.
Feedback

Mandatory Garbage Collection, Increased Rates Approved Last Night By City Council

Both measures will go into effect on July 1.

Two 4-0 votes last night by the Half Moon Bay City Council approving mandatory garbage collection and recycling services along with a fixed annual rate increase of 3% per year for the next five years (July 2011 - July 2015) capped off a series of decisions that will the way city residents will dispose of their solid waste and recycle their paper, plastic and cans, among other materials.

Councilmember Allan Alifano recused himself from the deliberations, public hearings and votes for each of the agenda items, saying that had entered into a business relationship as of Dec. 30, 2010 with Allied Waste that he said "could be a conflict of interest." 

Despite a gathering of 10-15 people who had assembled in the audience (along with a few representatives from Allied Waste), resident Eduardo Magana was the only person who addressed the council during the mandatory garbage ordinance hearing -- on behalf of three properties that share one large garbage container.

"Why put all the garbage in separate containers? The company is very greedy," he said. "I don't feel it's right...they're forcing people," he said.

Councilmembers explained to Magana that it appeared that he had misunderstood the intent of the ordinance.

"It's not a greedy garbage company," Mayor Naomi Patridge said, "it's mandated by the state for recyclables to be collected." Patridge was referring to AB 939, which requires local municipalities and regional waste disposal services to divert 50% of generated recyclables from landfills and collect the materials for recycling instead. The city is currently out of compliance with AB 939.

Councilmember Marina Fraser said to Magana there would be no change for him under the mandatory garbage ordinance, and he would not have to set up three separate accounts.

Later in the meeting, resident William Harrison said he supported the mandatory collection ordinance and that in the past few years, a "sweet smell of burning garbage" has been present in his neighborhood from what he said were a few residents who he thinks are burning garbage in their fireplaces.

There were a few more comments for the rate increase agenda item.

Magana publicly stated that he thought the rate increases were "getting a little out of hand" as he said his monthly garbage bill had increased a few hundred dollars in recent years.

Harrison said to the council that he wanted to know how the increase in rates was decided.

"We came up with the best solution for the city and the residents," Councilmember John Muller said, later noting that the increase of 3% per year is fixed and that the negotiation was the "culmination of three to four years of discussions with Allied Waste."

According to the city, a 3% annual increase on a 32-gallon can translates to a monthly cost that will change from $20.62 in July 2011 to $23.22 in July 2015 by the end of the 5-year contract with Allied Waste that the city council on Dec. 21 of last year.

"We sat down with Allied Waste and got behind the ball...we owed Allied over $1 million," said Councilmember John Muller. "Almost every city is behind in pay [to Allied]," he said.

The debts of local municipalities to Allied Waste are one factor that has reportedly contributed to recent rate increases that have either been approved or are currently being considered throughout San Mateo County, despite the fact that most cities in the county transitioned from Allied Waste to Recology as their service provider in the new year.

Half Moon Bay's rate increase appears to be the most modest in comparison to other cities in San Mateo County that have raised their rates or are proposing to raise their rates in the near future.

Last night, the Foster City City Council unanimously approved a 29.5% rate hike. Burlingame's City Council considered a garbage rate increase of 17% last night. And on Jan. 10, Redwood City raised their garbage rates by 18%. Atherton, San Mateo and Menlo Park are among other cities proposing rate increases as well.

By the time of the council's vote, nine residents had filed written protests with the city in regards to the proposed rate increase, City Manager Laura Snideman reported at the council meeting last night. Had the council received more than 2,000 written protests against the new rates -- over half of the number of residents who were notified about the rate increases -- the city would have been legally barred from voting on the proposed rate increase under California Proposition 218, according to Snideman.

Snideman said that the increased $162,202  in revenue the city projects to receive from Allied Waste (due to the increased level of service the company will provide due to the mandatory ordinance) is money that can be put into its General Fund, meaning that it can be applied towards city services outside of waste collection and recycling.

The mandatory garbage collection ordinance and the rate increase will go into effect on July 1, as will the new services under the 5-year contract, which include swapping out customer-provided garbage cans with rolling carts provided by Allied Waste and replacing sorted recycling with single-stream recycling. Food composting is not included in the city's contract, so scraps should be disposed of in the regular garbage can if residents do not compost their own food at home already.

Prior to last night's vote, Half Moon Bay was the only city in San Mateo County that did not require residents and businesses to subscribe to garbage collection and recycling services.

To view the complete mandatory garbage ordinance and information supplied by the city about the rate increases, view the PDF documents attached to this published yesterday in Half Moon Bay Patch about last night's vote.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jon DeLong May 18, 2013 at 06:45 pm
With so many good Mexican restaurants in the area, why bother?
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
Carol Wexler May 18, 2013 at 02:42 pm
I would consider volunteering at the California State Parks but dogs are not allowed and I wouldRead More need to bring my dog.
pae May 18, 2013 at 11:22 pm
Misha, I understand where you're coming from, but that's what we don't want to do. One reason thatRead More all dog owners are being discriminated against is those few who don't follow the rules. It doesn't matter that there are bicyclists and horseback riders who don't follow rules, they're "OK," it's the dog owners who pay the price. We want an area where our dogs can exercise freely and legally, where we won't be bothered by people who are afraid of dogs or dislike them, and where they're not at risk from horses who spook. For those of us who live surrounded by Rancho land especially, we don't want to have to drive miles to a small, fenced lot with crowds of others seeking to exercise their dogs in the same small area. We're paying for this open space with our tax dollars, and we want to have access to it. There's plenty of room for everyone.
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
Chris Vance March 23, 2013 at 03:00 pm
What are you doing with the excess Undaria pinnatifida that is found? Can we get some of it for ourRead More compost piles at the Pacifica Sanchez Library Garden?