Laserfiche WebLink
used in the study, and the limitations of the billing samples used and the <br /> breakdown of billing statements, backing out taxes, yard waste and carry down <br /> service (e.g. more rural or difficult pick-ups); and how the actual billing rates <br /> were significantly less and caused the report to be misleading. Mr. Stoltman <br /> further referenced interpretations and lobbying of certain Council members in the <br /> City of Maplewood and misinformation applied and the small percentage of bills <br /> used for their sampling. Mr. Stoltman noted that marketing rates vary among <br /> specific areas; however, when mixed together, their blended rates are much lower <br /> than those being reported across the board. <br /> Dialogue among Commissioners and Mr. Stoltman and DeLaforest ensued. <br /> Member Vanderwall stated that it would be helpful to have accurate information <br /> provided by haulers; and noted that even though information had been requested <br /> by the City of Roseville's Recycling Coordinator Tim Pratt on numerous <br /> occasions, haulers had responded that that information was proprietary and <br /> private based on the competitive nature of their business. Therefore, Member <br /> Vanderwall noted that it was difficult if not impossible to verify accuracy; and <br /> questioned the lack of transparency from haulers in providing sufficient data upon <br /> which to base this decision-making process, creating the need for that decision- <br /> making to be based on information available and recognizing the variables from <br /> one person to another. Member Vanderwall opined that a Roseville resident <br /> should pay the same rate no matter their location in the community, and there <br /> should be no unexplained differential in price based on the hauler's market <br /> variables. Member Vanderwall advised that this caused the Commission to <br /> determine that the current billing practice was not fair and not transparent. <br /> Mr. Stoltman questioned if this wasn't the basis for the free enterprise system. <br /> Chair DeBenedet noted that this was a consideration in the decision-making; and <br /> opined that by vendors tacking on an"environmental fee" or"tax," or"fuel <br /> surcharge" to trash bills, it led customers to believe that this was a mandated cost <br /> for haulers, when in fact it was an additional billing fee and part of doing <br /> business. Chair DeBenedet, as a former business owner, noted that it was not his <br /> practice to charge according to what he thought he could get away with. <br /> Mr. Stoltman questioned the accuracy of that interpretation, and used the Delta <br /> Airlines model as an example; noting that when a vendor charged an <br /> environmental fee or fuel surcharge to deliver, it facilitated operational costs for <br /> each hauler to cover the cost of carts, parts, landfill costs to run compactors; and <br /> in most cases were simply pass-through costs, not profits for haulers. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted that without businesses being forthcoming and willing <br /> to share information such as that, it was difficult for the Commission to know the <br /> accuracy of billings unless complaints resulted in bills being adjusted. Member <br /> Page 11 of 17 <br />