting. While I protest the resolution, I remain a faithful resident who understands the need to adequatefy fund critical infrastructure. I therefore offer the reasons for my protest, as well as suggested amendments for a revote at a later date: Reasoning: Our city, state. and nation are at a time of unprecedented economic hardship due to COVID-19, which has lasted for several months and is not yet over. Businesses were dosed (many forever) and residents lost jobs or had hours cut. Furthermore, COVID-19 in California followed on the heels of the December 2019 Poway Water Crisis, which also shuttered our businesses and severely inconvenienced 50,000 residents. According to the attached report from the Employment Development Department of the State of California (published May 22, 2020), the San Diego-Carlsbad Metropolitan area lost 195,000 non-agricultural jobs between March 2020 and April 2020 alone. The unemployment rate in our county is now 15% (May 2020 data is not yet available), and this was an exponential jump from the prior month. This is the current reality of my fellow locals. 16.0<:.!. 1-t""" 12.C·% 10. ~-a.oe G.O~
4 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5While the U.S. Congress returned $2.4 trillion dollars to Americans to help them survive day-to-day, this City is simultaneously seeking to raise rates on a non-discretionary utility: that of waste collection. The timing of the proposed resolution could not be worse. It feels callous and it risks alienating the Mayor and his councilmembers from the residents they swore to serve. The solid waste Franchise Agreement between the City and EDCO allows for rate increases, agreed. But how much is reasonable? Suggestions: 1) The resolution seeks to raise the EDCO Service Fee by 1.93%, citing that according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the San Diego-Carlsbad Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the second half of 2019 rose by that amount, when compared to the second half of 2018 (see Page 2 of the Item #5 Agenda Packet). The first COVID-19 case in California was identified on January 26, 2020, and the State shutdown occurred in the first half of 2020. Completely absent in the CPI statistics on which the resolution relies is the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout. In the process of forecasting the upcoming year, you ignore current CPI data (during the first half of 2020), favoring instead CPI data that is 1 to 2 years old. That is the equivalent of asking your realtor, "How much is my house worth?," and instead of running comparables using recent sales, she tries to remember what houses sold for 12 to 24 months ago. What happens when we actually look at current CPI data from the same reputable source? According to the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (attached), CPI in the San Diego-Carlsbad area increased by zero percent from January 2020 to February 2020, and again zero percent from February 2020 to March 2020. There is not yet regional CPI data available for post-April 2020, but if you follow the news in the least, you would conclude that our local economy has even retracted further in April 2020 and May 2020. Consider that the annual regional CPI change from years 2018 to 2019 was 2.35% (extracted from Page 29 of Item #5 of the Agenda Packet). According to the BLS, from March 2019 through March 2020 (the same length of time -twelve months -but on a rolling calendar) the regional CPI only increased by 1.8%. This means that the first three months of the current year (Le. January 2020 through March 2020) were such an economic trainwreck for our region that they dragged down the twelve-month average by 0.55%. That train ride is not over! If EDCO asks for any more than a 1.8% increase in Disposal Fees, they are overshooting, and that's not even counting April and May data which would lower it further .. I hereby motion that you push the Service Fee down to 1.75%, knowing that this remains a conservative estimate. 2) The resolution seeks to raise the Disposal np Fee by 2.59% (for Single Family Residences, it will actually be 2.66% according to the tables on Page 4 of Item #5 of the Agenda Packet), citing the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside CPI chart as its methodology (Page 9). For one, I do not
5 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5understand why Poway is in San Diego County, yet our Franchise Agreement with EDCO is using a CPI chart from another county entirely in this Disposal Tip Fee calculation. Secondly, according to the BLS, that same Los Angeles region had 0.3% deflation (CPI went down) from March 2020 to April 2020.. Moreover, that region's CPI from March 2019 to March 2020 only ina-eased by 0.7%. (Los Angeles' regional CPI increase over a roling 12 months was even lower than San Diego's over the same time period, a reflection of the fact that L.A. and Riverside counties were harder hit by COVID-19. This further supports my argument that EDCO cherry picking CPI data to tiptoes around COVID-19's impact on the populace). I hereby motjon that you push the Qisgosal Tip fee down to o,7%, consistent with your methodology of citing the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Rjversjde CPI chart wrth the one change of factonng io COYIP-19 via the most up-to-date ce1 data, 3) The resolution seeks to impose a new $3.68/month "organics recycling fee" on residents as early as October/November 2020, when residents will be given no choice but to receive and use green waste carts. As stated on Page 3 of Item #5 of the Agenda Packet, California Senate Bill (SB) 1383 does not require private residences to participate in an organics recycling program until January 1, 2022, which is more than a full year later. This implies that until January 1, 2020, Poway residents under State law are free to NOT participate (and pay for) an organics recyding program. The Council is on the verge of endorsing EDCO to dictate terms and extort fees from city residents, in the absence of (i.e. preceding) any local ordinance or state law even requiring residents to participate in an organics recyding program to begin with. So who is legislating my city? You, or EDCO? tf money is needed to build organics recyding infrastructure in preparation for January 1, 2020, then propose a bond and let people vote on it. 1 hereby motion that you delay the imposition of the $3,68/month organics recycling fee until January 1, 2022 or the successful establishment of an organics recycling program by EPCO, whichever is later. Closing Remarks: Within the Item #5 Agenda Packet is a February 29, 2020 letter from EDCO General Manager Mr. Elmer Heap to Poway Senior Management Analyst Mr. Izzy Murguia, where Mr. Murguia is addressed colloquially by his first name. Then there is the Agenda Report from Poway Director of Public Works Eric Heidemann to the Council, dated June 2, 2020. There is striking similarity between the documents (i.e. the terms are repeated verbatim), considering the documents were written three months apart. I am concerned. Was there concerted negotiation, bargaining, or push-back from the City to EDCO, or did we blindly accept their terms out of habit? Did we ever scrutinize their demands and then require them to resubmit their letter according to our terms? It is the duty of the local government to think critically and fight for the interests of residents -all we want to know is that you showed up to that fight.
6 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5Any rate increase this year has cumulative effects on rate increases for all subsequent years -every percentage point matters. Volunteers are now sending Poway children home with donated food during the school closures -every penny matters. I do not have access to EDCO's financial statements, but one source says they are a private corporation with $134.33 million in annual revenue. Poway's 2018 revenue from all sources was $99.4 million. They are the bigger fish in this pond. Many residents are too busy or distracted to vote or attend a City Council. Over 15% of our population are senior citizens. Not everyone is comfortable with the computer or the English language. The June 2nd council meeting will be physically dosed to visitors due to the virus. A Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to us on April 16, 2020, because it was required under Proposition 218. Yet nowhere in this Notice are: a) the names of the councilmembers, b) your website address, c) notification that City Hall will be dosed to the public, or d) instructions on how to download Zoom or dial in by phone to the meeting. There are no subsequent letters from you to us regarding the public closure of City Hall; instead I am learning of it from our Free Press, The Poway News Chieftain, published Thursday May 28th, 2020. I don't expect there will be anywhere close to the 7,483 written protests required to strike down the Resolution in time, especially because there is no ballot to mail back and it takes time to write a letter, more time than the average person is willing to commit. The fate of the Resolution therefore rests squarely with you. It is a privately-levied tax without meaningful, practical representation. Do not mistake Poway residents' and business owners' silence or inaction for consent. I do not expect to change your mind. However, if you pass this resolution, it will not be in darkness. Others would eventually learn that one concerned citizen reminded you of our hardship under COVID-19 and provided the most current CPI data available, and you proceeded regardless. Thank you for your time and consideration on the matter. Sincerely, Dan Nguyen 13901 Hibiscus Avenue, Spc. #22 Poway, CA 92064 APN 773-142-23-22 Enclosures (3)
7 of 7June 2, 2020, Item #5State of California EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Labor Market Information Division 1949 Avenida Del Oro, Ste. 106 Oceanside, CA 92056 May 22, 2020 Contact: Angel Cordero (760) 414-3564 SAN DIEGO-CARLSBAD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA (SAN DIEGO COUNTY) Nonfarm payrolls down 195,000 over the month: down 199,200 over the year The unemployment rate in San Diego County was X.X percent in April 2020, up (down) from a revised X.X percent in March 2020, and above (below) the year-ago estimate of X.X percent. This compares with an unadjusted unemployment rate of X.X percent for California and X.X percent for the nation during the same period. Between March 2020 and April 2020, nonfarm employment decreased by 195,000 jobs, from 1,494,000 to 1,299,000. Agricultural employment fell by 100 jobs. • The industry sector with the largest month-over payroll contraction was leisure and hospitality (down 96,200). Accommodation and food services (down 80,700) accounted for 83.9 percent of the leisure and hospitality job losses. Within accommodation and food services, employment levels in food services and drinking places dropped by 63,100. Job losses were also reported in arts, entertainment, and recreation (down 15,500). • Trade, transportation, and utilities cut back jobs by 27,500. Most of the job cutbacks were reported in retail trade (down 20,300), where clothing and clothing accessories stores (down 9,500), and general merchandise stores (down 7,100) were main contributors to the job losses. Transportation, warehousing, and utilities (down 4,600), and wholesale trade (down 2,600), also posted month-over job declines. • Education and health services slashed payrolls by 22,000 over the month. Health care and social assistance (down 20,300) drove 92.3 percent of the payroll reduction, where the reduction was largely concentrated in ambulatory health care services (down 11,200). Job declines were also noted in educational services (down 1,700). • All other industry sectors recorded job losses, except mining and logging (no month-over change). Between April 2019 and April 2020, nonfarm employment reduced by 199,200 jobs, from 1,498,200 to 1,299,000. Agricultural employment edged downward by 400. • Over the year, leisure and hospitality (down 104,400) experienced the largest employment reduction. The majority of the reduction came from accommodation and food services (down 86,900), where food services and drinking places (down 67,600) was largely responsible for employment losses. Payrolls in arts, entertainment, and recreation (down 17,500), also receded over the year. • Employment in the trade, transportation, and utilities industry sector lowered over the year by 29,700. Employment declines were registered in retail trade (down 21,600), wholesale trade (down 4,200), and transportation, warehousing, and utilities (down 3,900). • Payrolls of education and health services diminished by 18,000. Health care and social assistance, and educational services, each lost 15,700 and 2,300 jobs, respectively. • All other industry sectors documented job losses, except mining and logging (up 100). #####