Oakland reduces food compostable collection rates

By Ken McEntee

October 7, 2015

Following angry protests from restaurant owners in Oakland, the city has lowered its commercial compost collection rates to 30 percent below the cost of picking up trash through July 2016. After that, the organics collection rate will increase to 25 percent below the waste collection rate. (See related article.)

The move reversed a situation in which the city, in July, while declaring that it wants to keep organics out of landfills, set commercial organics collection rates higher than the rate for waste collection (see Composting News, July 2015).

The new rates were part of a new 10-year contract that gives Waste Management of Alameda County a monopoly on the commercial collection of trash and compostables in the city of Oakland. The new rates coincided with the city’s launch of “Oakland Recycles,” a new zero waste program of trash, compost and recycling services with a goal to divert all compostable and recyclable material away from landfills.

Independent restaurant owners uniting under the name the name Oakland Indie Alliance, trashed the arrangement, protesting in front of City Hall.

“We are shocked by the massive compost fee increases in the contract,” Gail Lillian, owner of Liba Falafel, said at the time. “Additionally, the composting fees are set higher than trash fees, serving as a deterrent for composting.”

Lillian said, her monthly charge for organics collection more than doubled, from $225 per month to $460 per month – an increase of almost $3,000 per year. Trash collection rates increased, she said, but not nearly as much as her composting bill.

Prior to a special City Council meeting to consider revising the rates, almost 40 restaurant owners sent a letter to council that said the proposal revisions were not good enough.

“We hope that you agree that the protracted and convoluted process of writing and approving the original contract will stand as an example of how not to write a city contract for many years to come,” the letter said. “We understand this is biggest contract Oakland has ever written, and that council and city staff spent many hundreds of hours and millions of dollars to write it. Much of this effort and money was clearly wasted. Instead of writing a contract that serves the citizens and businesses of Oakland – either by providing us services we needed, or by keeping rates sustainable for services we already had – council approved a contract which has been referred to as the ‘Rolls Royce’ of contracts, with vastly increased costs being borne primarily on the backs of restaurants and multi-tenant buildings through exorbitant rates. Many of us invested in Oakland during challenging times, and hope to benefit from its resurgence. Terrible deals like this pull the rug out from under us. Oakland's independent business community will wither like it did during the early 2000 dot-com boom if you continue to ignore our needs.”

The organics collection rate adjustment to 30 percent of the waste collection rate through July 1, 2016, and 25 percent of the trash rate thereafter, the restaurateurs said, because:

• Landfill and compost rates are still the highest in the region, by far.  
• Regional compost rates for most surrounding cities are at 50 percent of landfill rates.
• Twenty-five percent is far below the norm.“We need you to do more,” the letter said. 

 “Please take the time to make this contract right.”
 
The restaurateurs called for the removal of unnecessary services from the contract with Waste Management; the re-examination of the balance of rate adjustments between the various entity types; examining the disposition of the $28 million annual franchise fee paid to the city; and bringing commercial rates in line with others in the region.
The city, however, approved its proposed rate adjustment.

Under the new program, the city admitted, commercial composting service rates charged by Waste Management “upside down – higher, in most cases, than the comparable rates for trash service, creating a disincentive for businesses to compost.”

For example, the monthly rate for collecting a 20-gallon cart of trash once a week was initially set at $27.97. The rate for the same sized cart and frequency of collection for compostables was set at $33.84 per month. Weekly collection of a seven-yard trash bin was $968.10 per month, compared to $1,109.75 for compostables.

Oakland restaurants protest food waste collection hikes

(Originally published in Composting News, July 2015)

By Ken McEntee

July 20, 2015

The city of Oakland this month began its Zero Waste initiative to keep recyclable and compostable materials out of landfills. Local restaurant owners, meanwhile, were hit with a big surprise when they got their new trash bills, which took effect on July 1.

“We are shocked by the massive compost fee increases in the contract,” said Gail Lillian, owner of Liba Falafel. “Additionally, the composting fees are set higher than trash fees, serving as a deterrent for composting.”

For example, the monthly rate for collecting a 20-gallon cart of trash once a week is $27.97. The rate for the same sized cart and frequency of collection for compostables is $33.84 per month. Weekly collection of a seven-yard trash bin is $968.10 per month, compared to $1,109.75 for compostables.

As a result of a new 10-year contract with the city of Oakland that gives Waste Management of Alameda County a monopoly on the commercial collection of trash and compostables, Lillian said, her monthly charge for organics collection more than doubled, from $225 per month to $460 per month – an increase of almost $3,000 per year. Trash collection rates increased, she said, but not nearly as much as her composting bill.

In a letter to Waste Management and to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a group of local restaurant owners said that cost advantages of composting and recycling created strong incentives to reduce landfill use, leading to different choices when shopping for supplies and ingredients to reduce waste. It makes no sense, Lillian says, especially in light of the city’s Zero Waste initiative, to make restaurants may more to separate their compostables.

Following a protest by local restaurant owners – who have formed a new group called the Oakland Indie Alliance - City Council was considering a revised proposal that would reduce rates for organics collection to 90 percent of the trash rate. Lillian called it a short term fix.

Until the new waste contract went into effect, Waste Management controlled commercial trash collection, but companies were free to contract with other vendors for recycling and composting pickups, Lillian said. Lillian and some other restaurant owners hired Recology to take their food waste. The new contact gave Waste Management a monopoly on composting as well. The contract was approved last fall, ending a suit Waste Management filed against Oakland after the city earlier awarded an exclusive collection contract to another company.

“We expected to see a rate increase with the new contract, but we didn’t expect this,” she said.

On June 10, Lillian and about 24 other restaurant owners held a press conference in protest of the new rates on the steps of Oakland City Hall. Some brought their food waste containers with them.

“The restaurants, whom have been big supporters of composting for years, are getting massive increases in this new contract,” she said. “Some of us have seen our composting rates triple. One restaurant is getting an increase of $11,000 from last year and some others say they are being charged $8,000 more.”

A boycott of composting is one response the restaurant owners could consider, Lillian said. Unfortunately, however, they could be fined under a new law that prohibits more than 10 percent recyclables or food waste in their trash bins.

On July 20, City Council held a special meeting to consider the rate revision.

“Even at 90 percent of the trash collection rate, the charge is still 30 to 40 percent of the comparable rates for surrounding cities,” Lillian said. “In addition, the revised contract would allow Waste Management, starting next year, to recoup their losses from lowering their organics collection rates this year.”

Lillian said City Council members were “furious” about the contract and showed support for the restaurant owners. But she acknowledged that council members were negligent in approving a contract that they apparently had not read.

“I do hold them responsible because they should have done their due diligence,” Lillian said. “But I am confident that they will now act on our behalf.”

As part of the contract, she said, the city required Waste Management to switch its truck fleet to use natural gas powered vehicles. To comply, she said, Waste Management had to purchase 86 new trucks for $330,000 each.

“The city should have realizes that Waste Management was going to try to raise rates to cover those costs,” Lillian said. “We expected to get a bit of an increase but this increase isn’t what we thought they signed us up for.”

The Indie Alliance was formed in March after the city passed a minimum wage of $12.25 per hour – a 36 percent increase from the previous minimum wage.

“We’re getting squeezed,” she said. “That’s why we’ve gone from seven to 70 members in the few months. First it was the high wages, then the composting rate hike. And a $15 minimum wage is coming soon.”

Calls to city officials, including Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Sean Mahar of Oakland Environmental Services, were not returned.

Seattle sued for trashing privacy rights

Originally published in Composting News, July 2015

By Ken McEntee

The city of Seattle is violating residents privacy and due process rights by requiring garbage collectors to snoop through people’s garbage as part of a new ban on throwing food and food waste into the trash, claims a lawsuit filed against the city this month. A civil rights lawsuit, Bonesteel v. City of Seattle, was filed by attorneys with the Sacramento, Calif.-based Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), on behalf of a number of Seattle residents who say their rights are violated by the new food waste ordinance.
 
“This program calls for massive and persistent snooping on the people of Seattle,” said Brian Hodges, PLF principal attorney and managing attorney with PLF’s Pacific Northwest Center in Bellevue, Wash. “This is not just objectionable as a matter of policy, it is a flagrant assault on people’s constitutional rights.”
 
The suit seeks a permanent injunction and a declaration that the snooping law is void and unenforceable because it flouts core privacy and due process guarantees.
 
Donor-supported PLF is a public-interest watchdog organization that litigates nationwide for limited government, property rights and individual rights.
 
In the lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court, PLF attorneys represent — without charge — Seattle residents Richard Bonesteel, Scott Shock, Steven Davies, Sally Oljar, Mark Elster, Greg Moon, Keli Carender and Edwin Yasukawa.
 
At issue is Seattle Ordinance No. 124582, which took effect on January 1, prohibiting residents from throwing food and compostable paper in the trash. The food waste ban requires garbage collectors to monitor the contents of garbage cans through “visual inspection” and to report residents to Seattle Public Utilities when “significant amounts” of a can’s contents (more than 10 percent) are made up of recyclables or food waste.
 
Currently, an “educational” tag is affixed to offending cans. Starting in January 2016, fines will be imposed. The law applies to single-family homes, apartments, and commercial properties.
 
“Seattle can’t place its composting goals over the privacy and due process rights of its residents,” said PLF attorney Ethan Blevins.  “This food waste ban uses trash collectors to pry through people’s garbage without a warrant, as Washington courts have long required for garbage inspections by police.”
 
Hodges added that although it is “laudable to encourage recycling and composting, the city is going about it in a way that trashes the privacy rights of each and every person in Seattle. 

The city may try to put a happy face on the program, with assurances that it’s not nosy and meddlesome, but the internal documents tell another story. Training documents call for ‘zero tolerance’ and show garbage collectors removing bags to inspect a garbage can, peering into translucent bags, and opening torn or untied bags.
 
Garbage collectors have already begun placing brightly colored tags in plain view on “offending” cans, PLF said. Starting in January 2016, fines will be imposed ($1 per offense for residents; $50 for multi-family property owners and commercial establishments). 

Although PLF said the fines are nominal amounts, two state constitutional rights are violated:
 
* Right to privacy. Article I, section 7, of the Washington Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.”  This provision offers more expansive protection than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Washington courts “jealously guard” the right to privacy, holding that people have a reasonable expectation that the contents of their garbage cans will remain private, and that the government may not search rubbish bins without a warrant.
 
“The constitution and courts of Washington recognize that the right to privacy, like the right to property, is a fundamental freedom,” said Hodges.  “Seattle city government is subverting that right by prying into people’s private affairs via their trash cans.”
 
* Right to due process. Article 1, section 3, of the Washington Constitution says, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  Yet for most alleged offenders, the food waste ban does not provide any method for challenging claims of violation.  In fact, it operates solely on the word of garbage collectors.  With one exception for repeat commercial offenders, there is no requirement for preserving evidence (such as photographs) and no opportunity for appeal.
 
“This law makes garbage collectors the judges and juries,” said Hodges.  “You’re at the mercy of their off-the-cuff estimates about the amount, or percentage, of food waste and recyclables in your garbage can.  If their subjective hunch goes against you, you get a fine and/or a brightly colored ‘shame tag’ to embarrass you in front of the public. The people of Seattle should not be treated with less respect than is due to accused criminals. In fact, the state constitution guarantees them a right to be treated fairly and with due process, and our lawsuit seeks to uphold that right.”
 
Davies, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said, “There is nothing trivial about government abridging our right to personal privacy in our homes and our daily lives. Seattle’s garbage law promotes government snooping, and that’s not just offensive, it’s a violation of constitutional protections for all Seattle residents.  The city can’t treat people’s basic rights as disposable, and I’m grateful Pacific Legal Foundation is helping us stand up for that principle.”
 
Elster, another plaintiff, added, “Social engineering of this sort leads to unnecessary and unwelcome government intrusion. Seattle’s garbage recycling program may seem well-meaning, and the inconveniences to the public might seem trivial, but there’s nothing harmless about the city attempting to coerce everyone through a program of official prying.  

We’re suing on behalf of all Seattle residents who value their privacy and other basic freedoms, because the people’s constitutional rights take precedence over the politicians’ policy preferences.”
 
More information, including the complaint, video, a blog post and a Stop City Snooping webpage, is available at www.pacificlegal.org.