Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW 2012-04-23 Item 4A - Discussion - Mandatory Garbage Collection ProgramO UNCIL AGENDA S YNOPSI rrritial; I TL'M No. A1ee1in,� lute Prepared by Ma r'.r review Council review QQ 04/23/12 F 3.A. OC 05/07/12 F 4.A. ITEM INFORMATION S'r.ur' SI'UNSUR: FRANK IRIARTE 4/23/12 Mandatory Garbage Collection Service +R1 r ®,llolion JZc,iolu ion Ordinance Bid Isvard Ptrbli4 IIe,rrzn(❑ Ullrer blt� Date 04/23/12 A1t� Date 05107112 �jl9 Du1e Ml Date Date Date 04123112 .111,E Dcilc SI'( )NS( )R C.orrncil iblayo° HK DCD E] Finance IFire IT PC� "R hoiicz PIF SI'' Nsc;lz's The 1/24/12 Utilities Committee and the 2/13/12 C.O.W. unanimously agreed to hold a public meeting on 4/23/12 and allow residents to provide input and comments regarding the implementation of a mandatory garbage collection program for Tukwila residents. Information regarding mandatory collection was published in the City's website, City Channel 21, and the Tukwila Reporter. After the public hearing and Council deliberation, Council is requested to select one of three options outlined in the staff report. RI:\ `II :U'I?ll m, CO\ti" -NItg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte N Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. Planning Comm. DATE: 1/24/12 COT fivilYfEE CH, IR: DENNIS ROBERTSON RECOMMENDATIONS: SPONStffl, Public Works Department CuMMrrrl_I: Unanimous Approval; Conduct Public Hearing on 4/23/12 COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE ENY I:AllI'tU121:1Z1{,(�Ulltl?1� AmOUNTBUDGETED API'ROI'1ZIATION IZFQUIRI 1) $N /A $N /A $N /A fund Source: N/A C'untnaents: MTG.DATEj RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 02/13/12 Forward to a future public hearing. 04/23/12 05/07/12 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 4/23/22 Informational Memorandum dated April 20, 2012 Mandatory Collection Information Sheet 05/07/12 1 x e. City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Haggerton Tukwila City Council FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director BY: Frank Iriarte, Deputy Public Works Directo r DATE: April 20, 2012 SUBJECT: Mandatory Garbage Service ISSUE Should the City implement mandatory garbage collection service? BACKGROUND At the February 21, 2012 Regular Council Meeting, the Council unanimously passed a motion that authorized the Mayor to sign the 2012 -2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste, Recyclables and Compostables Collection contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. The approved contract currently does not include authorization to implement mandatory garbage collection when it becomes effective on November 1, 2012. Although mandatory garbage collection was included in the new contract as an alternative proposal, the Council deferred action on this subject until residents were afforded the opportunity to weigh in and provide input. A public hearing scheduled on April 23, 2012 will solicit comments and address implementation of a mandatory garbage collection program for the City. DISCUSSION During the past few years, the City has wrestled and debated the merits of mandatory garbage collection. One of the factors that was often raised but could not be accurately ascertained during the discussions was the cost impact to ratepayers. Fortunately through the competitive procurement process for 'he new contract, the City now has the financial data that Council and residents can use to make an informed decision. As noted in Attachment 1, residential garbage customers would save $0.64 per month on their rates by shifting to mandatory collection. In addition to ratepayer savings, Attachment 1 also highlights the increased costs of self hauling garbage /recyclables to the Bow Lake Transfer Station; the challenges of illegal dumping /accumulation of garbage on private property; and outlines the significant benefits that would be available even at the minimum service level. Mandatory garbage collection is a complicated and emotional issue. Of the approximately 900 non subscribers, some will support the plan and some will vehemently oppose the proposal regardless of the benefits, cost savings, and convenience. After the Public Hearing, Council should have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Subject to public comments and recommendations, the following options are offered for Council's consideration: Option A: Reject proposal to implement mandatory garbage collection. Advantage(s): This option requires no additional staff time. Waste Management will not have to deal with issues related to non complying customers and potential bad debt accounts. 3 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Disadvantage(s): Non subscribers will continue to dispose of garbage and recyclables through self haul or other legal and illegal means. Accumulation of excess garbage and bulky items such as broken furniture and appliances on private property will continue to challenge Code Enforcement officials. Option B: Defer decision to implement mandatory aarbaqe collection until a later date. Advantage(s): The new contract contains a provision that requires Waste Management to rrreduce single family customer rates by $0.64 per month should the City decide to exercise its option to implement mandatory garbage collection within three years. Disadvantage(s): Same comment as Option A (Disadvantages). Option C: Approve mandatory Garbage collection services. Advantage(s): The 3,500 total (2,600 current customers plus 900 non subscribers) single family residential customers would benefit from some of the lowest solid waste rates in the area. Collectively, they would save approximately $26,880.00 annually. Those who sign up for the minimum level service would pay a nominal fee of $4.75 (plus tax and fees) per month and receive monthly curbside garbage collection, unlimited every- other -week recycling, and access to the special annual curbside collection /recycling event. This annual event allows residential garbage customers to dispose of items such as appliances, furniture, and other bulky items. Implementation of a mandatory garbage program would help curb illegal dumping and accumulation of garbage on private property and would have a positive effect on Tukwila's neighborhoods. Disadvantage(s): Additional staff time (City and Waste Management) would be required to manage the challenges and issues related to mandatory collection implementation and enforcement requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT If Council selects Option C approving mandatory garbage collection citywide, the 3,500 single family residential customers would save approximately $26,880.00 annually. Additionally, utility tax revenues from solid waste and recycling collection services would increase. Assuming that all 900 non subscribers sign up for the minimum service, the annual garbage utility tax revenues would increase approximately $3,100.00. This utility tax revenue could be used to offset illegal dumping /litter clean -up expenses or provide a subsidy to selected low- income households who cannot afford the monthly $4.75 (plus tax and fees) minimum service charge. Low income seniors and low- income disabled customers are currently eligible for a 50% discount. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to consider public comments at the public hearing on April 23, 2012 and consider Option A, B, or C at the April 23, 2012 Committee of the Whole and subsequent May 7, 2012 Regular Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Mandatory Collection Information Sheet 4 GV YVd cngl?i�OJ C; 9tEolld VVaste;lnfoMerno-Mandatory Garbage COW04- 23- 12.doc Attachment 1 Mandatory Collection Information Sheet What are the savings if the City proceeds with mandatory collection? Individual customers would save $0.64 /month on their rates. The total 2,600 current customers would save approximately $20,000 /year. What percentage of customers currently have collection? Approximately 74% of Tukwila single family customers have garbage collection (2,600 current single family customers /3,500 single family residents). What do non customers do with theirgarbage? Some self -haul to King County transfer stations or may use other legal methods such as dumping in their workplace dumpster (with permission) or sharing service with a neighbor. Other residents rely on illegal disposal including burning, burying, using commercial dumpsters (without permission), accumulating in rental spaces, or dumping. Why should people have to pay for mandatory collection if they currently handle their materials legally? The new contract has been structured to provide a very economical service level that is actually less expensive than self hauling. The lowest service level is once per month collection of one 32- gallon garbage cart (the cart is provided by Waste Management), unlimited every other -week recycling and access to the City's annual curbside clean -up program where bulky material and appliances can be set at the curb at no additional charge. This service cost of $4.75 per month under the new contract is less than paying the minimum fee at King County's transfer station three times a year. The savings don't matter to us we just prefer to self -haul. King County plans to increase the minimum fee (currently $20) and decrease recycling opportunities for self haulers at transfer stations on the assumption that almost all King County residents have access to garbage and recycling collection. Legal self -haul will become harder and less attractive in the future. What about low- income households? As described above, the minimum service level is less expensive than other legal options. The $4.75 per month is more expensive than illegal disposal, but illegal disposal increases costs to the community at large. What aboutsenior /disabled households? The new contract continues current provisions that allow eligible households a 50% discount on collection services. In that case, the monthly fee for the minimum service level would be $2.38 per month, which is far less than any other legal disposal method. What are the net ratepayer costs of having or not having mandatory collection? I f mandatory collection is implemented, the 3,500 total (2,600 current customers plus 900 non- subscribers) single family households will save $26,880 annually. If all 900 current non subscribers sign up for the minimum service, they would collectively pay a total of $51,300 annually. Will mandatory collection help City's effort to curb illegal dumping, litter, and accumulation of trash /garbage on private property? In 2011, Tukwiia's Code Enforcement Office handled 105 trash and garbage complaints in the City. Most of the complaints were for accumulation of garbage, yard waste and bulky items such as furniture, appliances, etc. on private properties. Implementation of mandatory garbage collection will provide a basic level of service that includes monthly garbage collection, recycling service, and participation in the annual curbside collection of bulky items /white goods (furniture, appliances, electronics, washers /dryers, etc.) at no additional costs. Although implementation of mandatory garbage program may riot totally solve illegal dumping and garbage related issues, services provided by mandatory collection would have a positive effect on Tukwila's neighborhoods. Vv V1 11ngVPR OI I-(: S \So'd M,,te \Mandatory Collection Information Sheet 020112.docs 5