Web facilitator's note: A series of letters exchanged between Dex and Mark Loughmiller of ACRC regarding Dex's comments printed in his campaign interview for the Times-Standard the same day. Mark's text is in plain mode, Dex's intersperced statements are in bold.
From: "Mark Loughmiller" <markl@arcatarecycling.org>
To: "'Chris Andersen'" <jeffersonzuma2@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Recycling Costs, Total Pickup Costs, Garbage Contracts,
Public Discussion
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 21:39:53 -0700
Dex:
Sorry I did not get back to you immediately but I've had a few hectic days. I'm finally getting a chance to respond to your questions.
I have responded to most, if not all your questions below.
I have inserted my responses in italics following your specific
query. Again,
give me a call and I'd be happy to give a tour, sit down and answer
any additional questions.
Mark Loughmiller
>From: "Dex Anderson" <jeffersonzuma2@hotmail.com>
>To: markl@arcatarecycling.org
>CC: news@arcataeye.com,
jeffersonzuma2@hotmail.com,
>jfaulk@times-standard.com
>Subject: Re: Times Standard article
>Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:38:09 +0000
>
>Yes, indeed...I haven't read the Times-Standard article yet,
and I'm
>sharing this from Mark Loughmiller. It is the $850/ton figure
that I got
>and I need to check on facts with Mr. Loughmiller. I don't
quite
>understand the abstracted figures re ACRC per this Mark's
letter (yet). I
>would like to compare it to other Recycling Center costs.
I will
>definitely meet with Mark one way or another. The challenge
here is
>checking on the figures that anyone gives me. Even checking
on the books'
>accounts does not guarantee accuracy relative to what actually
was paid and
>to whom. I will clarify my "facts" and statements,
yes, but even if these
>are efficient costs I am troubled by the limitations on what
is recycled,
>such as brown paper bags. Though Mr. Dubrow told me that "humility
doesn't
>win elections", I know I have a lot to learn...but I
already know a lot.
>What I want to get straight is the corporate relationship
of ACRC to the
>City, and closer to assurance that the figure flows are true,
that the
>labor is paid fairly, and that all the monies are actually
accounted for.
>I know this is an infinity regards assurance...but is the
only way to run a
>Government. Most of the public is not clear about it either,
so I am a
>learner-teacher too. The bottom line is that "an audit"
such as debated re
>Blue Lake does not prove shadooby because we all still have
not related
>actual occurrences with the figures that are "audited".
And if there is
>"conspiracy" do we expect the auditor hired to not
want to stay in
>business? All that being said, I want to be educated about
what is
>actually happenig with ACRC and will revise my views...though
I am very
>skeptical of figures relative to what we haven't actually
witnessed. But
>particularly re the Costs/Ton figures on the books I will
gladly revise
>what I say/write and I'm glad that there was feedback before
more
>publicity. I/we don't get feedback from Council, and it takes
time to deal
>with these matters, of course, so this is the course that
is ocurring. If
>we had "Participatory Council" this stuff would
come to public light before
>a Times-Standard article. And as per the Garbage Contract,
>well...something stinks, and why can't that contract be revised
by people
>of good faith? Or is it "Losers-Weepers" as long
as most of the people are
>too busy? Mark, I'll get back to you.
>
>Dex
>
>*******************************************************************
From: "Mark Loughmiller" <markl@arcatarecycling.org>
To: <jeffersonzuma2@hotmail.com>
Subject: Times Standard article
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:00:50 -0700
Good morning Dex:
I read your interview in the Times Standard printed today (Monday,
Sept 30) where you reference ACRC and its Contract with the City
of Arcata. You state that you believe our costs are the highest
per ton costs in the state. ACRC costs to the City of Arcata are
$67.39 per ton for 49.8% of the materials delivered to our 9th
street drop-off facility and $119.64 per ton for materials delivered
to our processing facility on 10th street (ie. curbside). If you
calculate the 9th Street payments based on all tonnage handled
at 9th Street the cost per ton is approximately $33.69 per ton.
Payments for processing all materials accepted at 9th Street average
just under $60 per ton.
{Dex: How can all tonnage handled at 9th Street be less than the $67.39/ton for 49.8% of the materials delivered to our 9th St. drop-off facility {{is this after the extra fees paid through the Garbage Co.? Which is also a private(?) monopoly?}
ACRC is hardly a monopoly. Residents have many choices for recycling in the area. Granted, they would have to go to Eureka, McKinleyville, or Fortuna but there is a choice. ACRC is a non-profit with a volunteer Board of Directors.
ACRC's contract was structured so that the City only paid for materials delivered by Arcata Residents. There was apparently much discussion on what the percentage of tonnage delivered by Arcata residents to 9th street was. Our contract called for a subsequent survey to better determine the volumes delivered by Arcata residents (and allow more accurate payments). The survey showed that approximately 70% of the tonnage delivered to our drop-off originates in Arcata. To date, no adjustments have been made to address this correction. My personal view is that payments should be calculated over the total tonnage handled (ignoring the origination factor). If that is done the payment ACRC receives per ton is slightly less than half the $67.39 per ton rate - or approximately $33.69 per ton. The same calculation occurs on processing payments. There are two views - a lower per ton rate calculated over all tonnage or a higher rate calculated over an arbitrary percentage of volumes handled. I know it is confusing and it took me some time to understand the structure myself (I inherited the Contract).
{Is it true that Arcata is the only place in Humboldt County that residents are charged extra fees to have their recyclables picked up too?}
I believe Eureka residents pay an additional fee for curbside
service. I do not know the monthly amount. People in any community
providing curbside collection pay for curbside service. The majority
of communities build the fee into the garbage rate. For example,
the
community I moved from (in Illinois) had a garbage rate of $9.00
per month. When curbside was offered garbage rates increase to
$13.00 per month. There was no breakout for recycling so in time
people came to believe that garbage was $13 per month and recycling
was free. The reality was that garbage was $9 per month and recycling
was $4 per month. By structuring this way, every household paid
$4 per month for recycling whether they participated or not. Most
bids for garbage and recycling ask for one price for the combined
service creating the illusion that recycling is free.
{How does this equate, if the costs would be the same per resident (charged) if "he" just dumped it all?}
Charges would not be the same. I put out one garbage can every six weeks or so and pay $5.60 to pick up that can of garbage. If I trashed it all and turned my back on composting I would then require weekly service. That would increase my garbage costs to $33.60 for that same six week period. Even paying $4 per month for recycling would only ad $6 to my $5.60 can charge for the six week period. This totals $11.60 in costs as compared to $33.60 for trashing it all.
{And if this is just because the amoung of unrecycled "garbage" was overestimated, why doesn't the contract there stipulate a rate per ton payment to the Garbage Co.?}
I do not know the answer to this question. I have a hard time
understanding why the curbside service provider was paid a flat
rate and
the contract with ACRC is per ton. In effect, this creates a performance
based contract for ACRC and a contract that becomes more
lucrative the less tonnage the garbage company picks up. The sensible
thing, to me, would have been to pay the garbage company a per
ton fee.
{Who/Why was this type of open-ended contract wrote and voted for by Council? Is it true that there was an automatic cost-of living ("average" as per the Federal Reserve's public sector outlet figures) for the Garbage, or am I confusing this with Sewer rates, which at the moment I think I am?.}
I believe the garbage company's contract does have a cost of living provision. These provisions are usually based on an adjustment equal to the percentage increase in the CPI Index. The contract was entered into before my arrival in 2000 so I am unclear on the evolution of Arcata Garbage's contract. I must rely on my Board of Director's for their view of the negotiation of the ACRC contract (expires June 30, 2004 and entered July 1, 1997).
{Think of me as a Citizen who doesn't believe anything he's
told by G. but is perspicacious and whom you all need to show
if not prove you are doing things efficiently, honestly, with
all figures/accounts available and verifiable as best we can...especially
in this day of overt surveillance of citizens in their private
lives because of....(1)crime, (2)terrorism, (3)somebodys' fear
that "we" are behaving like the G.'s do in their secret
dealings...except that the Gs' are performing public duties and
should be surveilled. We won't get into computer system manipulation,
etc. in this note.). So we're given the approx. $33.69/ton figure:
Since this is the lowest figure so far there must be a hidden
subsidy in there. What is it? ....So 10th Street is $119.64 (curbside)
which I rationalize must include the trans pickup maintenance
and worker wage costs, etc.
This may be true, or whatever, but if I'm Joe Blow 6-pack and
I hear this stuff I will probably not understand it and thus I
can (1)Take it on good faith (which would be utterly foolish in
the best of Governments, not to mention the "norm" as
is generally nation-wide, and to my mind is nearly...well we won't
get into definitions here), (2)I can question authorities and
be told that since I do not understand technical matters of Government
on any level I can take my principles and shove them, and let
those "with experience" just continue as is (and that
is unacceptable to me because the general status quo of performance
of principle reeks, as when C.
Stewart couldn't understand why Jack Golden had any issue
with the City about his deal...hey, except for the principle of
the matter, etc.?}
ACRC's payment is not a subsidy. The payment is a per ton payment
for services related to handling residents discards (a contract).
This is no different than the paving company that is awarded a
contract to resurface City streets. If you believe the company
doing repaving is
subsidized for their work then I would be hard pressed to make
my argument with you and we would have to agree to disagree. The
cost of handling a ton of recyclables delivered to ACRC is in
excess of $100. 80% of ACRC's revenue comes from sources other
than the City of Arcata Contract (sale of materials, thrift store
operations, deconstruction of buildings slated for demolition,
etc.). If the City did not have this contract with ACRC we would
likely be a buyback with one employee paying for cans and bottles.
We would not handle money losing materials such as plastics, tin
cans, and in down market times we would likely suspend acceptance
of newspaper, junk mail, etc.
{Well now I have this, and you can see how far this discussion is allowed to continue at Council with some uppity Citizen who "needs to understand..."}
The cost of garbage to Arcata residents is approaching $300 per ton (picked up from the curb). It is very doubtful that ACRC's per ton costs are the highest per ton recycling costs in the State of California. One does not have to travel far to find a system that was capitalized at a cost of over $6 million dollars and only handles 2.5 times more tonnage than ACRC. This system is municipally operated by the City of Redding.
{Dex: What are the comparative rates of Arcata and Redding? Are you implying that Redding's is higher, and that is because they handle 2.5 times more tonnage and was capitalized at $6M? I don't offhand see a difference in efficiency ergonomics in rate per ton, but probably the larger Redding would have less infrastructure such as building space and trucks, etc., so therefore, your ACRC is more efficient at the point you seem to be making there.}
Actually, I was just referring to the cost for the City of
Redding to handle recycling. In simplest terms, our system probably
cost
approximately $400,000 to establish. A system that accepts recyclables
all placed together in one container cost in excess of $6 million
dollars (equipment only, no building). Add the building and you
approach $10 million. To capitalize this expense over 10,000 tons
per year would result in an astronomical per ton rate. Redding
owns its own landfill, requires residents to have weekly garbage
service and requires everyone to pay the rate that includes recycling
whether they participate or not. If you get a chance you should
visit Redding and get a tour, it is pretty incredible. Oh, the
downside to this system is that 30% of the "recycled"
material collected gets landfilled because it is too contaminated
(broken glass, garbage). The material that is processed is so
low grade that the City receives no money for the material that
is diverted. I think if you could run those numbers you would
be shocked at the true costs to Redding residents.
{But total Garbage is close to $300 per ton and is the fee flat regardless of how much "garbage" is to be handled? Remember there are many renters here who don't themselves handle these bills/deals.}
Garbage is volume based. Residents of single family homes pay per can and cans cannot exceed 32 gallons in size or 40 lbs in weight. Apartment units pay a rate based on the size of the dumpster and how often it is picked up.
{So compared to Garbage it looks like we're getting a pretty good deal...but that is compared to....what? Since you then state:}
On the off chance that you are confusing ACRC's contract with Arcata Garbage's contract for curbside collection I would ask that you direct your questions and statements to Mr. Rick Fusi at Arcata Garbage. The Arcata Garbage contract for collecting curbside recycling is a flat rate contract that pencils out to approximately $850 per ton for picking up materials at the curb.
{Well, This may be the crux of the problem here that is running the "rumor circuit", like that nasty "night life" issue that sends poor Ms. Stewart sneering at me. I'll set aside the problem that we the people still don't know what is actually going on for sure, and assume that you are doing an honest job. Why is that contract $850 per ton for picking up materials at the curb, especially since all these materials are salvageable for income to whomever then "owns" the stuff, whether it is officially recycled or not?}
The $850 per ton figure is what it is due to Arcata Garbage's flat rate contract ($160,000 per year) and the fact that they pick up an average of 15 Tons per month or 180 tons per year. The math equates to $888.88 per ton at that level of service. I assume that when the contract was done the City and Arcata Garbage estimated collecting 10 times the volume that they actually pick up. If that was the case then the per ton rate would be $88.88 per ton. The City was probably counting on much larger volumes based on curbside statistics in urban areas where: residents are required to have weekly garbage service (no self-haul); residents do not have access to a drop-off or redemption center; and 90% of the residents place recyclables at the curb on a regular basis. This does not describe Arcata or any other Humboldt County community.
{Perhaps you're right and I should take the main shot at this "Arcata Garbage" and discover what "it" all owns, if it is totally local, blind coroporate interlocks, etc. Say I'm sitting up there atCouncil and I ask you "What have you said and done about this larger deal you're involved with? You have an executive position with ACRC and this surfer dude is up here wanting to know about "the highest costs/ton in the State", and you say "not us", talk to Mr. Rick Fusi".....And surfer dude asks the total Council and Hauser and Diamond et al "How the hell did you agree to a flat rate instead of reasonable profit based on actual work?"
That is IF we get this "Participatory Council" form to do this discussion in public. "Furthermore, why isn't all the garbage being sorted somewhere? Or is it? Or is it just going into the landfill? Or is it actually being exploited? Because I've heard and read these "stories" about the "garbage mafias" like Frisco from these old-timers and I've experienced this personally in my jobs. And seen what happens to "whistle-blowers".}
This contract is excessive in that it assumed much higher curbside tonnage (that would have resulted in a much lower per ton rate). The article states that you have dedicated your life to researching facts. I encourage you to follow this path and research issues such as ACRC's recycling contract prior to making public statements that can not be backed with facts and figures.
{No, the best way to get feedback is to make these public statements because then you have witnesses to your "interviews". I did some investigating about the election computer system with Mr. Lindsey McWilliams with personal interview, but how much of it did you hear about? Not much huh?}
Web facilitator's note: The same "figures" that Carl Pellatz claims are buried?
Good point - Sometimes I tire of explaining to folks that we are not part of Arcata Garbage, have no part of curbside collection, etc. The problem I combat is that no one says "We need to look into Arcata Garbage's contract because their recycling costs are the highest in the State". The default is to assume it is ACRC and then I have to discuss a contract that exists with another entity (I tend to refer folks to Rick because I do not necessarily understand all the terms of his contract or the history of its development).
{This is called "Discovery" and the norm is that one is ignored when one questions things in public, and making the mistake I might have done, which I am humble enough to admit to if it is, about confusing the total Pickup costs...... (the highest in the State at $8_50 now? A source said that Pellatz's article in the Eye 3 years ago quoted $650/ton. Why has it gone up?}
It has gone up because less tonnage is being collected at the
curb. Carl simply
used tonnage collected three years ago and divided into
$160,000. I also believe that Carl
also implied these payments were made to ACRC as opposed to Arcata
Garbage.
{Beyond your particular office, have you been squaking about it?}
Yes.
{This certainly seems to be a problem for the Status Quo (those with experience ((ha!)), and the ones we don't hear making these kinds of interesting public "mistakes").) ......with just the ACRC portion which is still a hidden variable, then I will admit to being in error. But it was an error that gave you and I the opportunity to discover what is happening, and we learn from constructive errors. I'm glad I made the mistake, if it is as you say, etc. And now I can relate what I think is more accurate now. But you know, now you have a taste of how I feel when I get the possums' ass routine from the City Council and their Bureaucrats, and I am not able to confront that in the same round...oh, or some future 11pm "oral communications"? while there are zillion other things too? As a Councilhuman I will admit "mistakes". But if this was done "privately" first, would there be as much public interest in it? But perhaps I've damaged your reputation?....Well don't feel like the Lone Ranger, 'cause we don't get to hear what I have when it comes to my sides of the stories that others also have....which are fobbed off as just so much "conspiracy theory" or whatever. What have you done to change the system so that when I bring up Controlled Election Computer Systems, or Chemtrails, or Oxygenating the water supply, or, gasp, Fluoridation, and/or whatever, I am not just ignored as a wacko without further public discourse to challenge the repression and bigotry that enforces the Censorship Circle?}
I do not feel our reputation is damaged by your statements.
I agree that the press can be a good way to bring out the facts
but as you've
discovered by the length of my responses this is not simply explained
in a format appreciated by the news media. It would be nice if
the situation could be explained in depth to the public - and
with enough info for all residents to make informed opinions.
I am always glad to get a chance to bring understanding of ACRC's contracts and
operations to anyone that inquires. I have an open door/open books
policy since nothing is ever gained by hiding the truth - good
or ugly.
I would be happy to meet with you to answer any questions you might have about ACRC's contract with the City of Arcata, ACRC's costs of doing business and any other questions that you might have about our operation.
{It would be nice to do with an APEG video interview...but that's another problem that hasn't seen adequate public understanding for some strange coincidence}
It is important to me that residents of Arcata (who care about the issue) understand the level of payments received at ACRC from the City. It has not been uncommon for residents to believe that ACRC is receiving large per ton payments for handling recyclables. As indicated above the payments are not excessive, are well below the cost of handling the same materials as garbage, {compared to garbage}and are fair and reasonable with regard to the levels of service provided Arcata residents.
{Why isn't Recycling included in The Garbage Pickup Bill?
Why do we charge good citizenship more? Is it true that no other
place in Humboldt County is charged extra for Recycling Responsibility?}
Please feel free to contact me to schedule a meeting. I can be
contacted directly at 822.4542 extension 12 and am generally in
my office from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday through Friday. I look
forward to hearing from you in the future.
{Is it true that there were signs supporting Farmer and Lewis in the windows of ACRC buildings (Web facilitator's note: Actually, Arcata Garbage Co.)? Why would those signs be there, IF that is true?}
No! First, employees tend to keep their own politics to themselves.
We have 26 employees with many different political viewpoints
and that would definitely cause internal strife. People are free
to express their political opinions but ACRC
does not allow political signage on property. We are here to provide
a service to the community and I would not want someone uncomfortable
with recycling because a political sign appeared on our property.
Employees are free to post signs at home, not here.
Mark Loughmiller
Executive Director
Arcata Community Recycling
Center
1380 Ninth Street
Arcata, CA 95521
707.822.4542 xt 12
You gotta give me credit, at least I've warned you about the "ugly rumors" going around some circles about the exploitation of our desire to conserve and heal the planet. For Connie Stewart it seemed to have been an ugly shock....I can't imagine why.
Go back to Dex Anderson, INDEPENDENT candidate for Arcata City Council in 2002 main page.