HomeMy WebLinkAbout441_Repeal Provisions of Part 17 Ch 2_Garbage and Refuse Ord 4105374 1334 92 003725
ORDINANCE NUMBER 441
CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF PART
17-- UTILITIES, CHAPTER 2-- GARBAGE AND REFUSE
COLLECTION AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 410
PASSED AND APPROVED THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER,
1989, DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA,
THAT:
Section One: Part 17-- Utilities, Chapter 2 -- Garbage and
Refuse Collection insofar as same was amended by Ordinance Number
410, such Ordinance being an Ordinance relating to management of
solid waste generated within the City of Owasso, Oklahoma,
providing definitions, providing for collection of solid waste,
providing for licensing of solid waste collectors, fees and
requirements thereon imposed, dated the 5th day of December, 1989,
be and same hereby is repealed.
Section Two: This Ordinance shall not be construed as
repealing the provisions of Part 17-- Utilities, Chapter 2 -- Garbage
and Refuse Collection, Section 17 -201 through 17 -219, same to be
unaffected hereby.
Section Three: This Ordinance shall, upon passage, become
effective thirty (30) days from the date of first publication as
provided by state law.
Dated this 3rd day of December, 1991.
CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA
By John Phillips, Mayor
ATTEST: Jane Buchanan, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FROM: Ronald D. Cates, City Attorney
Published in the Owasso Reporter,
Owasso, Tulsa County, Okla-
homa, December 12, 1991,
ORDINANCE NUMBER 441
CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA
AN ORDINANCE RLPF AL-
ING THE PROVISIONSW,
PART 17-- UTILITIES, CHAP.
TER 2 -- GARBAGE AND
REFUSE COLLECTION AS
ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE
NUMBER 410 PASSED AND
APPROVED THE 6TH DAY
OF DECEMBER, 1989,
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE!'-
DATE.
Dated this 3rd day of December,
1991.
CITY OF OWASSO,
OKLAHOMA
By ;s! John Phllllps"
John Phillips, Mayor
ATTEST:
.s/ Jane Buchanan
Jane Buchanan, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Ronald D. Cares
Ronald D. Cates, Cit/ Anorn„y
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF OWASSO
FROM: RODNEY J. RAY
SUBJECT: REQUSET FOR COUNCIL ACTION TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 410
DATE: November 26, 1991
On December 5, 1990 the Owasso City Council enacted Ordinance #410. The ordinance
(attached) related to the management of Owasso's solid waste stream and gave control of the
"flow" of that waste stream to the Metropolitan Environmental Trust (formerly known as
Northeast Solic Waste Management Authority).
This action was based on a request from the Trust for all eleven members to enact such
regulations so as to allow the Trust to "broker" the combined waste stream. The rationale
behind the request focused on the development of a landfill as the number one priority for the
Trust along with a requirement for the member cities to use that new landfill. the short-term
goal was to "broker" the combined waste to the existing landfill on a competitive bid. The
lower tipping fees would benefit the cities while providing some funding for the trust for its
long-term dispsal objectives.
Unfortunately, the Trust has not stayed "on track" with the original goal. It appears to me that
development of a long range disposal solution has been side tracked in favor of the trust
becoming a resource center for recycling efforts. This has come at the expense of a
comprehensive disposal plan objective. While I did not object to the enterance of the Trust into
the crcycling business, I did view that action as only a part of the overall disposal solution.
Recent actions by the Trust indicate that it does not have the ability to manage multiple
priorities. It does not appear to have a master plan that should call for a comprehensive waste
management program with long-term solutions that include landfill, trash-to-energy and
recycling.
The Trust's lack of movement toward what the members perceived as its most important
objective is indicative of its lack of direction and unwillingness to stick to a predetermined
course.
The "flow control" ordinance (#410) is not necessary for our City or the public good of our
citizens. Until such time as the Trust makes a strong commitment to develop a comprehensive
management/disposal program this is an ordinance that is unnecessary and should not be in
effect.
I have discussed this issue with Mr. Cates and he has prepared an ordinance for your review.
If passed, such ordinance would repeal ordinance #410, effective thirty days after publication.
I have also attached a copy of a memorandum sent to the Council at the time we requested
passage of this ordinance in 1989.
Council members may also wish to contact Mr. Roy Jones (272-3165) for additional background.
Mr. Jones was Owasso's first Trustee on the original Authority and was involved in drafting the
ordinance.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
I recommend Council adoption of ordinance #441 repealing ordinance #410.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance #441
2. Memorandum dated December 1, 1981
3. Ordinance #410
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honerable mayor and city council
city of owasso
FROM: Rodney J. Ray
SUBJECT: Ordinance #410 Relating to the management of the solid
waste strea and authorizing the northeast solid waste
management authority to direct and control the flow
of all waste generated within the city.
DATE: December 1, 1989
Background
In July of 1988 the City of Owasso joined with eleven other
government bodies (cities and counties) to form a public trust
authority for the purpose of addressing the region's solid waste
management problems. The Trust was the successor to a regional
"Solid Waste Advisory Committee"that spends over a year holding
public hearings and conducting studies relating to disposal sites,
management options andalternative solutions to what was then
considered to be a crisis for our area.
Since that time, the "crisis"situation has been eased by the
opening of a new landfill(Quarry) and the re-opening of the North
Tulsa Landfill. These activities have given the new authority some
breathing roomandtime to developsomelong-term options.Even
though the new landfill is a welcome facility,it willbe only a
short-term solution of 12 to 18 years. The Authority's goal is to
establish a long-term solution that will effectivelyserve the
region for fifty to onehundred years.
The Authority has laid the foundation for its operation by
organizing,assessing the members for operation fees, and hiring
an Executive Director. However in order to really get down to the
work of developing long-term plans, the organizationneeds a
reliable funding source and sokme control that provides for the
accumulation of data reling to the problemthat is being tackled.
The pproposed ordinance offers a beginning to that process.
Generally,the ordinanceauthorizes the Authority to act as an
agent for the city and to broker our refuse to the highest bidder.
The concept is based on the principlethat all of the members will
enact a similar ordinance giving the authority control over the
entire area's reguse stream. Withthat volume the authority could
negotiate long-term disposal solutions with private sector
companies who could afford state-of-the-art technology or the
Authority could set up a disposal program and operate it
themselves. The volume of refuse generated by the area cities
would be enough to justify a substantial investment of capital by
a firm in the disposal business or to issue revenue bonds for the
construction of a facility.
The key to the success of this venture is the commitment of each
member city to enacting "flow control" ordinances such as the one
proposed. Without a significant volume it will be impossible for
the Authority to effectively negotiate lower "tipping fees for
its members. If all of the remaining eight members do agree to
give flow control to the authority, they will then be in a position
to negotiate short-term and long-term solutions to the region's
disposal problem. Without such control, each city will be forced
to make independent decisionsand fund individual solutions to
their problems. This type of approach tends to be very costly and
duplicates effor. Individual solutions also tend to be resticted
by the amount of capital investment available to thecity,whereas
a joint partnership effort couldeasily poolthe capital resources
of all the members. The pooling of funds throughthe authority
is the basic resonfor its existence. This Ordinance is the
second step toward a long-term disposal solution.
Proposal
It is proposed that every city in the Authority enact an ordinance
that would give the Authority Control over the disposal method,
site and cost of all refuse generated. The proposed ordinance also
requires certain licenses and information that would be utilitzed
in analyzing the refuse stream for future solutions.
Probable Sequence of Events
In the event each city enacts an ordinance similar to the one we
have proposed, I predict that the Authority will seek to implement
the following activities:
1. Gather preliminary data on size of waste stream.
2. Seek short-term solution to the disposal problem
(landfill contract for 5+ years)
3. Initiate studies designed to determine the most
feasible method and technologt for a long-term (50-
100 year) solution.
4. Select a specific long-term solution (method) for
disposal.
5. Request member ratification of funding for the
selected method.
6. Implement (construct) the agreed upon program.
Problems
A saff review ofthe proposed ordinance indicates that the
following problem areas may be experienced by the City or the
Authority:
1. It is probable that any short-term solution or
contract would result in increased cost to the City
of Owasso. This is due to the unique position we now
have with the Quarry Landfill located close to our
City and the current low tipping fees ($12 per ton)
we pay. We anticipate that any joint contract would
include the construction of "transfer stations" in
South, West and North Tulsa so as to provide for
"short hauls" for all cities. The cost of such
stations would have to be calculated into the contract
fees. Even in a "best-case" scenario we feel it is
probable that our cost would increase slightly due to
the need for the Authority to generate revenue for its
operation. We anticipate that the authority will
require a "brokerage fee" for negotiating a contract
with an existing disposal site. the revenue generated
from the borkerage fee would be used to begin the
process of exploring and developing the long-term
solution mentioned above. The development of a
revenue source for the authoirty is critical to its
ability to meet the goals established when the
organization was founded.
2. We also feel that it is probable that the city of
tulsa will not participate in a short term solution
that does not inclde the use of their "trash to
energy" plant. It would be unwise for the city to
stop using the facility for only a short-term
solution. Therefore, we expect that only the smaller
cities will consider allowing the authority to broker
their refuse. the result will be that they will have
much less to offer in volume and less leverage to
negotiate either short term or long term solutions for
its members.
3. EPA regulations and court cases now require that users
of disposal sites be liable "forever" for any cost of
clean-up should a disposal site be found to be in
violation of "current" regulations. the use of the
authoirty to make the sole determination of where our
refuse will be placed takes the decision away from the
city policy makers but does not limit or exepmt the
city from exposure to further EPA actions. while it
is not probable, it is possible that this could cause
a future problem for the city. In the event the
authority were to have incompetent or irresponsible
management, we could quickly find ourselves in an
exposed situation.
Advantages
There is one basic advantage to the concept of pooling our refuse
with other cities. this would generate a flow volume necessary to
create a long term solution. it must be recognized that eventually
we are going to be required to find a long term solution that will
reduce the refuse being placed in the landfills. Without a
cooperative effort to initiate that solution, the region will
simply fall further behind and be forced to play "catch-up" at a
very high price.
While it may cost the city more for an initial solution using the
pooling concept, it should be noted that in the long-term (25-100
years) our local land-fill will be filled and no longer available.
At that point our cost to initiate an individual solution (or to
rejoin with other cities) will be much greater. This may be one
case where the chrase "you can pay me now, or pay me later" may be
applicable. If we are a part of the initial organization of pooled
assets our long term investment may well be lessened.
A second advantage to this concept is that the Council can, by a
sample vote, repeal the ordinance thus eliminating the flow control
privilege given to the Authority. In the event a contract was
negotiated that we simply could not live with we would repeal the
ordinance, thus taking us out of the deal.
Options
The staff believes the following options are available to the
Council:
1. Do nothing, continue to use the Quarry landfill on a
day to day basis or negotiate a 5-15 year contract
price for use of this site.
2. Use a resolution giving the authority the right to
negotiate on behalf of Owasso and promising that we
will consider any negotiated contract.
3. Simply ask the authority, backed by a letter from the
Mayor, to negotiate for the City. Determine the
benefit of the final contract and then take official
action.
4. Pass Ordinance $410 as proposed and see what the
authority can accomplish.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Council enact Ordinance #410 as proposed and
that a directive be give that the Ordinance be revied after four
months for the purpose of determning the process of the authoirty
in negotiating a joint contract.
Attachment:
1. Proposed Ordinance #410