Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances (O-90-771)-04/17/1990 I I 1 I 11 r\~ I 't' :3 -I & -q 0 ,(11..1 lr~ I I '~I 311 ~q~ I , ORDINANCE NO. 0-90-771 ~ Dv-1~ I 4 II ~.. (f : ~ ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE FOR THE COLLECTION OF GARBAGE II ITHIN THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE AND ESTABLISHING THE TERMS AND ONDITIONS OF SAID FRANCHISE. I i I f, HEREAS, the City Council deems it is in the best interest of the I City to grant a new franchise for the collection of i garbage services within the City upon the terms and I 8 I conditions contained herein~ I 9 i I OW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF I OLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AS FOLLOWS: I I I fec. l. , , 7 2 5 6 10 12 That City Garbage Service, Inc., is hereby granted a franchise pursuant to the terms of the written Franchise Agreement which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein for all purposes. 13 ec . 2. ,That Ordinance No: 0-71-27, pursuant to which the City granted to curtis L. McCaffity a Franchise for the collection of garbage is hereby repealed, together with all renewals and extensions thereof, including, but not limited to, the renewal granted by Resolution R-79-l97. 14 15 Ii II 16 I' 18 he f~t reading an~publ~~earing being conducted on the .;27 / day of ~LJ~--1r:::..... . , ~_9 90. D IT IS SO ORDERED 17 23 he ~cond reading a~c hearing being conducted on the / day of , 1990. he ~~rd reading a~c hearing beingcond~~eg pnAthe ~ day of , 19,90. ~ IAPPROVED: May 1, 1990 jTTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE 19 20 21 22 24 ~0-~~/;f/( -:;; r s Hawklns ~ ~/C ~ I Mayor --7 / --. i'l) 25 1 Council voted to override the Mayor's veto on May 15, 1990. 26 II Ordinance 0-90-771 Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 Ordinance 0-90-771 Attachment "A" CONSENT TO APPEAL OF GARBAGE FRANCHISE I, CURTIS L. McCAFFITY, being the current Franchisee under Ordinance Number: 0-71-27, in the City of COlleyville for the operation and maintenance of the service of garbage and trash collection, for a valuable consideration hereby consent to the repeal of Ordinance Number: 0-71-27, and hereby waive all rights and remedies that I may now have or may which hereinafter occur to me in the future as a result of the existence of said Ordinance or the grant of franchise thereunder, including, but not limited to, the renewal granted by Resolution R-79-l97. The consent to the repeal of said Garbage Franchise is hereby made contingent upon the grant to City Garbage Services, Inc., of a franchise for the collection of garbage within the City of Colleyville. SIGNED this the /~~ day of ?/1&t- rJ , 1990. & til~ curtis L. 1 ~e Texas THE CITY OF COLLEWILLE TEXAS CHRIS HAWKINS MAYOR May 8, 1990 To: Councilperson Ahlers Councilperson Newton Councilperson Myers Mayor ProTem Lynch Councilperson McKnight I have vetoed Ordinance 0-90-771 which would authorize a five (5) year garbage franchise with City Garbage Service, Inc. I would like to first state very clearly that neither the quality of service nor the matter of a rate increase were at issue in my reasoning for this veto. My concerns are in two areas. First, as of this date, City Garbage Service, Inc., has not produced or furnished copies to the City of Colleyville any contract between City Garbage Service, Inc., and any sanitary landfill operation. I feel strongly that the ever increasing restrictions being placed on landfill operations demand great scrutiny of the long-term availability of landfills to the City1s garbage franchisee. If access to a sanitary landfill became a problem for City Garbage Service, Inc., in the future it would most likely be at least an area wide problem. This would leave Colleyville in a weak bargaining position with the limited number of haulers with landfill availability. The second area of concern lies in the issue of awarding a five (5) year contract with the City with only a token gesture after the 3rd Reading and Public Hearing on April 17th to accept proposals from other companies. Even this was done only after several citizens publicly criticized the intention to award a five (5) year contract without requesting proposals from other companies; two other companies had already expressed a definite interest in presenting proposals. The motion to accept but not request proposals was even accompanied by an emphatic expression of intent to act on this item at the next Council meeting two weeks later. These events and the acti on taken on May 1, 1990 despite citizen protest more clearly demonstrated a sense of urgency to act on the ordinance prior to the May 5th election than the careful, thorough consideration this Council has given numerous items of much less importance. P.O.Box 185 COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS 76034 (817) 281-4044 Mayor's Letter May 8, 1990 Page 2 The history of this issue, combined with the fact that the Vice-President and Director of Government and Public Relations of City Garbage Service, Inc., is running for Colleyville City Council and has been publicly endorsed in his race by some councilmembers would indicate the need to clearly demonstrate a decision based on complete information, thorough analysis, and objective judgement if public confidence in Colleyville's city government is to be maintained. I am fully aware that the 4 votes whi ch approved the Ordi nance can and probably will override this veto. However, I feel I must register my protest to the process on thi s issue, or moreover the 1 ack of it, and respectfully request your careful consideration before voting. Sincerely, '7 - / ,/ p-/ // Ac:' ./ //" ,//,',/Z4' "",/ ;;./ ..,' .1)/-"/,,?//,,,~c:,z.>//;(,...;:.--'- 4~/( ,/'-_. / ~/<"" " (/ , Chris-Hawkins '-, Mayor CHI ISSUES RAISED BY VETO OF GARBAGE FRANCHISE The undersigned members of the City Council of the City of Colleyville desire to issue this statement to clarify certain issues which have been raised by Mayor Hawkins in his May 8, 1990 veto of Ordinance 0-90-771, and similar issues raised by other individuals in connection with the granting of a garbage franchise. 1. As a basis for his veto, Mayor Hawkins expressed concern that City Garbage Service, Inc. ("city Garbage") has not produced copies of contracts with landfill operators to demonstrate its ability to service the long terms needs of the City. This issue has been more than adequately addressed by the following: a. City Garbage has been the exclusive garbage hauler for Colleyville since 1960, a period of over 30 years. At no time has City Garbage had a problem in providing adequate places to deposit garbage collected in Colleyville. The best measure of one's ability to perform is an historical record. Thirty years of such adequate performance is adequate proof of ability. b. The quality of service of City Garbage has never been challenged. Even opponents of the franchise have consistently stated that they have no obj ections to the quality of service from our current supplier. c. All permits for sanitary landfills issued by the State Health Department are public in nature. That is, the owner of such permits must allow competitive use of the landfill. The landfills currently utilized by City Garbage are essentially the same landfills used by all of its major competitors. Such landfills, by virtue of their permits, must be made available to use by City Garbage. d. The anti-trust laws of the State of Texas and the U.S.A. prevent sanitary landfill owners from granting preferential rates or conditions to companies owned by the landfill operators. As a result of anti-trust litigation, landfills operated by such companies as Laidlaw and BFI are available to City Garbage at the same rates and under the same conditions charged by such landfill operators to themselves. e. The new franchise adequately addresses the Mayor's concern because it provides that the franchise will automatically terminate if City Garbage loses its contractual ability to provide adequate space for colleyville garbage. 2. Mayor Hawkins second stated basis for veto suggests that the Council has granted only a "token gesture" to accept proposal from other companies. The following items should be considered in reviewing such an allegation: a. The City Manager's office advised the City Council members as early as November 1989 that the franchise and rate ordinance were under discussion. Councilmembers have been provided information in Council packets since that time to allow councilmembers opportunity to study the issue. wri tten communication on the topic dates back to December 1989. Various individual councilmembers have been involved in discussion of this issue and investigation of this issue since budget time in the summer of 1989. Adequate review and study of this issue has been conducted. b. The principal concern expressed by all citizens speaking on this issue is not the rate charged for garbage service. In fact, Mayor Hawkins did not veto the ordinance establishing rates. The franchise as it existed prior to the adoption of Ordinance 0-90-771 did not expressly provide the city with authority to regulate garbage rates. It is questionable whether the City had any authority thereunder to regulate rates. The new franchise prov ides such authority. c. Pursuant to the request of the City Council, formal proposals were received from two of the three major contractors for garbage serv ice and the th i rd ma j or contractor submitted an informal proposal. The primary objective of the City Council was to obtain the best garbage service available, taking into account service, performance and price. The proposals received were sufficient to allow an evaluation that the rates proposed by City Garbage were generally in accord with those provided by other major suppliers. The city was then left free to evaluate the question of level of service. Thirty years of almost impeccable service seemed sufficient to justify action. 3. It should be carefully noted that the franchise granted in Ordinance 0-90-771 actually enhances the City's position in the following respects: a. It reduces from one year to ninety days the period in which the City may terminate the garbage franchise for any reason. b. It grants the City express authority to regulate garbage rates where none existed before. c. It eliminates the issue of the val idi ty of the existing franchise which has been raised every year for discussion since 1981. d. It provides for automatic and immediate termination of the franchise if the ownership or control of the stock of City Garbage is transferred to any person other than its current owner. 4. The only issue involved here is obtaining the best garbage service available for the citizens of Colleyville. There has been absolutely no political motivation on the part of any of the undersigned in voting on this issue, just as we know there was none on the part of the Mayor in vetoing the franchise sought by Mr. Hubbard, who was his opponent in last year's mayors race. ~J,~ v' E/}'//~II '/ ;~,T~" ...-/) ) / /,"'!;?~~/ , / ,// . , '. /)" ,,; ,/ '1 J.=-",,/},1/ ! ,v .' ~'.~/( dell /f::: /) I ! C)~Ltjlk::J--/"