Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda statement 1982/09/28 Item 18COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT tuber 7, 1982, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the 1 Code which, if adopted, would require mandatory refuse collection and disposal for dential properties in the City. After hearing testimony from several individuals the requirement and one individual supporting the proposal, the City Council closed is hearing and directed staff to consider a possible exemption clause whereby some ial users could be exempt from the requirement. I have investigated the feasibility an exemption and it is my Item ~ / ~~ • ITEM SUBMI TITLE: Meeting Date -4/~1-~8,2~- t~ ~-~'-~ BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X On Sep Munici all re opposi the pu reside of suc RECOh1MENDATION: That the City Council place the ordinance on first reading requiring mandatory refuse collection and disposal, but modified to allow an exemption as outlined below and contained in the revised ordinance provided herewith. BOARDS/~COMP~1ISSIONS RECOPIMENDATIOfJ: N.A. DISCUSSIION A viewing the testimony offered by those individuals opposing mandatory collection and d s 1, I have concluded that the underlying intent and purpose of the mandatory provision ca a essentially attained if those choosing to dispose of their own refuse transport it properl to a public disposal site. While the exemption will provide a mechanism for those wishing to dispose of their own refuse, the financial advantage perceived by those opposing the re uirement probably cannot be attained without violating the weekly disposal requirement under tate statute. In order to assure that this State requirement is not violated, the ordina ce provides that any residential owner or occupant must furnish to the City's fran- chisee, Chula Vista Sanitary Service, on a monthly basis evidence that weekly trips have been m de to a public disposal site. It is contemplated that this evidence would consist of a w ekly receipt furnished by the operators of the disposal site. It would seem that there ould be little financial advantage to utilizing the exemption when the same refuse could e picked up on a monthly basis when the proposed new monthly rate for weekly collec- tion f om residential properties is $5.60 per month. It does, however, provide the exemption for th se individuals who find it financially advantageous to do so. I am s mpathetic over the impact mandatory collection and disadv ntaged person who could, by various means, arrange dispos 1 cost by joining together with other neighbors to refuse on a weekly basis by personally transporting it to howeve , the intent and ouroose of the mandatory orovisio tion w re allowed on this broader base. FINANC Total r Ci additi c; ty c resen 4¢ pe orm A- Report on Mandatory Refuse Collection and Disposal for All Residential Properties Ordinancea~~~ Amending Section 8.24.060 of Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code to Require Mandatory Refuse Collection and Disposal Si~COND READING AND ADOPTION IMPACT disposal may have on the economically to reduce his/her monthly refuse jointly .dispose of their combined a public disposal site. I believe, n would not be achieved if an exemp- evenue generated from residential users under mandatory service ~vould exceed estimated generated under nOn-mandatory service by venue by reason of the 4 1/2% franchise f pal revenue accruing to the City. If the uncil accepts staff`s recommendation, an $5,40 to $5.60 per month per residential month over the recommended non-mandatory 13 (Rev. 11/79) aprroxir!ately $90,?_00 per year. Additional ee would result in approximately $4,059 mandatory requirement is imposed and the increase in the residential rate from the property will result. All users vaill save rate of $5.94 per month.