HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/08/16 Item 13
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 13/i.
Meeting Date 8/16/94
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Program Changes to Residential
Yard Waste Recycling Services From an Options Program to a Universal
Mandatory Rate Structure
(1(.,1~
RESOLUTION Approving a Universal Residential Yard Waste Collection
Rate Change to $1.48 Per Single-Family Home
, f/
Deputy City Manager Krempl &;
Conservation Coordinator ~Vl
City Manager [}
(4/Sths Vote: Yes_ NoX)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The City's residential yard waste collection program began 1/1/94 as a unique "options" program
which allows single-family residents the choice of how they will participate, based on their own
assessment of their yard waste needs. Options provided included: I) ongoing and regular
collection- subscription for weekly service through Laidlaw, 2) occasional or seasonal collection-
$1 stickers entitle resident to pick -up by Laidlaw as needed, 3) no yard waste- no action needed.
A review of the participation, costs and revenue of the first six months of the voluntary "options"
program show that costs are far exceeding revenue and continuation of the program is dependent
upon a rate adjustment to cover collection and processing costs. Attachments A, B and C are
letters from Laidlaw (7/18/94,7/26/94 and 7/27/94) requesting consideration of an amendment to
the yard waste fee structure effective 9/1/94 which would involve a change to a universal
mandatory rate structure to be spread to all single-family residents.
This report discusses the pros and cons of making such a change, the field audit and research
conducted by City staff which supports the recommendation, implications of not approving a rate
change, and the specific actions and public outreach services to which Laidlaw is committed in
order to ensure as smooth. a transition as possible.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution changing the residential yard waste
program to a universal mandatory rate structure and changing the rate to $1.48 per single
family home effective 9/1194. An alternative would be to delay this increase until 10/1/94 or
such time as the San Diego Solid Waste Authority increases tipping fees for non-member cities.
This action is not recommended for reasons described herein.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
\ ~A- \
Page 2, Item Il>A
Meeting Date 8/16/94
DISCUSSION:
When the current yard waste program was originally approved in September, 1993 to begin in
January, 1994, the voluntary "options" program appeared to offer Chula Vista residents a unique
opportunity to have control over their costs based on their needs. Although the "options" concept
was a positive attempt to offer alternative levels of service in an era of ever increasing diversion
mandates and commensurate costs, the approach was quite new and had no "track record" of actual
performance. It was clear that close monitoring of the program's results would be important to
determining effectiveness and provide guidelines for appropriate changes.
In addition, to assure as much flexibility as possible for the City to respond to needed changes,
Council directed at the time that the Chula Vista Municipal Code be amended to allow changes in
fees for this program by resolution. The amendment included the alternative to change (by
resolution rather than further ordinance changes) to a "universal mandatory rate structure such that
all residential units using the waste collection system would pay the same fee regardless of whether
or not they are using the yard waste recycling services." [CVMC 8.23.230(D)(2)]
Program Challenges
In mid-June 1994, Laidlaw formally approached the City regarding the results of the first six months
of operation. They suggested that such serious problems could only be mitigated by a complete
program change to a universal rate structure. Staff requested a written proposal with documentation
of the problems encountered in the program in its present form (Attachment A). In summary, the
most significant problems from the company's view are illustrated by the following facts:
o Collection services revenues (from subscription and sticker sales) for January
through June 1994 totalled $54,774 while processing costs for dropping the material
at a composting facility totalled $72,666, a net loss of $17,892; and
o The $17,666 net loss does not include operational costs for that same six months,
exacerbating the loss to an even greater degree.
To illustrate the critical nature of the program's financial liabilities, Laidlaw's 7118/94 letter indicated
that to keep the sticker program at $1, subscription rates would have to be raised from $2/month to
$15.95/monthjust to address program costs.
To help provide an objective measurement of the problems from the City's perspective, the
Conservation Coordinator:
o Worked with Laidlaw to conduct a one week refuse field audit to determine how
many ofthe households are continuing to mix yard waste in refuse containers instead
\ ~A.- 2...
Page 3, Item 13 A
Meeting Date 8/16/94
of choosing one of the City's options for properly recycling it; and
o Conducted a comparison survey of yard waste program components and costs for
other cities within the County.
Staff Analysis of the Program's Current Status
Laidlaw provided additional records which indicate that a total of 1,000 residents out of 26,000 were
routinely tagged for putting yard waste in their refuse containers during the program's first six
months. The one week refuse field audit in July 1994 indicated that 1084 residents continued to
violate the City's mandatory yard waste ordinance by mixing yard waste with their refuse. A
projection of these numbers helps to partially explain why the actual green waste diversion during
the first six months of the program (3,300 tons) is below an estimate of what we could have expected
(6,500 tons) based on waste stream studies.
In short, it appears that there is evidence that an important amount of the City's residential yard waste
is not being diverted from the landfill through the options available. Some of it is ending up in the
landfill because it is mixed in with refuse. Additionally, staff from other City departments (Public
Works, Nature Center, Building and Housing/Code Enforcement, and Police) report a general
observation that illegal dumping has increased during the past year.
Staff also conducted a survey of the other city yard waste collection programs in the County
(Attachment D). That attached survey shows that the Chula Vista program is unique. It is one of
only two purely "optional" programs in the County. The other "optional" program (City of Santee)
is successful because it is part of a "pay as you throw" refuse rate system that provides financial
incentives to recycle and dis-incentives for commingling yard waste with refuse. The survey
demonstrates that the average Chula Vista participant is setting out twice the weight of yard waste
for collection than the average County participant. However, because of the small number of
participants Chula Vista's total program only diverts half of what it should for a city with its potential
participants.
Additionally, the survey data shows that, when adjusted for cost component factors (such as
franchise fees, subsidies from refuse collection and container costs, etc.), the rates throughout the
County range from $1.00 to $2.53. Laidlaw's proposed universal rate of $1.48 per household
would place the City's rate as the third lowest program rate among the 17 cities.
Conclusions
The clean up for illegal disposal often involves Code Enforcement and Public Works personnel and
significantly increases the ultimate cost to residents and businesses. The survey demonstrates that
universal yard waste programs throughout the County have cost-effectively produced greater
I~A-3
Page 4, Item I~A
Meeting Date 8/16/94
diversion than Chula Vista's "option" approach. The survey suggests that at least 400 to 700 more
tons of yard waste can be diverted from Chula Vista's residential refuse collection each month. The
diversion of an additional 400 tons of residential yard waste represents 4% towards the State's 25%
and 50% diversion goals and a potential savings of up to $30 per ton in avoided disposal costs.
A universal program will provide all of Chula Vista's residents with a convenient and
environmentally responsible method of recycling yard waste. It will reduce the incentive to illegally
dispose of yard waste and control the costs associated with illegal disposal. The rates being
proposed appear reasonable. The proposed change is major but can be expected to greatly benefit
the City as an entire community. While the proposal is recommended, staff also pursued with
Laidlaw a number of concerns regarding implementation of such an important departure from the
program which was first introduced to the public less than a year ago (See Attachment Band C.)
Proposed Program
The first concern is an accurate understanding about how the collection services will change. If the
staff recommendation is accepted, participants will receive two large, permanent, yard waste
identification stickers which can be placed on standard refuse containers. When residents require
service they simply place one or more containers with yard waste at the curb in a manner that the
sticker can be seen from the street. Additional containers and bundles may still be placed for
collection behind the identified containers.
Residents who have purchased or rent a Laidlaw yard waste cart may continue to use it. Laidlaw
will pick up yard waste carts at no cost for those residents who wish to stop using them. Laidlaw
will also provide full credit to customers who wish to return yard waste carts purchased from
Laidlaw, or the $1 yard waste "option" stickers during the first 120 days of the program.
Additionally, Laidlaw will credit customers a 50% refund if they choose to return their used
composting bins (purchased from Laidlaw) during the same period.
Program Transition
Laidlaw has also committed to taking several steps to insure a smooth transition between programs.
Those steps include, but are not limited, to some of the following:
. Pre-delivery of two yard waste identification stickers with a public education hand-out in
English and Spanish that explains the new program,
. Placement oftwo ads highlighting the yard waste program changes in a local newspaper,
. Placement of at least one ad in local Hispanic media,
\ ~ ~'1
Page 5, Item 13A
Meeting Date 8/16/94
. Distribution of public service announcements to leading Hispanic organizations regarding
the changes to the yard waste program,
. A concurrent or follow-up message in refuse bills regarding the yard waste changes,
. Aggressive tagging of residents that place yard waste in their refuse containers, (tags are
designed to provide directions for compliance with the Mandatory Recycling Ordinance.)
Alternatives
Finally, because of the seriousness of the proposed change, staff reviewed possible alternatives with
Laidlaw: maintaining the program at current levels and eliminating the program. Because of the
program losses, Laidlaw has said that without a speedy resolution to the problem they cannot
maintain the program at current levels and would have to immediately withdraw the entire program.
Elimination of the program is not in the best interests of either the City or the rate payers. If the
program were eliminated, all rate payers would receive a rate increase of at least 64 cents per month,
the approximate cost of disposing of yard waste at $55 per ton with their refuse instead of collecting
it separately and composting it at $25 per ton. Additionally, the City would need to develop and
implement an alternative program that could replace the 6% overall diversion currently achieved by
the yard waste program and the 12% to 17% diversion the program is ultimately projected to
achieve.
Impact of Delaying a Change
As indicated in the "recommendation" section of this report, an alternative to the change effective
9/1/94 as requested by Laidlaw would be to grant the effective date of the change but delay
implementation of the increase to coincide with the tip fee increase expected 10/1/94. This
alternative is not recommended for two main reasons:
. Actual impacts of the ti? fee increase will probably not be known for a few more weeks.
Staff needs to evaluate the non-member contract rate options released by the Solid Waste
Authority (SW A) on 8/11/94 in light of the viability of alternatives. Council deliberation on
the issue is necessary and the SW A has set a 9/15/94 deadline. A "daily rate" (other than the
3r5 and 10 year contract rates offered) will be determined after the 9/15/94 deadline by
negotiation.
. Placing all increases on one bill may create more of a burden for the rate payers. Changes
to the rates for yard waste and curbside recycling effective 9/1/94 would appear in the
September billing and cover a two month period. Tip fee increases which may subsequently
be determined effective 10/1/94 can be delayed until the November billing. Without this
13 A-'s
Page 6, Item I~A
Meeting Date 8/16/94
incremental approach, residents would receive a November bill with four months increase
for yard waste and three months increase for landfill charges (tip fee.)
FISCAL IMP ACT:
If the staffrecommendation is accepted, all 26,000 residential customers will receive weekly yard
waste service. Assuming that the reduction in the residential curbside recycling rate proposed in
Item # 13 b. at this Council meeting is aooroved, the fiscal impact of the yard waste program change
is best illustrated by its effect on three different segments of residential (single-family homes)
customers.
Approximately 18,300 current non-participating yard waste customers will receive a monthly rate
increase of $.88. Approximately 4,200 current monthly subscribers to weekly service will receive
a $1.12 per month rate reduction in their current refuse bills. Approximately 3,500 customers
currently using the sticker option will receive weekly service for $.12 per month less than what they
would have paid for once a month use of the sticker option.
Current rate (eff. 711194: Refuse $15.07, Recycling $1.10) . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yard waste (eff. 9/1/94). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Curbside recycling rate reduction (eff. 9/1/94-- if approved under Item# 13 b.)
$16.17
. . 1.48
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Monthly increase to 18,300 rate payers
. <.60>
$17.05
. $ .88
Current refuse/recycling rate . .
Current yard waste monthly rate
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less proposed Rate . . . . . . .
Monthly savin\ls to 4,200 rate payers.
$16.17
$ 2.00
$18.17
. <$17.05>
. $1.12
Current refuse/recycling rate . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yard waste sticker rate (once a month average use)
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less Proposed Rate . . . . . . . . . . .
Monthly savin\ls to 3,500 rate payers.
$16.17
. .$..lJill
$17.17
. <$17.05>
. . . $ .12
mtm:c
revyrdw$.cas
Attachments
IS A - <.c
RESOLUTION NO. J? /, I ?
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING A UNIVERSAL RESIDENTIAL
YARD WASTE COLLECTION RATE CHANGE TO $1.48 PER
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME
WHEREAS, the City's residential yard waste collection
program began 1/1/94 as a unique "options" program which allows
single-family residents the choice of how they will participate,
based on their own assessment of their yard waste needs; and
WHEREAS, a review of the participation, costs and revenue
of the first six months of the voluntary "options" program show
that costs are far exceeding revenue and continuation of the
program is dependent upon a rate adjustment to cover collection and
processing costs; and
WHEREAS, staff proposes an amendment to the yard waste
fee structure effective 9/1/94 which would involve a change to a
universal mandatory rate structure to be spread to all single-
family residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City council of the
city of Chula vista does hereby approve a Universal Residential
Yard Waste Collection Rate change to $1.48 er single amily home
effective 9/1/94.
Presented by
George Krempl, Deputy city
Manager
/3.19 -,
Attachment A
8SL11!J8S8
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC.
July 18, 1994
City of Chula Vista
George Krempl, Deputy City Manager
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 92010
In recent weeks we have reviewed and discussed a variety of issues pertaining to the
current yardwaste program in Chula Vista and the immediate need to amend the
service fee structure to support the program costs.
As you know, the yard waste program was implemented in January of this year with
program participation being voluntary. The participation projections developed by
Laidlaw and City staff under the voluntary program were important as they determined
service pricing levels which would support program costs. Unfortunately, participation
levels are below those projected leaving monthly revenues far below program costs.
Participation projections were forecasted as follows:
Poculation Base - 26.000
Revenue
Curbside Monthly Subscription Service
13,000 @ 2.00/Mo
=
$26,000
II
Sticker Program
6,500 @ 1.001Wk
=
$28,167
III
Backyard Composting
6,500 @ -0-
=
-0-
$58,167/Mo
Actual participation levels are referenced on the attached worksheet - City of Chula
Vista Yardwaste Summary. As you can see, actual monthly subscription and sticker
participation levels in June totaled 7,667, while monthly subscription projections alone
totaled 13,000. Because we are well into the summer season, it is also likely that
voluntary participation is at peak levels. Through the six month period (January -
June) collection service revenues have totaled $54.774 while associated disposal
8364 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD" SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92111 (619) 278.6061 FAX (619) 278.7528
@ \~~- ~
costs have totaled $72.666. This represent a loss at the net revenue line of $17.892.
Remaining operational costs to provide the service further deteriorate the financial
picture.
To help assess future opportunities and program options Michael Meecham,
Conservation Coordinator for the City. completed a County survey detailing yardwaste
services provided to other cities. while Laidlaw conducted a one week service audit
of the residential waste stream. The service audit was completed using the support
of the Urban Corp for the week ending July 15th. Urban Corp representatives
inspected residential waste stream containers prior to service. Containers having more
than 10% yardwaste mixed with regular waste were noted. Additional opportunities
for the week totaled 1.087 while daily numbers varied from 172 to 321. This one
week sampling was then used to make projections for future diversion opportunities
in the calculations for a new program and rate structure.
As you can see, an immediate change in the yardwaste program is needed to provide
financial rationale for Laidlaw to continue this service. Spreading necessary operating
costs among only the current participants would only serve to penalize those who
have taken the responsible position to participate. As an example - if the sticker
program remained at current pricing levels, monthly subscription rates to address
program costs would increase from $2.00/Mo to $15.95.
Monthly Program Cost
$70,352.09
June Sticker Usage (3,475 x1.001
3.475.00
Difference
$66.877.09
+ June Subscription Customers
4,192
Revised Subscription Rate
$
15.95
Laidlaw does not see a voluntary participation schedule as a practical solution. It also
does not appear to be a viable alternative selected by other County cities surveyed.
Laidlaw Waste Systems would propose a standard household customer charae rate
of $1.48 based on the attached worksheet - City of Chula Vista Yardwaste Contract
Rates. Detail explanation for component items are provided on the worksheet.
Additional diversion is based upon service audits and original household generation
estimates. Corresponding charges were made to processing costs and landfill
diversion amounts.
This charge would eliminate the sticker program which has fallen short of expectations
and served as a source for several service issues or problems. Customers with
outstanding stickers will have purchase costs credited against their account upon
returning directly to Laidlaw Waste Systems. The City of Chula Vista would be
, ~~~9
credited or refunded directly for sticker purchases made for resale to residents. The
refund period would extend through the first 60 days of the transition period. We
would propose an effective date no later than SeDtember 1. 1994.
Realizing the initial program provided for purchase of backyard composters, Laidlaw
would provide for specific customer exemptions for those customers who have
purchased composting units from Laidlaw. When those specific customers of record
relocated within the City they would then become participants of the standard
program. New residents to the service location would also become customers of the
program. This would provide for a reasonable transition for customers who purchased
Laidlaw composters to not be penalized. They would still have the option to join the
program.
Also enclosed is a worksheet reflecting diversion credits realized for the first six
months of operations - City of Chula Vista Yardwaste Contract Analvsis. Diversion
credit for the program through June total $47.225.24. Because of the significant
program costs and revenue shortfall, Laidlaw would propose the credit to be applied
to partially offset the operating costs experienced by Laidlaw.
We ask for your timely review and response to address the serious financial concerns
experienced by Laidlaw with the yardwaste program. Again, we would look for full
resolution by September 1, 1994. Please call should yo have additional questions.
,
~
Ji Weaver
arket General Manager
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
I~A-\o
7-15-9<1
LWS - SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA YARDWASTE CONTRACT RATES
SIX MONTH PROGRAM REVIEW
FU.f:C'V'M'
CONTRACT CURRENT PROPOSED
REVENUE REVENUE RATE
COST COMPONENTS:
OPERATING COSTS $1.05 $2.49 $2.03
PROCIOSSING COSTS $0.55 $0.72 $0.56 (B)
FRANCHISE FEES $0.11 $0.17 $0.12
TOTAL YARDWASTE RATE $1.711 (A) $3.38 I $2.711
RATE SOURCES:
LANDFILL DIVERSION
DIVERSION SHORTFALl/(OVERAGES)
($0.94)
$0.00
($1.24)
$0.00
($1.23) (C)
$0.00
CUSTOMER CHARGE RATE
Iti1l'/'R[lS'i!
~,W"'":::''' ..........
", '~'>:"':";:':': " ,', .':'
I~I
1--:
~!
41,16711
5,67211
26,000 II
MONTHLY NUMBER OF UNITS
II $19,195.6611
II $70,460.00 II
TOTAL MONTHLY REVENUE
II $70,352.0911
(A) STICKERS MONTHLY TOTAL
TOTAL COST OF OPERATIONS: $1.27 $2.66
NUMBER OF UNITS 28,167 13,000 41,167
TOTAL REVENUE $35,772,09 $34,580.00 $70,352.09
TOTAL YARDWASTE RATE I $1.71 1
. TOTAL COSTS OF OPERATION PER COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 9/14/93, ITEM #14,PG5
(B) PROJECTED TONS X $25{TON
(C) PROJECTED TONS X $55{TON
PROJECTED TONNAGE:
JUNE YTD AVG TONSIMONTH ~41
ADDITIONAL TONS:
1087 X 17LBS X 4.33WKS/2000LB 40
PROJECTED TONNAGE: 581
\ ~A. \ \
-
()>>
f
-
t-'
FlLE:CVVW
LWS - SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA YARDWASTE SUMMARY
SIX MONTH PROGRAM REVIEW
7-15-94
TOTAL
WEEKLY YARD WASTE CUSTOMER~ YARD WASTE MONTHLY YARD WASTI YARD WAST
TOrAL 0lIWf CCNTAtlER RENTCON~"ER S1DCERS USED UNITS TONS lBSIUNIT
I ORIGINAL PROJECTION 13,0001 13,000 1 01 26,1671 41,1671 901 1 43.771
JANUARY '94 2,796 230 2,567
FEBRUARY '94 2,940 223 2,716
MARCH '94 3,566 260 3,306
APRil '94 3,774 261 3,513
MAY'94 4,210 274 3,936
JUNE'94 4,192 266 3,924
SIX MONTH TOTAL I 21,46111 1,51611 19,9651
1,307
1,322
1,961
2,121
2,363
3,475
I 12,5491
4,103
4,262
5,529
5,695
6,573
7,667
I 34,03~
I
5,~ II
(35,495jl II
I SIX MONTH AVERAGE II
3,56011
(9,420jl
3,32611 II 2,09211 II
u~111
25311
I VARIANCE TO PROJECTION II
243
265
597
694
736
669
3246
54111 II
(36011 II
116.44
133.73
215.94
235.45
224.55
179.73
I 190.771
190.7711
147.0011
FltE:CVYW
LWS - SAN DIEGO
CITY OF CHULA VISTA YARDWASTE CONTRACT ANALYSIS
SIX MONTH PROGRAM REVIEW
7-15-94
MONTHLY
SUBSCRIPTION STICKERS NET
# UNIT # UNIT CONTRACT[ ACTUAL SHORTFALU
UNITS RATE UNITS RATE REVENUE DIVERSION (OVERAGE)
JANUARY '94 2,796 52,198.51 ($4,374.00) ($2,175.49)
FEBRUARY '94 2,940 52,297.54 ($5,130.00) ($2,832.46)
MARCH '94 3,568 52,884.61 ($10,746.00) ($7,861.39)
APRIL '94 3,774 $3,063.51 ($14,574.00) ($11,510.49)1
MAY'94 4,210 $3,416.61 ($15,498.00) ($12,061.39)
JUNE'94 4,192 $3,704.97 ($14,469.00) ($10,764.03).
SIX MONTH TOTAL 21,461 $17,565.76 ($64,791.00) ($47,225.24)
I ~ /1.- 1 ~
LH1LiLHw WH.:..:>IL ,-,1~',LII.-.J ,LL.- ,''-'.~
Attachment B
8881!!Oe;
LAIDL.AW WASTE SYSTEMS INC.
J
July 26. 1994
City of Chula Vista
Michael Meacham, Conservation Coordinator
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
Michael:
Thank you for your follow-up call regarding my July 18th correspondence for the
Chula Vista Yardwaste Program. Answers to those questions and clarification
requested are provided below.
Let me begin by again stressing the urgency to reach both a service and financial
resolution for the program for implementation no later than SeDtember 1. 1994.
Through six months (January - June '94), Laidlaw has experienced a financial loss In
excess of $147,000 in providing the yardwaste service program to Chula Vista.
Immediate resolution Is needed to continua the program beyond September 1, 1994.
Sticker Proaram
Residents with unused stickers will have purchase costs credited against
their accounts upon returning any unused stickers directly to Laidlaw
Waste Systems. Credits will be provided through the first two billing
cycles (120 Days) beginning no later than September 1. 1994.
Backyard ComDosting
Backyard composting is an important part of any yardwaste program but
does not provide total resolution for a complete diversion program.
Branches, palm fronds, and other larger yardwaste materials still require
alternatives available through a yardwaste program. Accordingly, we
recommend a program of participation charges to all residents consistent
with other Cities in the County. A 50% credit refund can be issued to
those customers of record who may wish to return the Toro Com poster
purchased through Laidlaw. This option replaces the previous action
recommendation.
8364 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD.. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 9211 1 (619) 278-6061 FAX (619)278-7528
G>
I 3 A- 1"\
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS TEL No .1-619-278-7528
JuJ 2b.~4 l1:U ~<O.UU'j ~.Uj
J
Protections
In our discussion you asked for comments on how realistic the
participation and diversion numbers are In building the proposed
customer charge rate of $1 .48. This number is very realistic based on
actual participation In January '94 through June '94, landfill rates in
July. processing rates for October ($25/ton), and audit results from June.
We would anticipate additional reductions in the rate charged in the next
review cycle.
Cart Rental/Car Purchnes
Those customers no longer requesting the yardwaste cart currently
rented from Laidlaw, merely call and cancel service. We will pick up at
no charge. Those customers of record who have purchased yardwaste
carts can return them for full value to Laidlaw.
DlSDOSIII Cost Clarification
Clarification was requested on the .72,666 disposal cost number. This
number represents direct dispOSlll costs to Laidlaw for disposal of
collected yardwaste to the processing Cllnter. No operation expenses are
included. Again, through six months of operation disposal costs alone
have exceeded the revenues billed by .17.892. This loss of .17,892 Is
at the net revenue line. Total losses with operational costs applied for
the same periOd total over t147.000!
Yardwaste Re-Dlverslon
You requested financial Impact on re-dlverslon of yerdwaste back to the
regular waste stream. Using average monthly diversion of 541 tons and
the potential County rate, monthly waste rates would Increase as
follows:
If Landfill Gate Rata ill $55.00/ton
$250.00
-$ 25.00
Landfill Rate - County
Processing Rate O.R.I.
$225.00
x 541 Tons + 26,000 Residents = $4.68 Per ResidentlMonth
These projections only reflect landfill rate Impact on the potential waste
rate. Additional costs for investments made by Laidlaw (Le. trucks,
containers, ate) would further impact effects of canceling the program.
\ ~ p..- \oS
LrllLJLHIJJ WH~It. :::'(:':,iLI'I..;; ILL IW.l l'.J.j--....rC. rJLQ
.!l,. '" 1.)..)4 ..l. 1. J. "-- 11'. . '_!'.' _} I
It is clearly evident of the program's pOSitive benefits to support the City
of Chule Vista's efforts to exceed AB939 mandates.
j
New Proaram ImDlementetlon
In general terms, wa would propose a curbside program providing a
yardwaste decal to all residents to be placed on their own standard 33
gallon collection container. Any yardwaste material would be placed in
the container to be collected on the same day as regular weste. The
container would be placed approximately 3 feet away from their regular
trash with the "Yardwaste Recycling" label facing the curb for clear
identification. Additional containers or bundles could be staged behind
the marked container. In those weeks when no yardwaste is generated,
the contelner could be used for regular waste. The label would not face
the curb and the container would be placed with other regular waste
containers.
Wa would continue to make the carts available for purchase or rental as
they are in the current program.
Michael, we continue to support diversion whether through yardwaste or other
curbside programs. We must do so addressing all progrem costs to Laidlaw. Our
losses, under the current yard waste program, cannot continue. An immediate change
is required to continue the program beyond September 1. 1994
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
JW/mc
cc: Dan Higgins
George Krempi
Sandy Snyder
l3A- \ ~
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS TEL No.1-619-2?~-?528
JuJ 21.94 14:U4 No.Ul? P.02
~
) Attachment C
f.:tC [( 7/:1.7/ qq
VI({ r-l -
84'0884'8
LAIDLAW WASTe SYSTeMS INC.
CItY of Chula Vista
Michael Meacham I Conservation Coordinator
276 Fourth Ave
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Mlchaei,
As a result of our conversation this morning regarding the yardwaste program,
the following itemS are offered for clarification or modification to my letter dated June
26th:
.Each resident can be provided with 2 stickers for use on yardwaste collection
containers. Those containers provided by the customer will not exceed 60lb each and
will be In eccordance with requirements of current municipal code.
. The buy back period for yard waste containers at full price and com posters at
50% of original price will be 2 billing periods or 120 days from September 01,
1994. Cencellatlon of cart rental remains an open option of the program.
.Publlc education will be an important part of the transition process. As
dlscused we would provide twO new media items In consecutive weeks.
Communications would be made locally in the Star News and The Baja California
Newspaper to reach both Spanish and English speaking customers. A separate mailing
would elso be made to residents detailing the new program outline, along with the
new yardwaste container decals.
My thanks for your follow up support on this Important issue.
jw:dh
Jim Weaver
::r- c0~
6364 CLAIREMONT MESA BWD.. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 (619) 276-(l()61 FAX (619) 27..7&28
(i)
I ~ A - \1
-
().)
1?
-
00
YARD WASTE COLLECTION SURVEY
CITY JlNIVERSAL OR TONS PER MONTH NUMBER OF AVERAGE TONS MONTHLY RATE
QPTIONAL PARTICIPANTS PER P ARTICIP ANT
Carlsbad U 533 15000 0.036 $2.25
Chula Vista 0 735 7500 .098 2.00
26000 .028
Coronado U 116 4500 0.026 2.53
Del Mar U 50 1500 0.033 1.95
EI Cajon N/A N1A N/A N/A
Encinitas U 554 15500 0.036 1.40
Escondido U 1100 23000 0.048 1.60
Imperial Beach U 190 4600 0.041 1.002
La Mesa' U 154 10500 0.015 1.92
Lemon Grove' U 60 7000 0.009 1.97
San Marcos U 175 6600 0.027 N/A
Santee 0' 310 7000 .044 2.502
11000 .028
Solana Beach U 155 3600 0.043 1.91
Vista U 505 13000 0.039 N/A
National City U 165 6700 0.025 ($2)
Oceanside4 0 1300 26000 .050 2.702
34000 .038
Poway 0 415 11500 0.036 N/A
TOTALS OR 13/4 6517 160000 0.041 2.03
AVERAGES
;to>
M-
M-
'"
n
::>"
3
ro
::>
M-
-
<:::>
'DOLLAR PER MONTH MORE FOR INCREASE FROM 64 TO 96 GALLON OR ADDITIONAL CART
'INCLUDES APPROXIMA TEL Y $1.00 CONTAINER COSTS 3 ESTIMATES, Y ARD WASTE LOADS ARE NOT WEIGHED.
'OCEANSIDE APPLIES UNIVERSAL AND ALLOWS WRITTEN EXEMPTIONS WIPROOF IN JANUARY ONLY.
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item '/3,-8
Meeting Date 8/16/94
TITLE:
PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Rate Changes to Residential
Curbside Recycling Services For Single Family Households
SUBMITTED BY:
RESOLUTION 1,C.z.o Approving Rate Schedules for Residential Curbside
Recycling Services
Cv
Deputy City Manager KremjJl
Conservation Coordinator ~\il\
REVIEWED BY: City Manager} (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX)
The rates for single-family households' curbside recycling services have not been reviewed in
two years since the only change to the overall refuse and recycling rate during that time has
been to pass through the increased cost of County landfill tip fees, Chula Vista Municipal Code
8,23,210 provides for specific rate review procedures for this program which allow for certain
estimated revenues to be applied to the program costs, with adjustments for comparisons for
estimated to actual costs to be made periodically,
In accordance with those procedures, the successful participation of residents and the increasing
avoided landfill costs now result in a recommended reduction to the single-family rate from
$1.10 to $,50 per month and corresponding reductions for senior citizens from $,75 to $.35
month,
RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution changing rates for single-family household
curbside recycling services effective 9/1/94 or at the same time as a change in rates for the yard
waste recycling program.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
The City has done its best to explain to residential refuse/recycling rate payers that the
substantial rate increases that they have recently experienced are a result of the County's solid
waste operations and are neither controlled by, nor benefit, the City or Laidlaw.
The City does, however, control and manage the development and implementation of residential
recycling, yard waste and refuse collection services. Approximately three and a half years ago
the City implemented a single family residential curbside program, The City Council's
decision to move forward on a program, the efficient and effective design and implementation of
the program, and the participation of rate payers have combined to provide the opportunity to
reduce rates at this time.
\~&-I
Page 2, Item 138
Meeting Date 8/16/94
Rate Structure
The recommended rate reduction can be attributed primarily to the rate structure established at the
commencement of the program in 1991 and illustrated in Attachment A. The operating costs of the
program are reduced by the following estimates:
o Material sales- the value to be paid in the marketplace for all materials collected at the
curbside;
o Landfill diversion- the avoided cost of sending the collected materials to the marketplace
rather than the landfill; and
o Program ll"rants- full value applied for any grants received specifically for the purpose
of reducing operational costs.
After the first year of operation, and at each rate review period thereafter, the estimated amounts
described above were compared to actual amounts and a resulting adjustment ("rate
shortfall/overage") was derived. As this process continues, the rate structure provides residents
with a mechanism that:
o Puts all of the revenues from material sales back into the program to partially defray
the operating expenses;
o Defrays expenses even more by giving credit for participation-- as the tonnage
collected goes up, and landfill costs increase, this diversion credit increases; and
o Allows credit for a County grant received four years ago for capital investment
(truck) to continue to be allocated until the amortization period is complete.
Following this rate structure, the base unit rate is recommended to change from $1.21 per month
per household to $ .93 per month. With adjustments, i.e. comparisons of the last period's
estimated to actuals, the final rate is recommended to change from $1.10 per month per household
to $ .50 per month.
In 1991, the City also made provisions for a senior citizen discount of 35% of the determined base
unit rate. Using this formula, the senior citizen rate will decrease from $ .75 per month to $. 35
per month if the staff recommendation is approved.
1~~-2..
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 8/16/94
Conclusion
The ability of the City and Laidlaw to continue to lower recycling and refuse rates will depend
primarily on the increased participation of all citizens in the current source reduction and recycling
programs. One way to increase the opportunity for participation and diversion tonnage is to expand
the target list of recyclable materials. Adding materials to existing programs in the future will often
require a reinvestment of program savings, however, that reinvestment can pay substantial
dividends in the form of even lower refuse and recycling rates for the rate payer, and greater
enviromnental benefit for the entire City.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If accepted, the staff recommendation will lower rates $.60 for approximately 26,000 single family
homes, duplexes and tri-plexes in the City of Chula Vista. That portion of the solid waste system
that the City can control: the collection and marketing of recyclables and the collection of refuse
can continue to be reduced annually, if the diversion efforts of residents increase and programs
expand to include additional recycling and source reduction opportunities.
Current rate (refuse $15.07 and recycling $1.10, effective 7/1194)
Yard waste (effective 9/1I94-if approved under item # llJ!.J.
Subtotal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$16.17
.1.48
. 17.65
Projected rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Less recommended curbside recycling rate reduction (effective 9/1194)
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$17.65
<.60>
$17.05
mtm:c
curb$94.cas
Attachment
13B-~
Attachement "A"
g081!!8S8
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS INC.
July 19, 1994
Stephanie Popek Snyder
Principal Management Assistant
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, Ca 91910
Dear Stephanie:
Enclosed are the revised Curbside Recycling Schedules. As requested the CPI
Adjustment has been removed from the rates. The Material Sales and Landfill
Diversion adjustments have been updated to reflect actual results as follows:
Material Sales
Landfill Diversion
Actual 9 month average (5/93 - 01/94)
Actual 7 month average (5/93 - 11/93)
In addition, the Franchise Fee Component has not been changed although the
customer charge rate will decrease. It has been left as a constant component of the
rate in order to reflect Council's direction that franchise amounts not change.
After your review of the proposed rates, please let me know if additional information
is needed.
4~
Daniel P. Higgins
Market Area Controller
DPH/mc
cc: G. Krempl
M. Meacham
J. Weaver
8364 CLAIREMONT MESA BL VD . SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92111 (b191278-6061 FAX (6191 278-7528
\~B. '-I
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT RATES
FOR THE FORTY ONE MONTHS ENDED: JUNE 3D, 1994
YEAR 4 RATE EFFECTIVE 7 -1 - 94
7 IQ ~~
FILE: CVREC794
YEAR
3
RATE
I----~-----
I RATE
MODIFICATIONS!
BASE RATE I
ADJ
r-YE:R I
RATE
RATE BASIS
. COST COMPONENTS:
>_______ __ ... ___~__. ....__~_.._.__.. "M___ _
OPERATING COSTS $1 _68
'~~:~~H~~~~:;ION~~--_~=j ~_ ~=-;~:~~
rl-----TOTAL_RECYCLlNG RATE - -: 1- $188
RATE SOURCE:
MA TERIAL SALES
LANDFILL DIVERSION
r----------_'.________________
PROGRAM GRANTS
i--
I sAsTuN Ir" RATE r:::1J.?U
I_RJ\JI:_SJ1 ORTF A L},.L{ 0 VE flJA ~~~L__ ___
U.1i\TERIA~SALES___n__ f-- _ (Q.03)
I LAN[)i'LL DIVERSIO~______J L_J!<l.QI3J
I
I CUSTOMER CHARGE RATE [::JI.joi
SENIOR CITIZEN RATE_[oo$o.isll
$1.68 I
-----'--j
$O.llJ
$0.09 i FIXEO RATE COMPONENT
$1.881
[ ($0.28)j'
I ($0.37)
l=~-X$O.(2)1
($0.02
(~0.27
$0.00
1HJm
ACTUAl9 MOS AVO RATE 1~193 1/1/41
ACTUAL 7 MOS AVO RATE (5/\13 110'1/31
PROGRAM GRANTS
($0.28)'
I-
I
$0.925 VR 4 WtTHOUTPRIOR YEAR ADJ
L~O.o~~
($0.39211
RATE (OVERAGE) ADJUSTMENT
RATE (OVEAAGE) ADJUSTMENT
li- - $0.(;0.'
YEAR 4 BilLING RATE
--~~-~~-~:~.t_~??o SENIOR DISCQUN!.
\~&-S
r.'".,",
FILECVF>EC7P
RECYCLING CONTAACT ACCOUNTING
MONTH
COLUMN
FEBRUARY 1991
MARCH. 1991
APRil. 1991
MAY 1991
JUNE,1991
JULY. 1991
AUGUST 1991
SEPTEMBER. 1991
OCTOBER. 1991
NOVEMBER. 1991
DECEMBER. 1991
JANUARY, 1992
FEBRUARY, 1992
MARCH,1992
APRIL. 1992
# UNITS
''I
22,831'
22.831
24.331
24.331
24.331
24.331
24,331
24,331
24.487
24.487
24.487
23,329
23.329
23,329
24.657,
MAY 1992 24,657
JUNE 1992 24.657
* 17 MONTH TOTALS:
-
JULY 1992
AUGUST 1992
SEPTEMBER ~992
OCTOBER 1992
NOVEMBER 199?
DECEMBER ~992
JANUARY, 1993
FEBRlJARY, 1993
MA.RC:" 199.~
APRi~ 1993
MAY, 1993
JUNE 1993
JULY 1993
.4.UGUST,1993
SEPTEMBE" 1993
OCTOBER,1993
NOVEMBER. 1993
DECEMBER 1993
JANUARY. 1994
FEBRUARY 1994
MARCH \994
()J
rP
I
6""
24.657
24.657
24.657
25.895
25.895
25895
25.781
25.781
25,781
25.928
25,928
25,928
26199
26,199
26,199
26,033
26,033
26,033
26,035'
26.035;
26.035
APRil :994 26.112
MAY 1994E5T 26,112
JUNE 1994E5T 26,112
'* 24 MONTH TOTALS:
CONTRACT
REVENUE
IBI.
9'3240
913240
973240
9.13240
973240
9.73240
9.73240
9,73240
9.79480
979480
979480
933160
9.33160
933160
9,86280
9,86280
9,86280
$16352680
? 903~6
5,90396
590396
725060
725060
/25060
121868
121868
! 21858
'ZS984
T2S984
725984
733572
733572
7,33572
728924
T26924
7.28924
7.28980
728980
7.28980
;31136
131136
T,31136
$173.57760
** 41 MONTH TOTALS: f $337,20440
PER SUB-
UNIT CONTRACT
~-~!._-
0,40 3,00000
0.40 3,000.00
0.40 3,000.00
0.40 3,000.00
040 3.000.00
040 3.000.00
040 3.000.00
0.40 3,00000
040 3,00000
040 3.00000
040 3000.00
0.40 3.000.00
0.40 3000.00
040 3.000.00
0.40 3.00000
040 3.00000
0.40 3.000,00
$5100000
028
028
028
028
028
028
0.28
028
0.28
J.28
'28
028
028
028
CU8
028
028
0.28
0.28
028
028
028
028
0.28
3.00000
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,00000
3 000 DC
3,00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.000.00
300000
3.00000
3,00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
3.00000
300000
3.00000
.-----
$7200000
CllY OF CHULA YISTA
RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING CONTRACT ANALYSIS
FOR THE FORTY ONE MONTHS ENDED: JUNE 30. 1994
PROCEEDS
NET YEAR 2 & 3
COMMINGUNG SHORTFALl} RATE REVIEW
ADJUSTMENT (OVERAGE) ADJUSTMENT
10)
(1168738)
(10.302.95)
(21,757.96)
(20,585.07)
(15,73673)
(13,834.11)
(14.90115)
(11.662.80)
(12.720.13)
(11.14312)
(12.16135)
(9.47665)
(8.85994)
(9.48009)
(11.549.07)
18.31187}
_.\2.0980.19)
($21515056)
(16,30118)
(11.74621)
(11.73512)
(11.04842)
(1123058)
'(08734)
',1193640)
1776863)
(1093011)
(100:;222)
759' 91)
(821377)
18184 39}
(8.27104)
(920503)
{8,82315}
(1044494)
(12,34265)
(12.08581)
(11-18379)
(1167483)
(1123770)
(11.23770)
(11.237.70)
($25455062)
---.l~
(1.38936)
(115123\
(1.31013)
(1.27912)
(1.25526)
(1.259.85)
(1.20509)
(1.371.00)
(1,557.23)
(1,41110)
(1,174.84)
(1.56435)
(140962)
(1.54972)
(1.538022.
($20,425.92)
sooo
I~~C+D+E] .
445.02
1.82945
(9,025,56):
(7,85267)1
(3,004.33),
(1,101,71)!
(2,166.75):
1.069.60 '
74.67
1.651.68
633.45'
2.854.95
3.471.66;
2.85151
1.313.73
4.550.93
1.88261
($523.76)
NET RATE SHORTFALLJ(OYERAGE) TO DATE:
NET RATE SHORTFALLJ(OYERAGE) TO DATE PER UNIT:
YEAR 4 RATE ADJUSTMENT PER UNIT (OYER 12 MONTHS):
YEAR 4 MONTHLY BASE RATES:
(6.397.22)!
(1.842.25)!
(1.831.16)!
(79782)!
(979.98~
16326
(1.717.72)'
2,4S005
(71143}
(1.16174)
, 516.70
735.94
87221
809.42'
(129.16}
261.00;
(1.52670)
(3,610.64}i
(3,20711}i
(2,068.83)!
(2.949,38)!
(2,33596)!
(2.476.06)
__._@.~~~.!.!51
($29,3ge.94)
i~~o~_~OO_ _ ($469,701 i8jnS20,425jJtJ~~~_~}_0~j
He, .O.~.!)IAJ
($050)
($523.76)1
739.71
739.71
73971
77685
77685
77685
77343
77343
77343
777.84
77784
77784
78597
78597
785.97
78099
78099
78099
781.05
781.05
78105
,
78336
783.36
783.36;
I
. .'- -\ ~--
$18,07jf4Jj !l__
(C,
YEAR .
RATE REVIEW
ADJUSTMENT
'0'
CONTRACT
REVENUE
__.Lt!L._
4.56620
4.56620
4,866.20
4,86620
4,86620
4.66620
4.86620
4.86620
4,897.40
4.89740
4,69740
4.66580
4,66560
4.66580
4.93140
4.931.40
4,93140
$81.81340
912309
9.12309
912309
9.58115
9S81!:>
958'1:;
953897
9.538.97
90.3897
9.0.9330
859336
959336
9.69363
9.69363
9,69363
9,63221
9.63221
963221
9.632.95
9.63295
963295
966144
966144
9.66144
($29,398.94~ $229.37040
I
($29,398,94~i cr31=1'.~~:3'89]'
IF+G]
!1($11,325.10~
r . ($0.43],
r '-l$if.04j.
PER
UNIT ACTUAL
!~!~] It]
020 (4.62096)
020 (4,07356)
0.20 (5,649,68)
0.20 (5,345.12)
0.20 (4.975.56)
0.20 (7,071.35)
0.20 (7.252.S9)
0.20 (708653)
0.20 (7.82736)
0.20 (7.35517)
0.20 (8,25125)
0.20 (7,466.26)
020 (7.076.48)
020 (8,69998)
0.20 (9.571.91)
020 (8.915.72)
0.20----.i~.??1.62}
($120.46312)
037
037
0.37
0.37
037
0.37
0.37
0.37
037
037
0.37
0,37
037
0,37
0.37
0.37
037
0.37
037
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
037
(8,965.17)
(11.20000)
[10,87492)
(10.916.36)
(12.477 64)
(11,36530'
(11.38452)
(10.64000\
(12.83492)
(12,24608)
(11.0205;:)
(12.65656)
(18.14256)
(18,75230)
(18,86668)
(17,72331)
(19,63S9S1
(22,50534)
(17,55647)
(17,39608)
(20,60302)
(16,02259\
(18.72736)
(1~~?? .~t:iL
(5363,261071
NET
SHORTFALl}
(OVERAGE)
II!.:..~-
(54.76)
492.62
(78348);
(47892):
(109.36):
(2,205,15);
(2,386.39)1
(2.220.33)!
(2.929.96):
(2,457,77):
(3.353.85)1
(2.80046)'
(2.41268)'
(4,034.18),
{4,640.51j'
(3.984.32):
_(4,290,22),
($36,649.72)
157.92'
(2,076.91):
(1,751.83)!
(1,335.21):
(2,89649)
(1804.21)'
(1.845.55):
(1,101.03)1 !
(329595):
(2652.72),
(1.42716):
(3.063.20)j
(8.448.93)j
(9,058.67)!
(9,173.05)1
(8.091.10)!
(10,003.74)!
(12,873.13)1
(7.923:52)1
(7.763.13)!
(10.970.07)1 ,
(8.361 15)1 I
(9.065.92)!
~,?~5.9.~}1
($133,e90.67)
YEAR 2&3
RATE REVIEW
ADJUSTMENT
'"'
I ($38,649.72)
1.97256
1,972 56
1.97256
207160
2.0716U
2.07~ 60
2.06248
2.062.48
2.052.48
2,07424
2,Q742<1
2,07424
2.09592
2.09592
2.09592
2,08264
2.08264
2,082.64
2.08280
2.08280
2082.80
2.08896
208896
2.08896
YEAR 4
RATE REVIEW
ADJUSTMENT
'"
($133'690~6
$;O~943.8~) L_lS'.;'3:t89067l
,----, _.----,---
lJ+KI
..'.~~22~
. .71
_c-=-~~!!1
!_~",{~~463,724.19j~. ~!Z~~,,42:~~1 t
_lV.AI
-($0.64)
RESOLUTION NO.
17J,~O
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING RATE SCHEDULE FOR
RESIDENTIAL CURB RECYCLING SERVICES
WHEREAS, the rates for single-family household's curbside
recycling services have not been reviewed in two years since the
only change to the overall refuse and recycling rate during that
time has been to pass through the increased cost of County landfill
tip fees; and
WHEREAS, Chula vista Municipal Code 8.23.210 provides for
specific rate review procedures for this program which allow for
certain estimates revenues to be applied to the program costs, with
adjustments for comparisons of estimates to actual costs to be made
periodically; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with those procedures, the
successful participation of residents and the increasing avoided
landfill costs now result in a recommended reduction to the single-
family rate from $1.10 per month to $.50 per month and
corresponding reductions for senior citizens from $.75 to $.35 per
month.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the
City of Chula vista does hereby approve the rate schedule of $.50
per month for single-family residential curbside recycling services
and $.35 per month for senior citizens for residenti curbside
recycling services effective 9/1/94.
George Krempl, Deputy City
Manager
Bruce M.
Attorney
city'
Presented by
t
C:\rs\recycle.red
13{J-i