-5-
Procedures Performed and Findings, continued
Recycling
4. Agree total tons of recyclable materials sold during FY 2023-2024 and FY 2024-2025 in the schedule provided by EDCO to EDCO’s monthly summary of recyclable sales provided for that period. From the schedule provided, randomly select three daily recyclable totals and agree selected detail behind those totals to supporting work tickets.
We selected the months of February 2024, May 2024, January 2025. The comparison is as follows:
Tons per Sales per
EDCO Schedule Tons per EDCO Schedule Sales per
of Monthly Recycling of Monthly Recycling
Recyclable Tonnage Recyclable Tonnage
Month Sales Report Variance Sales Report Variance
February 2024 223.68 223.68 - 19,131.00 $ 19,130.75 $ 0.25 $ May 2024 260.69 260.69 - 25,150.00 25,150.11 (0.11)
January 2025 271.00 310.82 (39.82) 22,000.00 31,098.92 (9,098.92) Findings:
January 2025 showed a variance as a result of timing between the generation of the Recycling Tonnage Reports and the actual Monthly Recyclable Sales, as the Reports were generated before the end of the month and are based on estimations. Other trivial variances noted.
Within the selected months, we selected 3 line items from the scale ticket report and agreed to the scale ticket. The comparison is as follows:
Ticket Ticket Net Weight Net Weight
No. Date per Report per Scale Ticket Variance
1624805 02/02/24 343.00 342.70 0.30
1630792 02/22/24 54.00 54.40 (0.40)
1632658 02/29/24 4,740.00 4,740.00 -
1653379 05/03/24 2,680.00 2,680.00 -
1657858 05/17/24 4,660.00 4,660.00 -
1661805 05/30/24 835.00 835.20 (0.20)
1731660 01/06/25 202.00 201.60 0.40
1737914 01/24/25 5,029.00 5,029.20 (0.20)
1740222 01/31/25 1,648.00 1,648.40 (0.40)
Findings:
Rounding variances, scale ticket report does not report decimals.
-6-
Procedures Performed and Findings, continued
Recycling, continued
5. Determine whether the projected recycle sales for FY 2025-2026 and FY 2026-2027 is a reasonable amount given actual revenue generated during prior years FY 2023-2024 and FY 2024-2025. The comparison is as follows:
Total Total
Fiscal % Change Mixed % Change % Change Recyclable $ Change % Change Year ONP from PY Paper from PY Other from PY Revenues from PY from PY 20-21 13,958 -274.8% 27,202 -372.0% 320,345 53.5% 361,505 170,800 89.6% 21-22 27,377 96.1% 54,494 100.3% 389,683 21.6% 471,554 110,049 30.4% 22-23 2,982 -89.1% 7,067 -87.0% 267,340 -31.4% 277,389 (194,165) -41.2% 23-24 10,022 236.1% 27,180 284.6% 222,835 -16.6% 260,037 (17,352) -6.3% 24-25 annualized 6,501 -35.1% 30,526 12.3% 225,859 1.4% 262,886 2,849 1.1% 25-26 (estimate) 6,000 -7.7% 29,000 -5.0% 250,000 10.7% 285,000 22,114 8.4% 26-27 (estimate) 6,000 0.0% 29,000 0.0% 250,000 0.0% 285,000 - 0.0% Average $ change per year since FY 08-091 : (18,347) $
Average % change per year since FY 08-091 : -0.8%
1 Only the last five years are presented.
Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
Organics
6. Determine whether the actual and projected tons for FY 2023 - FY 2027 are reasonable by randomly selecting three months during July 1, 2023 through February 28, 2025. We selected the months of February 2024, May 2024, and January 2025. The comparison is as follows:
Green Tonnage Tonnage per
Per Monthly Monthly Detail
Month Summary Schedule Ticket Report Variance
February 2024 466.80 $ 466.79 $ 0.01 $
May 2024 670.88 670.87 0.01
January 2025 482.70 482.68 0.02
Findings:
Trivial variances were noted.
-7-
Procedures Performed and Findings, continued
Organics, continued
In addition, we assured projections are consistent with historical data. The comparison is as follows:
Total
Fiscal Residential Mean based % change % change
Year Tons on actual1 from Mean1 from PY
20-21 7,304 6,014 21.46% -6.76%
21-22 6,654 6,014 10.65% -8.90%
22-23 6,689 6,014 11.23% 0.53%
23-24 6,622 6,014 10.11% -9.34%
24-25 6,652 6,014 10.61% 0.45%
25-26 (estimate) 6,660 6,014 10.74% -0.44%
26-27 (estimate) 6,660 6,014 10.74% 0.00%
Fiscal Green Change from
Year Tons PY (tons) % Change
20-21 7,304 (530) -6.76%
21-22 6,654 (650) -8.90%
22-23 6,689 35 0.53%
23-24 6,622 (67) -0.92%
24-25 6,652 29.79 0.45%
25-26 (estimate) 6,660 8 0.12%
26-27 (estimate) 6,660 - 0.00%
Avg. tonnage change per year since FY 08-092
: 17.44
Avg. percentage change per year since FY 08-092
: 0.6%
2 Only the last five years are presented.
1 Mean calculations are based on information from fiscal year 2008 though 2023. Only the last five years are presented in the schedule.
Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
Miscellaneous
7. Review the percentages and the mathematical accuracy of the rate sheets used in the 2024-2025 Refuse Rate Analysis provided by EDCO.
We reviewed the mathematical accuracy of the rate sheets provided by EDCO and performed mathematical recalculations and verifications of source numbers.
Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
-8-
Procedures Performed and Findings, continued
Miscellaneous, continued
8. Review EDCO’s application of the actual and the estimated CPI to the transportation component of the tip fee. Agree actual CPI for FY 2022-2023 and FY 2023-2024 is applied in accordance with the CPI index used historically by EDCO.
Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
9. Recalculate franchise fees EDCO paid to the City of La Mesa for the period from July 1, 2023 to February 28, 2025 and verify that the remittance amount is equal to 4 percent of all gross sums collected by EDCO within the City of La Mesa by selecting three random months within that time period. We selected the months of February 2024, May 2024, January 2025. The comparison is as follows:
Net Receipts Recalculated Franchise Fees
Gross Less: AB 939 Subject to Franchise Fees Remitted to Month Receipts* Charges Franchise Fees (4% of net receipts) the City Variance February 2024 573,918.50 $ 26,125.96 $ 547,792.54 $ 21,911.70 $ $ 21,911.70 $ - May 2024 568,317.37 26,049.41 542,267.96 21,690.72 21,690.71 0.01 January 2025 1,378,595.68 44,524.71 1,334,070.97 53,362.84 53,362.84 (0.00) * Gross receipts are net of exempt recycle and adjustments Per EDCO Franchise Fee Calculation
Findings:
Trivial variances noted.
-9-
Procedures Performed and Findings, continued
Miscellaneous, continued
10. Verify transfer station revenue amounts used to calculate participation rent remitted to the City of La Mesa for the period of July 1, 2023 to February 28, 2025. Agree to supporting cash receipts on a random selection basis. We selected the months of February 2024, May 2024, and January 2025. The comparison is as follows:
Tons per Tons per Gross Revenues Gross Revenues
EDCO Station Transfer Station per EDCO Station per EDCO Station Participation Revenue and Participation Revenue and
Rent Calculation Tonnage Rent Calculation Tonnage
Month Worksheet Summary Variance Worksheet Summary Variance February 2024 36,143.73 36,143.73 - 3,260,712.24 $ 3,260,712.24 $ - $ May 2024 40,874.72 40,874.72 - 3,757,537.10 3,757,537.10 - January 2025 39,447.15 39,447.15 - 3,764,665.00 3,764,665.00 - Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
11. Obtain solid waste rate survey of San Diego County and compare franchise city rates for residential and commercial customers to other agencies in the county.
See Exhibit A.
Findings:
No exceptions were noted.
-10-
EXHIBIT A: San Diego County Franchise City Rates Proposed July 1, 2025 Current/ Current/
Proposed Effective Proposed Effective
City Rate Date City Rate Date
National City $ Proposed 7/1/25 La Mesa 27.66 1 $ Proposed 7/1/25 130.14 La Mesa1 Proposed 7/1/25 28.84 135.66 Proposed 7/1/25
El Cajon Effective 1/1/25 29.10 Proposed 7/1/25 137.93
Coronado Proposed 7/1/25 31.11 Proposed 7/1/25 138.54
Lemon Grove1 Proposed 7/1/25 31.51 Effective 1/1/25 141.41 Escondido Effective 1/1/25 31.52 Proposed 7/1/25 141.88 Solana Beach 31.60 Proposed 7/1/25 152.77 Proposed 7/1/25 Carlsbad2 Projected 7/1/25 31.67 Proposed 7/1/25 153.30 Encinitas Proposed 7/1/25 32.05 Projected 7/1/25 153.58 Poway Proposed 7/1/25 32.23 154.66 Proposed 7/1/25
Santee Effective 1/1/25 32.92 Proposed 7/1/25 155.01
Del Mar Proposed 7/1/25 33.83 Effective 9/1/24 164.85
San Marcos Proposed 7/1/25 33.95 Effective 1/1/25 178.14 Oceanside Effective 1/1/25 34.42 Proposed 7/1/25 179.93 Chula Vista Effective 9/1/23 35.02 Proposed 7/1/25 207.82 Vista Proposed 7/1/25 36.97 Effective 1/1/25 276.92
Imperial Beach 43.34 Proposed 7/1/25 Effective 1/1/25 306.48 City of San Diego 43.60 Proposed 7/1/25
Encinitas
Solana Beach
Lemon Grove1
Escondido
Poway
Coronado
Del Mar
Carlsbad2
San Marcos
National City
Chula Vista
Oceanside
Vista
Imperial Beach
El Cajon
Santee
County Average $ 33.41 County Average $ 171.12
High $ 43. 60 High $ 306. 48
Median 32.14 Median 153. 58
Low 27.66 Low
1 2-year fixed rate
2 Actual may be higher than projected
Residential Commercial
$ 130.14
DATE: June 24, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Laura Lothian, Council Member
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF IMPLEMENTING A TEMPORARY SPEED BUMP
PROGRAM AS PART OF LA MESA'S NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The City of La Mesa currently addresses neighborhood traffic concerns through its Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), which offers a range of strategies to improve traffic safety and reduce vehicle speeds. In recent years, residents have increasingly expressed interest in more immediate measures to address speeding and cut-through traffic in residential areas.
Although the City’s NTMP is effective, it can take several years for traffic calming solutions to become a reality. To help alleviate residential traffic concerns, I recommend that the City Council direct staff to study the feasibility, legality, logistics, and other considerations associated with implementing a temporary speed bump program.
Several cities are utilizing rubber speed bumps as a low-cost, flexible solution that can immediately help calm traffic. These speed bumps would allow staff and residents to assess the effectiveness of speed bumps prior to committing to long-term infrastructure solutions.