Letter: Millbrae made errors

Facts:

1. City did not bid a new garbage contract as it easily could have to obtain competitive rates and resolve long standing negotiation and rate problems with South San Francisco Scavenger.

2. Public communications on garbage contract considerations and questions were never answered.

3. City claims new rate setting method is based on rate comparisons with other cities and avoids past negotiation difficulties. However, it only can respond to challenging questions by admitting rates were a negotiated package.

4. New rates are not competitive or comparable to other cities. They range from 14% to 98% higher than correct others cities' averages.

5. Some rates are 31 percent to 74 percent higher than available competitive commercial rates.

6. The new rate formula does not show how final rates are calculated and has errors.

7. Exceptions to the council approved new rate method were made without public process.

8. It is questionable that at least $400,000 of garbage disposal overcharges will be recovered.

9. Extensive public input identifying errors from not calculating rates as prescribed by the approved method, even after making undisclosed exceptions, is ignored without response or corrections.

10. The mayor refuses public request to place the errors and omission problem on Council agenda to resolve the matter.

11. Incorrect council meeting minutes addressing the matter are not corrected.

12. Informed public comment is limited by bureaucratic 3 minute rule.

13. Public records act requests for public information concerning garbage matters were improperly handled.

14. Garbage company allowed to exploit cost savings and revenue and profit enhancing actions without benefit to rate payers.

15. After restructuring rates to establish rational relationships among service levels and rates in 2002, residential rates are reduced and commercial rates are increased substantially in 2005 abandoning rationale relationships. A probable reason was to dupe the public into believing a good deal was struck and expecting commercial increases to simply be passed on to consumers.

16. Increase in 2002 rates above that required by the garbage company to set up a reserve to avoid possible later rate increases is not accounted for in the subsequent rate review.

17. Council promised interim review of 2002 rates to address the reserve noted, and that could have precluded recent difficulties, intentionally was not conducted.

18. Misleading letter sent to residents March 2005 trumpeting residential rate decreases.

19. Promises and commitments to address communications on garbage ignored and broken.

The jury in the court of public opinion must decide if: (a) The public trust was violated; (b) principles of integrity and accountability were abandoned; (c) there were lapses of good judgment and common sense; (d) the mayor and city staff acted irresponsibly in not responding to public communications and did not take appropriate action to correct errors and omissions; and, (e) if the city's is being honest in its declaration garbage rates are comparable and competitive.

Lou Sandrini

Millbrae