Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF COLTON <br />INTEROFFICE MEMOR.ANDUM <br />�, ..� :� s '�' � �°°' <br />� �+��•� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT <br />au� �! '' �qq� <br />TO: BILL WINTERS, DATE:August 2, 1994 <br />INTERIM CITY MANAGER <br />FROM: John C. Hutton, <br />Public Works Director <br />SUBJECT: ANALYSIS COMPARING CITY VS PRIVATE SANITATION REVENUES <br />GENER.ATED TO THE GENER.AL FUND <br />I have prepared based upon the same fiscal year a comparison of <br />Revenues generated and collected from both the City's Enterprise <br />Operation and those of the Private Haulers. <br />Please find my conclusion as follows. <br />Conclusions to results/findings of Franchised Sanitation Haulers <br />vs City Enterprise Operation, per attached exhibits A& B. <br />It is apparent that the Citys own Enterprise Operation far <br />exceeds the amount of Revenue generated to the Citys General Fund <br />and is well above the percentage established as the franchised <br />haulers �equirements of 15�. <br />Thus, comparatively it would be reasonable to conclude that 1) <br />The Citys Operation generates more revenue to the genera� fund <br />then would private haulers 2) If the Citys operation were to be <br />expanded,, then Revenues generated to the General Fund would <br />expand proportionately more than would Private Haulers, and 3) if <br />the Citys Operation were to be franchised out to the private <br />industry under the current franchise terms, a loss in revues to <br />the General Fund equal to the percentage difference would be the <br />approximate loss or 12% . <br />In-turn 12% would also be the approximate gain if totally <br />operated by the City. <br />I hope you find this information useful. <br />Attachmer.its : <br />1)Franchi.se collections for private haulers supplied by <br />Busine�s License tor FY92/93 <br />2)Budget form indicating the City Refuse Operations Expenditures <br />costs for FY 92/93 <br />