Board delays vote on Eldorado Disposal 6.36% rate request, asks for public briefing

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on July 22 paused consideration of a rate increase request from Eldorado Disposal Service, asking staff to bring a fuller legal and operational briefing and a public presentation before voting.

County staff and a third‑party consultant had presented a combined request of 6.36% that would raise residential and commercial collection and material recovery facility (MRF) rates. The increase includes a 3.62% interim-year adjustment tied to the U.S. “garbage and trash collection” consumer price index and a 2.74% surcharge to recover construction cost overruns for the new transfer station/MRF, which the consultant reported rose from an original 2014 estimate of about $12 million to roughly $38.7 million.

Why it matters: Commissioners and many residents said they understand the mechanics of the CPI adjustment but are uneasy about passing large project overrun costs to ratepayers amid household affordability pressures. The board asked county counsel to deliver an opinion on whether the board has discretion to deny the overrun portion and directed staff to prepare an information presentation next week about MRF operations, cost drivers and options to reduce impacts on ratepayers.

The case for the increase was presented by Jeff Warren, Director of Environmental Management, and Eric Nylund of Crowe (the independent rate reviewer). Crowe’s analysis described two parts of the application: the 85%‑of‑CPI interim adjustment that produced 3.62%, and an additional 2.74% requested under the franchise agreement’s “unforeseen circumstances” clause to cover actual construction cost increases that Crowe validated by invoice review and site inspection. Crowe’s report showed the latest construction estimate at about $38.7 million and said supporting documentation had been provided. The consultant also summarized that the added 2.74% was calculated using a 10‑year payback period with a 10% internal rate of return consistent with the franchise terms.

Supervisors and public commenters questioned whether the ratepayer should shoulder full responsibility for the contractor’s cost overruns. Supervisor Parlin said, “I could easily support number 1 because it follows the criteria, but I I don't think I can support number 2,” distinguishing the CPI adjustment (which follows the rate manual) from the MRF overrun charge. Other board members urged additional review of whether the county has discretion to refuse the overrun portion, and asked for a public briefing that explains why costs rose and whether alternatives exist.

Several residents said increases are already stretching household budgets. John George, speaking as a 30‑year resident, said his residential bill had risen from about $73.46 in 2021 to $98.19 today and warned that an added 6.36% would push a four‑year total increase near 31%. Chris Payne of the Taxpayers Association emphasized separating the routine CPI adjustment from the MRF capital surcharge.

Outcome and next steps: Rather than vote on the resolution before them, the board voted to continue the entire item to the next meeting and to request staff and county counsel provide a written opinion on the board’s legal discretion regarding the construction‑overrun surcharge. Staff will also schedule a public presentation next week describing MRF operations, cost drivers (including labor, materials and regulatory requirements) and possible customer options. The board asked staff to consider whether a different start time would be needed for that hearing to allow time for questions.

Public documents: The county agenda packet included the Eldorado Disposal application, Crowe’s independent review, and a table showing proposed monthly increases for typical residential and commercial service levels.

What’s next: The board expects to revisit the item the following week after the requested additional materials and presentation; no rate change took effect before the board’s next action.