HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/06/22 Item 20. y .
r
•
IT M
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item adx'7c~xx~x
Meeting Date : ~/~?a/~eZ.~
TITLE:a.Resolution - of Intention to Grant a Franchise
for Refuse Collection and Disposal to Chula Vista
Sanitary Service
b.Ordinance ~y~~ Amending Chapter 8.24 of the
Municipal Code, relating to the Collection and
Disposal of Garbage and Litter in the City
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION
TTED BY: City Manager and City Attorney
(4/5th Vote: Yes No X )
At
Ci
ex
ti
re
su
A1u
• a
their meeting of April 27, 1982, the City Council directed the
y Manager to undertake a negotiation of the renewal of the
sting contract with Chula Vista Sanitary Service. In conjunc-
n with the renewal of the contract or a franchise, as is being
ommended by the City Attorney's office, it is also desirable to
stantially amend our existing Chapter 8.24 of the Chula Vista
icipal Code relating to the collection and disposal of garbage
litter in the City of Chula Vista.
DATION:
That the City Council adopt the resolution of
intention to grant a franchise, setting a
public hearing for July 13, 1982 and place the
ordinance amending Chapter 8.24 of the Chula
Vista Dunicipal Code on first reading .
B0~1RD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
Su sequent to the meeting of April 27, 1982, the City Manager and
Ci y Attorney have met with representatives of Chula Vista
Sa itary and have reviewed documents presented by them for
co sideration (in their terms) of a franchise agreement, which
th y had hoped might be acted upon at the meeting of June 15,
19 2.
Af er reviewing the documents presented by the Chula Vista
Sa itary Service, the City Attorney has recommended that we do
pr Geed with a public hearing to grant a franchise to Chula Vista
Sa itary. That is the word that they have utilized throughout
th it documentation and in accordance with Article XII of the
• I (Continued on page two)
n
~~
•
~a
Item i~'-
Meeting Date: .~.15,L~ (~/a~./~y
Page Two
barter, it is a perfectly appropriate way in which to go. At the
resent time, we do have a contract which has been in existence
since 1959 subject to many amendments. There is no significant
difference between the concept of a franchise and a contract
except that the procedures for adopting a franchise as spelled out
i the Charter must be adhered to very strictly. It is the
f eling of the City Attorney that such procedures do clearly
g arantee the right of the citizens to examine the terms and
c nditions under which the refuse collection program in the City
o Chula Vista will be undertaken, and that this is very
d sirable.
T e franchise ordinance which has been prepared does provide for a
t n-year term. However, the Council may stipulate any term which
t ey deem to be more advantageous to the public interest. It is
t e recommendation of the City Attorney that a five-year term be
c nsidered since this does seem to be consistent with the type of
c ntract that Chula Vista Sanitary and other such services have
w'th other agencies in the County. Such matter can be fully
e plored at the time of the public hearing.
I is recommended in the proposed franchise that the existing rate
s ructure, as approved by Resolution No. 10585 on August 4, 1981,
b retained until an appropriate review of the rate schedule
c nsidering possible modification of such items as mandatory
c llection, reduced rates for seniors, and the increase in
f anchise fee. The franchise proposes that said review take place
0 or about October 1, 1982.
W are suggesting that the fee be raised from the existing 2~ to
4 5~. This is a reasonable increase in the franchise fee based
u on the obviously increased costs for street maintenance
n cessitated to some degree by the deterioration caused by the
r fuse collection operation.
P
t
t
~ovision might be made to provide a rebate to senior citizens on
ie theory that they do, in fact, generate less refuse than other
apes of households or residential units. The rebate process
>uld authorize a $2.00 rebate for single family residences and a
..00 rebate for apartment and mobile home dwellers. The rebate
'ocess is being recommended in lieu of other potential methods of
curing a reduced rate for senior citizens because it is felt
iat such a rebate should apply not only to seniors who live in
P
s
•
r
~~
•
Item ~Q
Meeting Date: ~ ~ Cf$~ ~/~~/~~
Page Three
s~
d
f
Lngle family residences and receive individual billing, either
.rectly from the Sanitary Service or as contemplated in the
zture from the Water Company, but should be granted to seniors
io reside in apartments or mobile homes where there is a
~ntralized trash collection and where they do not directly pay
ie bill, but are billed through their rental payments. The
initary Service has suggested that such a rebate is not
~cessarily equitable and further discussion will be required as
~ that matter.
c
T ere has been a proposal that the matter of mandatory collection
b placed upon the November ballot to be considered as a "people's
o dinance". The City Attorney has prepared for later considera-
t on such a "people's ordinance" which is included in your package
a this time.
A though the City Attorney has previously indicated support of a
p oposal for a "people's ordinance", he feels that such a matter
s ould be incorporated in the existing ordinance amending Chapter
8 24 of the Municipal Code. The matter of mandatory rubbish
c llection should not be subject to the electoral process. The
v st majority of our citizens because of their inability on a
i dividual basis to resolve the problem of disposal of refuse, pay
f r the collection as required by the City Code. The public
h alth and safety should not be subjected to a vote of the people
e en though it is probable that it would receive a large
a firmative vote.
T
e City Attorney recommends that as a part of the amendment to
ction 8.24.060 of Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code that the
llowing sentences be incorporated therein:
fc
It shall be the responsibility of such person to provide
for scheduled garbage, rubbish, or refuse collection by
means of the services of the contract or franchise
agent. It shall be mandatory for each such person to
utilize such service and to pay the collection charge
established by the City of Chula Vista for such service.
•
•
•
•
Item No . ~ ;mo`b'- (~
Meeting Date: ~,/~.~Z/~a-
Pag e Fou r
T e amendment suggested is identical with that as provided in the
" eople's ordinance". If the Council desires to obtain a feeling
o the people, the consideration of that particular section might
b deferred to the public hearing scheduled on the franchise for
J ly 13 and an additional resolution of intention, which is
i cluded in your packet, could be adopted for the consideration of
t at measure.
A indicated, the ordinance is ready to be placed upon first
r ading and although it would it would not become effective prior
t the date of the public hearing for consideration of the
f anchise, it would provide a basis for the Manager's office to
d velop the necessary information for Council consideration at
t at public hearing and would become effective so as to be
p operly a part of franchise agreement with Chula Vista Sanitary
S rvice if the franchise is approved by the Council on the 13th of
J ly, 1982.
F~SCAL IMPACT:
The increased franchise fee will produce an
additional $60,000 in revenues so that annual
revenues for a full year commencing in July of
1983 will be approximately $110,000.
by tt,e Cit~,~ ('_,~.~~rii of
Chula Visi:~;, C;,ii~o~ nia
Dated (~ ~