HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1982/09/07 Item 7COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM
SUBMI
TITHE:
BY: ~Dasposal for All
City Manager ~..'
On ugust 17, 1982, the City Council set the date
hea ing to consider an amendment to the Municipal
man atory refuse collection and disposal for all
Public Hearing - Consideration of
Refuse Collection
Ordinance - Amending Section
Municipal Code to
Item 7
Meeting Date 9/07/82
;'~
Amending Municipal Code to Require Mandatory
and Disposal for all Residents of the City
8.24.060 of Chapter 8.24 of the Chula Vista
Require Mandatory Refuse Collection and
City Residents
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
of September 7, 1982 fora public
Code which, if adopted, would require
residents of the City. It is my
REC MMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Conduct said public hearing and place ordinance on
first reading.
BOA DS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A.
DIS USSION
Man atory collection and disposal of refuse is not a new or novel practice in California
cities. Such a requirement, however, is usually implemented in those cities that
ope to their own municipal water system, whereby the ease of collecting the monthly/
qua erly fee for such service becomes an integral part of the water billing process.
Sinc the City does not control its water distribution system and the two purveyors
of w ter to the community are reluctant to include refuse collection charcres on their
cust mers' bills, non-payment for service provided or the requirement that the adopted
fee or such service be paid even if the service is not utilized would become the
resp nsibility of Chula Vista Sanitary Service, Inc. (CUSS) and/or the City of Chula
Vist Since the City would be adopting an ordinance requiring mandatory payment
of t e prescribed service fee and Chula Vista Sanitary would be required to collect
and ispose of all refuse placed at the curb by residential users, it would be my
posi ion that the City would be required to collect, by legal means, delinquent
acco nts or pay the monthly/quarterly fee to the franchisee.
Chul Vista Sanitary Service estimates approximately 2,000 non-subscribing residents
curr ntly choose to dispose of their refuse in some other manner. Those who do so
will contend that they can dispose of their refuse at a lower cost per month by other
mean and therefore should not be mandated to subscribe to a service they neither need
nor ant. In practice, however, some non-subscribers may be disposing of their refuse
in p blic and commercial containers and/or join with their neighbors on a weekly or
mont ly basis in transporting accumulated debris and refuse to the local dump. In
eith r case, self disposal can lead to excessive litter withi~i and outside the
City and, further, it is c!oubtful that self disposal is less expensive if Title 14,
Secti n 17331 of the State Solid Waste Administrative Code is adhered to. Section
17331 states "The owner or tenant of any premises, business establishment or industry
shall be responsible for the satisfactory removal of all rubbish accumulated by him
on hi property or his premises. Excepting disruptions in normal refuse collection
sched les, garbaae shall not be allowed to remain on the premises for more than seven
~ays o prevent propagation, harborage or attraction of flies, rodents or other
ecto s and the creation of nuisances. ~~Jhere it is deemed necessary by the local
healt officer because of the propagation of vectors and for the protection of public
healt more frequent removal of garbage shall be required. GJhere garbagear.d rubbish
are c ntainerized together, the period of removal shall be that apalied to garbage."
orm A-113 Rev. ll/79) continued
Page 2, Item 7
r~
If
exc
man
Meeting Date 9/7/82
~ resident complies with this provision, it would appear self disposal would
red our present $5.40 per month or the $5.60 per month proposed new rate if
iatory service is required.
The City Council will be acting upon a resolution setting for public hearing a
req est fora rate increase to be held September 21, 1982. Under the new rate
pro osal now being studied by City staff, the franchisee is requesting a rate of
$5. 4 per month for residential properties for non-mandatory service, and $5.60
per month if mandatory service is required. While either of these rates will not
be etermined until your September 21, 1982 hearing date, a final decision on the
new rate structure will undoubtedly show a difference of about 34~ per month if
man atory service is required. I believe mandatory collection should be required
in rder to alleviate some of the problems referred to earlier and, at the same time,
red ce the monthly rate to some degree levied against all users.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Tot 1 revenue generated from residential users under mandatory service would exceed
est mated revenue generated under non-mandatory service by approximately $90,200
per year. Additional City revenue by reason of .the 4 1/2°ro franchise fee would result
in 4,059 for the City ($90,200 x .045 = $4,059.
.ERA:mab
by the City Council of
Chu'a Vista, California
•
Dated -~~-~F ~ ~~_
c `~+
ti~