PB-240 395
SAN JOSE'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
SYSTEM: A CASE STUDY
Applied Management Sciences, Incorporated
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
1973
DISTRIBUTED BY:
KFui
Nitional Tichnical InfwnatiM Swvkt
U. S. KPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-78C
2.
PB 240 395
4. Title and Subtitle
San Jose's Municipal Solid Waste System: A Case Study
5. Report Date
/1973 ,'
6.
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Applied Management Sciences, Inc.
962 Wayne Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
10. Projecc/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
68-03-0041 ,
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report 8t Period
Covered
final
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This study examines the solid waste collection and management system in San Jose,
California, which is operated by private contractors with exclusive franchises
from the city. The background of the system, including location,- geography,
demography, climate, form of government, and solid waste management agencies
is described; the characteristics of the system, including the services,
equipment, and finances are also discussed.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
Waste disposal, urban areas
17b. Identifiers/Opcu-Ended Terms
Collection
17e. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASS1F1
AWIED.
Class (This
20. Security Class
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
144
22. Price
FORM NTI9-8B (REV. 10-71) ENDORSED BV ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
USCOMM.DC B26B-P74
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED FROM THE
BEST COPT FURNISHED US BY THE SPONSORING
AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT CER-
TAIN PORTIONS ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RE-
LEASED IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
076022
SAN JOSE'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
A Case Study
This final report (SV-78c) describee uork performed
for the Federal solid waste management program
under contract No. 68-03-0041
and ia reproduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PK7EECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
This report haa been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
commercial products constitute endorsement or reconmendation
for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-78c) in the
solid waste management series
11
-------
FOREWORD
Solid waste management systems are an integral part of the
environment of nearly every citizen 1n the United States. Yet
until recent years, these systems have not received the attention
other visible residential services have enjoyed. This historical
neglect has resulted in systems which may not be cost-effective,
especially with respect to the rising cost trends encountered in
solid waste management activities. These trends arise from two
principal factors:
* Environmentally sound disposal methodology is being
enforced or strongly encouraged; as a result, disposal
sites and needed equipment are now expensive to procure
and operate.
* The collection function is highly labor intensive.
Thus, the costs of unskilled labor, which have been
rising to meet socioeconomic demands, have had
enormous impacts on local agency budgets.
This rise in cost pressure has forced all levels of
governmental organizations to consider more closely the management
and costs of solid waste management activities.
Because efforts to upgrade solid waste management practices
are in their Infancy, there 1s still an obvious lack of data
bases for evaluative and comparative analyses. This case study
is one in a series of case studies of solid waste management
systems which has been conducted under the sponsorship of the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Kenneth Shuster and Cindy McLaren served as
EPA project officers on the case study reported herein. The
purpose of these case studies is to fill In this data gap with
actual case histories of how cities are handling their solid
waste problems.
Concerned agencies at all government levels, as well as
private firms, will be able to assess information of the following
types:
* The management and operating characteristics of
public sector solid waste management systems.
* The Institutional forces which give rise to these
characteristics.
-------
* Those techniques that have been or are being applied
to enhance the measures of productivity, aesthetics,
level of service, and environmental control.
These agencies and firms can then use these comparisons
to upgrade. their systems according to the norms achieved In other
cities of similar size, geographical location, and operational
and Institutional characteristics.
--ARSEN J. DARNAY
Solid WoA-te Management
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SYSTEM INSCRIPTION ABSTRACT 5
3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 9
4 BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM 12
Location., Demography, Economic Base
and Climate 13
Form of Government and Organization 19
Solid Waste Management History 21
Agencies Impacting San Jose's Solid
Waste Management System 28
5 SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS , 32
Authorization and Regulations 32
Collection Operations 33
Quality of Service and Resident Survey
Results .46
Disposal Methods 53
Future Changes 56
APPENDIX A: San Jose Recycling Program Information
and Data 61
APPENDIX B: Santa Clara County Memo Requesting
Board Approval of Solid Waste
Planning Effort 84
APPENDIX C: Municipal code for Waste Matter
Management - 92
APPENDIX D: Citizen Instruction for Solid Waste
Collection 109
APPENDIX E: Proposing Conversion of City
Disposal Grounds to Golf Course 114
APPENDIX F: Memo Outline for City Council Study
Session on Waste Recovery Systems 126
APPENDIX G: City Report on Alternative Refuse
Collection Accounting, Billing, and
Payment Plans 135
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Data Sources and Information Typos 4
2 Organization Chart for the City of San Jose .... 22
3 San Jose Department of Public Works Organization
Chart 23
'4 San Jose Contractor Collection Rate Schedule .... 35
5 Historic Complaint Call Data 47
6 Garbage Pickup Comparison of 13 Cities im the Bay
Area by Cost and Minimum Service for Pickup
Service per Week 49
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Collection Abstract 7
2 Disposal Abstract ... 8
3 Climatological Summary , 14
4 Employment Data for Six Largest Firms 15
5 Employment Distribution and Other Economic Data
For San Jose Metropolitan Area (Santa Clara
.Cpunty) 16
6 General Economics Data for San Jose and Santa
Clara County 20
!7 Distribution of Level of Service by Type of
Dwelling Unit 36
8 Manpower and Equipment Allocation 38
9 Efficiency and Productivity Data 41
10 City Disposal Grounds Profits and Loss Statement . 55
11 Refuse Collection and Disposal in San Jose Area . . 57
VI
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste management system of San Jose, California,
is a private sector operation which functions under contract to
the city. It provides mixed refuse collection and disposal
services to which all city residents must subscribe or obtain a
permit to haul their own refuse. Services are provided by a
prime contractor, an owned subsidiary (which also operates the
major landfill), and four independent subcontractor firms.
Within the city, the Department of Public Works and the Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development share the responsibi-
lity for monitoring this system. The Department of Public Works
also provides street sweeping services and operates a municipal
landfill for street sweeping rubbish, citizen-delivered rubbish,
and rubbish from other city operations.
San Jose is undergoing rapid expansion of population and
commercial/industrial growth. It is a transportation hub for
the area's Industry. The growth of the city closely parallels
the growth of the manufacturing industry. In this environment,
the problems of solid waste disposal, sewage sludge, disposal,
and industrial waste disposal have rapidly increased and are
handled almost totally by private sector operations.
The contractor collection system, 85 percent of which
has been acquired by a national solid waste services firm, requires
modernization of both management and equipment. The most recent
city contract called for the addition of ten larger packers and
the prime contractor is instituting a computerized accounting
-------
and billing operation. Residents are billed by the contractor
on a quarterly basis.
The disposal system consists of a private site located ten
miles from the city and utilized by the two firms which provide
85 percent of the city's service. The four smaller firms utilize
other landfills located outside the city. The haul distances are
thus relatively long, causing some system inefficiency.
The San Jose personnel responsible for the system operation
are well aware of system problem areas. Extensive planning efforts
have been undertaken to identify alternative collection, cost
accounting, billing, disposal, and reclamation options. It is
apparent that the city wishes to gain more control of the system
by Instituting city billing, delineating an acceptable accounting
methodology for the contractor, soliciting competitive sbids for
collection service, and instituting its own reclamation/disposal
system. Since the contractor pays a franchise fee to the city
of ten percent of gross waste collection/disposal receipts
and three percent of gross rubbish collection/disposal receipts,
an adequate accounting and billing system is necessary tfor this
system.
The case study of San Jose, California was performed using
a carefully structured data-gathering technique. Initial contacts
were made by both Office of Solid Waste Management Programs and
Applied Management Sciences' personnel and interviews were scheduled
to be convenient for the city and contractor personnel. During
these interviews, notes were taken and tape recordings were made
after obtaining the permission of the interviewees. Extensive
efforts were taken to require a minimum of city personnel time
and, whenever possible, existing documentation was solicited to
support the general discussions. Figure 1 presents the titles
of the people interviewed in San Jose, the dates of these inter-
views, and the types of the information obtained.
-------
The structure of this report consists of five chapters,
including the Introduction, and appropriate appendices. Chapter
2 is a systems description abstract which synopsizes the charac-
teristics of the city and the collection and disposal systems.
Chapter 3 presents the findings of the case study effort and
identifies potential problem areas. Chapter 4 is a description
of the city in terms of those parameters which can affect solid
waste management operations. Finally, Chapter 5 reports the
characteristics of tne solid waste system in considerable detail.
All aspects of the system are discussed and appropriate tabular
data are presented.
-------
Director, and Chief Assistant
Director, Department of Public
Works
16 August
Background and history of collection and
disposal system, general problem areas
Civil Engineer, Hydraulic Division,
Department of Public Works -
16, 17 August
Detailed system discussion, information
on future city system objectives, information
on city/county interface and planning efforts,
city landfill operation
Supervising Sanitarian, Housing,
Community Development and Code
Enforcement, Health Department
16 August
Detailed data on system operation, complaint
calls data, background on contractor
operation and history
Street Sewer and Maintenance
Superintendent, General Super-
visor of Street Sweeping Services,
and. Power Sweeping Foreman,
Department of Public Works
16 August
Detailed data on city street sweeping, litter,
and leaf collection operations
Equipment Maintenance Superin-
tendent, Department of Public
Works
17 August
Discussion of equipment maintenance and
operating costs, equipment acquisition, and
problem areas
President and Operating Manager
of Garden City Disposal Company
17 August
Information on contractor collection and
disposal activities, visit to private sector
landfill
FIGURE 1: DATA SOURCES AND INFORMATION TYPES
-------
SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ABSTRACT
City: San Jose, California
Contacts: A.R. (Tony) Turturici
Richard R. Blackburn
Eugene R. Toschi
John R. Lucchesi, R.S,
Steve Seward
Stan Jacklich
Chester Spurgeon
Edward N. Reichle
Paul Maadsen
Gene Meredith
Director. Department of
Public Works
Chief Assistant Director,
Department of Public Works
Civil Engineer, Hydraulic
Division, Department of
Public Works
Supervising Sanitarian,
Housing & Community Develop-
ment, and Code Enforcement
Section, Health Department
Street & Sewer Maintenance
Superintendent, Department
of Public Works
General Supervisor, Street
Sweeping Service, Depart-
ment of Public Works
Power Sweeping Foreman,
Street Sweeping Service,
Department of Public Works
Equipment Superintendent,
Department of Public Works
President, Garden City
Disposal Company
Operating Manager, Garden
City Disposal Company
-------
Date of Visit: August 16-17, 1973
Population Demography:
Category
Total (1970)
Hale
Female
White*
Other Races:
Black
City of San Jose
443,950
218,117
225,833
425,566
28,384
10,950
SMSA
1,064,714
524 (1674
540, .040
949, ,898
114 ,,816
18,090
1973 estimated population of San Jose Is 506,800
Assumed to Include Mexican-Americans
Area: 145 square miles
Density: 3,495 residents per square mile
Collection: Table 1
Miscellaneous;
Private contractor system under city contract
offers basic curbside service plus higher
levels of service at additional cost. Charges
escalate based on number of containers and
carryout versus curbside service. Stops
are collected once per week by the.- prime
contractor and five subcontractors.. Refuse
generation rate is lower than generally
encountered. System efficiency is low, given
the density and waste generation rates: long
runs to disposal site, inclusion of commercial
stops in residential routes, equipment age, and
size of packers, contribute to this condition. .
Commercial/industrial accounts are based on
approved rate schedule.
-------
TABLE 1
COLLECTION ABSTRACT
"^^^ Collection
^"^•x^^ Function
Col lect ion"*^^^
Variables ^^"^^.^^
Number of Crews
Crew Size
Frequency of Service
Point of Collection
Method of Collection
Stops
Service Limitations-'
Incentive System
Fund Source
Tonnage (Annual)
Wage Scales (Monthly)
Unions
Annual Cost
Mixed Refuse
(City Contractor)
Approximately 70
2 to 3
Once Per Week
Basic Service: Curb-
side
Add' 1 Service: On -
Premise
Rear Loaders
113, 700^
Basic Service:
3-32 gallen cans
(extra cans, bins
at add't cost)
Task System
Service Charge
175,000
$4.61-4.88/hr
Teamsters Local 350
_J*/
Street
Sweeping, Leaf
& Litter Collection
(City) •
14
1
Variable depending on
area
Curbs, litter cans
Street Sweepers,
Support Trucks
3,000 Street' Miles
General Fund + EEA
funds
21, 500^
$549, 530^
—'As of date of site visit: current # of stops has increased to
120,000
!-'Extra cans, bins of varying sizes, special rubbish or bulky items
pickups are all available at additional cost to residents
-'insufficient data available
-'Based on budget cost of $497,000 plus prorated share of city
landfill cost: does not include equipment operating/mainte-
nance cost
7
-------
Disposal: Table 2
Miscellaneous:
Disposal costs are not known for the priv.ate
sector landfill. Costs are included in the
user service charge. Private site is huge
and suffers from birds, blowing refuse,
and high water table. No leachate moni-
toring performed. City disposal site accepts
only bulky items from citizens, ami wastes
from city street sweeping, lot cleaning,
litter control and other city operations.
City site may be turned into golf course.
Disposal system is primary local issue for
San Jose solid waste planning efforts.
TABLE 2
DISPOSAL ABSTRACT
~"*^-^^^ Site
Parameters*"*"--^.^^
Type/Location
Total Area
Real Loading . >
Total Lifetime
Remaining Lifetime
Private Site Landfill ,
Class II Sanitary Landfill/
Newby Island near Southern
Tip of San Francisco Bay
342 acres
105.000 yds/month
30 - 40 years
Municipal Landfill
Class II Sanitary Landfill,
Bulky Items Only/South
Central Sector of City
i
SO acres
300,000 - 350.000 yds /month
6 years .
3 years
-------
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The San Jose solid waste management system may be character-
ized as cooperative contractual arrangement between the public
and private sectors. By means of the city code, the city may
essentially issue a monopolistic franchise for specified
territories to private sector operators who collect all of the
residential mixed refuse, industrial and commercial waste, and
some of the bulky Items. Collection services are mandatory for
all residents who must subscribe and pay user charges, based on
set rates, to the contractor or his subcontractors. The con-
tractor, his subcontractor, and other licensed private haulers
pay to the city a license fee based on gross receipts for collec-
tion and disposal of mixed refuse and rubbish. The only collec-
tion service directly provided by the city is that of street
sweeping and litter collection. The city operates a recycling
system which currently handles 500 tons/year of glass, paper,
aluminum, and bi-metals.
The city faces two sets of problems, one concerned with
the expansion and improvement of collection and billing services,
and one centered around the need for a county plan for solid waste
disposal. San Jose's expanding residential population and industry,
a state law calling for a state-wide solid waste management plan
by 1976, and citizen pressure for recycling efforts are some
of the factors behind this situation. This private sector mono-
poly of collection and disposal operations, the potential for
better systems control, and the desire for generation of revenue
9
-------
are additional factors which place pressure on the city to upgrade
its current arrangements.
The .city has undertaken extensive studies of collection
contracting and billing alternatives, of citizen attitudes
toward solid waste systems, and of waste generation rates. While
it is likely that private sector collection of residential and
other refuse will continue, it is apparent that the system
will be modified. First, open bidding based on detailed service
performance specifications is likely to occur. Second, the
contractor may be required to install a city-approved accounting
system to insure accurate franchise fee payments to the. city, or
the city may institute its own billing system. Regardless of the
option selected, it is apparent that the city will move; rapidly
towards a more controlled, higher quality of service. Mandatory
rubbish and bulky items collection are not likely to be instituted,
as most citizens appear to desire the option of either requesting
special service or bringing their bulky wastes directly to the
city or private landfills.
In the area of disposal/recycling, the city has two parallel
sets of issues to consider. The first is creation of a city/county
plan for solid waste disposal which is fair to all concerned 'and
which meets both local requirements and State statutes. This
issue must be resolved by 1975 when, coincidentally, the
current collection/disposal contract expires. The city seems
to be well'ahead of the county in undertaking its planning efforts.
The second set of disposal issues relates to both the mode of
disposal (extent of recycling) and the decision as to who will
operate the disposal system. The city favors a public sector
"environmental park" concept which will include both reclamation
and landfill disposal operations run by the city. Such1 a
system would meet the objective of governmental control,, of
disposal and of increased need for resource recovery. It would
10
-------
also generate revenues which would help to support general city
operations. Such a plan would not be appealing to tte private
sector, as it has a large investment in landfill property and
its landfill operations seem to be quite lucrative.
System efficiency for collection operations appears* to be
somewhat lower than what might be expected, given the population
density, terrain, curbslde service, and extent of containerization
for multiple dwelling unit stops. Aging equipment and long hauls
to the disposal site contribute to this situation. The primary
contractor seems to be making strenuous efforts to improve its
system's capability within corporate resource and policy con-
straints.
The San Jose system is likely to undergo some significant
changes in the next two to three years. The success of the city's
recycling efforts and plans to gain control of the system by dis-
posal function operation merit periodic surveillance. Also, the
means by which the city resolves city/county differences as it
creates the required plan should be monitored, as this is a prob-
lem common to many other areas of the country.
11
-------
4
BACKGROUND OF THE SYSTEM
The San Jose area was first settled by Catholic Padres in
the mid-eighteenth century. This was the first civil community
in California and was established by the Spanish government as
"El Pueblo de San Jose de Guadalope" on November 29, 1777. In
the early 1800's the ranches began to flourish with cattle,
grain, and fruit trees and in 1849, the year of the "Gold Rush,"
the city'became the first capital of California. Its name was
shortened to San Jose in 1850 when California became a state.
San Jose lost its status of capital of the State in 1851,
although it was rapidly becoming a wealthy agricultural area.
The 1870*s saw the arrival of the canning industry, railroads
from the East, daily newspapers, and a new school which later
became San Jose State College. By the end of the nineteenth
century San Jose had almost four and a half million trees of all
kinds; prunes, apples, apricots, peaches, pears, cherries,
almonds, and walnuts. These decisuous fruit crops, together
• '
with some manufacturing and light industry continued to be the
economic base of the area until the post-World War II years.
The last three decades have seen a phenomenal growth and
change pattern in the San Jose area. Orchards have given way
to homes and industry. The city has grown from a population of
12
-------
60,000 with an area of 15 square miles in 1950 to an area of 140
square miles and 471,000 people in 1971. The 1973 populatio'n has
been estimated at 510,000. Detailed statistics on the city are
presented below.
Location, Demography, Economic Base and Climate
San Jose is located at the southern end of San Francisco,
42 miles south of Oakland, and 390 miles north of Los Angeles.
The city is situated in the heart of the Santa Clara Valley in
Santa Clara County. The average elevation is about 80 feet
in the central area of the city, although elevation varies from
sea-level on the Bay to several hundred feet on the Coastal Range.
The city covers an area of 145 square miles, making it the third
largest city in California in land area.
The climate is mild and sunny. The area receives cooling
breezes from both the adjacent Bay and the Pacific Ocean just
18 miles to the west. The area is protected from ocean storms
by the Coastal Range. A climatological summary is presented in
Table 3. The average low winter temperature is 38°F and the
average high summer temperature is 81°F. The average rainfall
is 14.87 inches, largely between November and April. The area
is generally one of low humidity and cool.nights.
San Jose has experienced a phenomenal population growth in
the past two decades. The population more than doubled itself
in each decade and is still growing rapidly. In 1950 the pop-
ulation of the San Jose area was 95,280; by 1960 it had risen to
204,196 and by 1970 it had jumped to 945,779. Estimates for 1973
place the city's population at over 506,000. San Jose's popula-
tion comprises over 44 percent of Santa Clara County's residents.
13
-------
La«>tude 37° 20" N
Longitude 122° 57 W
Elevation 95 Feet
TABLE 3
. CLIMATOLOGICAL SUMMARY
MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD OF RECORD 1931-1971
Temperature (*FI
Precipitation Totals
Mean Number of Dayt
Reporting Weather Station
San Jos*
Means
Montt)
Jan
April
Juiy
Oct
Year
E
Daily
Maxunu
076
G'JO
81 1
74 1
704
c
I
4JI2
5«0
Ci:?
624
5»4
E
>i
II
407
4C9
51>.4
507
484
Extremes
RecorC
Hignett
78
02
IOC
90
106
Record
Lowest
22
34
46
35
20
(Inches)
c
2.70
1.06
T
056
13.11
|
I!
208
1.34
0.04
1.49
279
|
S°w
6
3
0
2
32
Temperatures
Max.
&5
Is
0
•
4
1
10
Mm
MM
3
0
0
0
5
I
H
Is
|5
1!
S.6
G.C
C2
5.2
64
| |
HI
se
NW
NW
NW
NW
?|
II
42
60
B3
ca
63
£
>.
*'ll
66
56
54
58
SB
r
|
Jan.
Apul
July
Oct.
Year
Source Environmental Science Servicvs Aciniinistraiion
T Trace, an amount too small to measure
-------
The county itself is almost 24 percent as large as the San
Francisco-Oakland S.M.S.A. The non-white population comprises
2.5 percent of the San Jose population. By 1980, the Metro-
politan San Jose area is expected to have a population in excess
of 1.4 million. Buying power in terms of average annual dis-
posable income is $12,548 per household.
San Jose is an area undergoing very rapid population and
economic growth. Its ready access via modern freeways to both
commerical and recreational areas (San Francisco and Oakland)
contribute to its attractiveness. Its access to ports and to
other western states place it at the hub of local expansion
trends. Two railroads, 44 interstate freight truck carriers
and 167 interstate carriers contribute to its role as a distribution
center. Employment distribution and other economic data are
depicted in Table 5. Table 4 below presents employment data
for the six largest firms in the area. There are approximately
510 manufacturing plants in the area and leading group classes
of products are: Electronic Research, Electrical Machinery, Food
Processing, Printing and Publishing, Fabricated Metals,
Machinery, Chemicals, Automobile Assembly, and Stone and Clay
products.
Table 4 : Employment Data for Six Largest Firms
NAME OF CO"?ANY
EMPLOYMENT PRODUCTS
International Business Machines
F.M.C. CorporJtion
General Electric
Ford Moioi ConrijKiny
Del Monte Cu> i oution
Arcata
7.500 Electronic Computer Eruipment
3.500 Food Machinery .ind Ordnance
3.178 Electric Mo'ors, Nuclear Power Plants
3,000 Automobile Assembly
720 Food Procf.i;'iy
650 Printing
15
-------
TABJ2 5
EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION AND OTHER ECONOMIC DATA FOR
SAN JOSE METROPOLITAN AREA (SANTA CLARA COUNTY)
Percent
Change
1972 to
May 75 Apr. 73 May 72 1973
Total - All Industries 468,800 465,6CC 440,500 Ȥ7?
Agriculture 5,600 4,SOO 5,760 - 1.7
Contract Construction 20,800 19,600 20,400 + 2.0
Kanurccturing . 128,100 127,800 112,200 + 8.3
Durable Goods 106,200 105,000 96.800 * 9.7
Non-Durable Goods 21,900 22,800 21,400 * 2.3
Trans., Corn. & Utilities 18,200 18,200 17,900 + 1.6
Trade (Wholesale & Petail) 84,200 83,400 79,400 + 6.0
Finance, Insurance & Real Est. 17,200 17,100 15,800 + 8.8
Services 85,600 84,700 81,600 + 4.9
Government 68,700 68,600, 6D,100 + 3.9
Percent of Labor Force Employed 95.9t 95.61 94.6% • * 1.4
BUILDING f
Valuation of Permits Issued ($000) 42,026 94,784 44,071 - 4.6
Year to Date ($000) 230,657 188,631 206,084 + 1.2
Number of Dwelling Units 994 2,952 1,326 - 25.0
Year to Date 6,767 5,773 6,365 + 6.3
Single Dwellings 668 1,885 804 - 16.9
Year to Date 3,994 3,326 3,758 +• 6.2
Multiple Dwellings 326 1,067 522 - 37.5
Year to Date 2,773 2,447 2,607 * 6.3
FINANCET
Bank Debits ($000) 4,028,869 3,906,686 J,435.892 «• 17.2
Year to Date($COO) 18,774,330 14,745,461 177,627,731 +• 6.5
Bank Deposits($000) 877,003 881,500 764*>81 + 14.6
TRANSPORTATION f
Air Passengers (ON) 84,770 86..4L9 77,308 + 9.6
• Year to Date 393,273 308,503 358.912 + 9.5
Air Passengers (OFF) 85,235 87,369 7.7,322 + 10.2
Year to Date 396,097 310,862 364,748 + 8.5
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX 9
All Items (1967-100)
U. S. City Average 131.5 13ff. 7 124.7 *• 5.4
San Francistfcr-Cakland 128.. 7 128.7 122.9 * 4.7
MISCELLANEOUS
* California Dept. of Employment, current month is preliminary. Previous
months are revised.
•(-U.S. Department of Commerce, San Francisco.
J Federal Reserve Bank, San Francisco.
§ Figures for San Jose Municipal Airport, Airport Manager.
^Consumer Price Index, Monthly, U.S. Department of Commerce.
16
-------
TABLE 5 (Cont.d)
SAN JOSE METROPOLITAN AREA
(SANTA CLARA COUNTY)
JMPLOVMENT#
Total - All Industries
Agriculture
Contract Construction
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Non-Durable Goods
Trans., Conun. 4 Utilities
Trade (Wholesale & Retail)
Finance, Insurance & Real Est.
Services
Government
Percent of Labor Force Employed
BUILDING f"
Valuation of Permits Issued ($000)
Year to Date ($000)
Number of Dwelling Units
Year to Date
Single Dwellings
Year to Date
Multiple Dwellings
Year to Date
FINANCE £
Bank Debits ($000)
Year to Date($000)
Bank Deposits($000)
TRANSPORTATION £
Air Passengers lON)
Year to Date
Air Passengers (OFF)
Year to Date
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX Vf
All Items (1967=100)
U. S. City Average
San Franc!SCO-Oakland
MISCELLANEOUS
Percent
Change
1972 to
June 73
475, 10b
5,500
21,000
131,300
108,500
22,800
18,500
84,900
17,400
86,200
68,900
95.1%
44,733
275,390
1,530
8,297
529
4,523
1,001
1,772
3,995,255
22,769,583
905,466
93,298
486,571
92,194
488,291
132.4
130.7
Mav 73
469,800
5,600
20,800
128,100
106,200
21,900
18,200
84,200
17,200
85,600
68,700
95.9%
21,t29
210,260
994
6,767
668
3,994
326
2,773
4,028.869
18,774,330
877,003
84,770
393,273
85,235
396,097
131.5
123.7
June 72 1975
434,100 *
6.200
19,000 *
114,900 *
92,000 *
22,900 -
18,200 *
75,700 *
14,400 +•
78,500 *
65,800 «•
94.4% .*
64,193
270,277 +•
2,296
8,661 -
1,505
5.264
790 +
3,397
3,492.741 *
21,120,472 *
853,382 *
86,823 +
445,735 *
86,942 *
451.690 +
125.0 +
124.3 *
9.4
11.2
10.5
14.2
17.9
.4
1.6
12.1
20.8
9.8
4.7
.7
30.3
1.8
33.3
4.2
C4.8
14.0
26.7
47.8
14.3
7.8
6.1
7.4
9.2
6.0
8.1
S.9
S.L
* California Dept. of Employment, current month is preliminary.
months are revised.
•(•.U.S. Department of Commerce, San Francisco.
t Federal Reserve Bank, San Francisco.
§. Figures for San Jose Municipal Airport, Airport Manager.
11 Consumer Price Index, Monthly, U.S. Department of Commerce.
17
Previous
-------
The labor force in Metropolitan San Jose has expanded from
•
110,000 in 1950 to 428,000 in 1970. It accounted for 3.6% of the
increase in total Jobs in the San Francisco Bay area ia the 1960's.
This dominant share of the growth in total Jobs was the. result of
growth in basic activities and in an increase in population serving
industrial employment in the region. The prime activities are in
manufacturing, particularly in electronics, instrumentation, and
aerospace firms located in the area. Manufacturing employment .
has grown from 21,700 in 1949 to 122,619 in 1970 — an average annual
gain of over 5,500 per year. Currently almost one of eyery three
Jobs is in manufacturing.
Within the manufacturing category, a significant shift has
occurred. Durable goods, with most of the emphasis from the
aerospace sector, have become dominant while nondurables composed
of food, canning, preserving, and processing have declined in,
Importance. Host recent figures rank Metropolitan San Jose second
in California in aerospace employment. The area is identified
as one of the 5 major research and development centers in the United
States.
It is projected that manufacturing employment will" climb to
159,000 workers by 1980 — 32.6% above the current levei. A strong
factor in this growth will continue to be the aerospaces-electronics
industries.
With the decline in agricultural processing, a substantial
labor pool of unskilled and semiskilled male and female; workers
has been created. Many of these workers are being trained to meet
the needs of existing and future industries. Metropolitan San. Jose
is particularly attractive to firms requiring a highly skilled
labor force because of the concentration of electronic-aerospace
and research and development firms and the relatively high educa-
tional level of personnel involved in these industries.
18
-------
The majority of industrial workers who are union members are
affiliated with AFL-CIO unions. Labor relations in San Jose are
generally excellent.
Table 6 presents general economic data for San Jose and Santa
Clara County. In general, San Jose accounts for 50 percent of new
dwelling units and building permit values .
San Jose takes a positive attitude towards citizen narticioation
in government. The City Council has created a permanent Goals
Committee composed of individual citizens and representatives of
groups, organizations, and industry to recommend to the City Planning
Commission and the City Council citizens' goals for future
city development. This is a very active group which has
had accepted by the council a detailed and well-expressed set
of urban development goals. San Jose also has an ombudsman who
serves as a spokesman and mediator for people with grievances
against the government.
Form of Government and Organization
Form of Government
San Jose's first Charter was granted by the State in 1897,
8
allowing the City to operate under the Commission form of government.
On July 1, 1916, another Charter was adopted enabling San Jose to
institute the Council-Manager form of government making it one of
the first cities to do so. San Jose's present Charter went into
effect May 4, 1965, after being adopted in a special election and
approved by the State Legislature, as an effort to update the
existing form of government.
The Charter delineates the City's form of incorporation;
powers of the City; form of government; powers and duties of the
City Council and the Mayor; and procedures for developing City
legislation.
19
-------
TABLE 6: GENERAL ECONOMICS DATA FOR SAN JOSE
AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY
BUILDING PERMIT VALUE BY CITY
1069
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Lot Alto*
Lo» Altos Hills
Lot Gaios
Milpitas
Mor.tc Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Pfclo Alto
San Jon
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Incorporated
TOTAL
Source: Santa Clara County Planning Department
1970
(971
5.352.000
28,709.000
2.368.000
7,315.000
2.993.000
11.940.000
12.652.000
1.043.000
1.400.000
31.508.000
32.426.000
176.783.000
37.116.000
1S.2S2.000
37.518.000
37.561.000
$441.932.000
6.546.000
15.850.000
3.859.000
4.779.000
1.778.000
5.527.000
15,646.000
1.131.000
1.913.000
24.009.000
45.916.000
189.386.000
49.930.000
10.700.000
35.262.000
53.522.000
$465.754.000
18.067.000
9,781,000
3.945.000
4,326,000
4.265.000
7,187.000
21.960.000
897.000
4.930.000
17.286.000
12,806.000
225.414.000
33.776,000
13.986.000
30.627;000
48.721.000
$457,968,000
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Field Crops Nursery Slack.
and Cut Flowers,
Apury and Seed* Totals
S1.190.124 $3.883.165. $84.138.813
'3.0&3.9/5 U. 122.985, 91.303.510
1.792,495 11.465.050 70.594.595
2.03/.300 17.287,200) 65,536.360
2.651.815 20.030.400 67.407.305
Year
1950
I960
1965
1970
1971
Bearing Acici
Ffwili, Null
Berries
86.015
G6.453
52.419
.38.614
32.766
Fruit, Nut
and
Berry Crops
$42.328.015
49.451.475
28.749.550
IC.OC0.600
15.160.700
Vegetable
Aaeaqv
26.277
14.220
1.1.613
15.615
13.810
Vegetable
Crops
$8.851.610
H.G?4.480
12.208.800
18.86a.700
14.669.000
Livestock
and Poultry
Products
S27.88S.899
17.050.595
16.378.700
16.281,550
14.884.390
Source. Deuartmoni of Agriculture
NEW DWELLING UNITS
TOTAL COUNTY
Campbell
Cuiwrtmo
Cilroy
Lot Altos
Los Allot Mills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sercno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated
1969
18.771
68
983
136
136
436
337
71
61
1.56?
165
9.409
1.355
423
1.196
2.440
1970
1 7.61$
231
441
256
84
31
137
906
25
47
1.220
28
9.516
1.320
268
1.782
1.326
1971
19.569
1.293
513
135
97
38
209
1.058
15
214
720
193
10.637
1,334
364
1.342
1,407
TOTAL RETAIL SALES
Year Santa Cinm County
1950 302.670.000
1955 Gb4.li03.000
19I>0 930.8liJ.000
1961
I9G2
10G3
1'JGt
1')Gb
13.952.000
.!<> 7.390.000
.^G.'i.boO.OOO
,34a!'J7J.OOO
4ut.;>ri8ouo
.'7I8JOKOOO
.898.7-J8.000
19W» 2.017.851.000
19/0 2.H/.I92.000
1971 2.381.224.000
Source: Santa Clara County Planning Department
Source S-il.-s Mjn.n|f>n»!fi<
"Sur.vuy ol Buynuj Poxwi".
1972
20
-------
It also established the Administrative Organization and Boards
and Commissions; designates election dates, and i«n addition,
has various general provisions.
With San Jose's Council-Manager form of government, the
zens elect the Mayor who is the official head of the organization,
charged with guiding the corporation's policy and presiding over
an elected Council whose decisions determine policy. The Council
chooses the City Manager, who Is responsible for administering
these policies, recommending procedures, and conducting day-to-day
operations. Operating with an annual budget of approximately 48
million dollars, employing some 3,752 people and serving 471,000
citizens, the City of San Jose is a big business.
San Jose voters elect the Mayor and six councilmen as the
policy and decision-making body of their City. The Mayor is
elected at large for a term of four years and presides at Council
meetings and represents the City at ceremonial occasions. As a
member of the Council, the Mayor has one vote but no veto power.
The six counciln«en serve overlapping four year terms, and are
nominated and elected at large to special seats.. All official
actions of the Council are taken during the Council meetings.
The public is invited and encouraged to attend.
Organization
The city's most recent organization chart is presented in
Figure 2. The manager is responsible for the administration of
thir'teen departments. The Department of Public Works is responsible
for the administration of municipal refuse collection and disposal
activities. Within the department, the Utilities Division has
the responsibility for managing solid waste services (see Figure 3 ).
Solid Waste Management History
Within the San Jose area, solid waste collection and disposal
has always been performed by the private sector. Prior to 1951,
21
-------
CITY MANAGER
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
Legislative Coordination
Human .Relations
Public Information
K.S.F. Project
EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
Special Projects
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT (HUF).
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Environmental Coordination
Project Implementation
Project Coordination
Capital Improvements
BUDGET/EVALUATION
Research/Development
Analysis/Pvaluat ion
Grant Coordination
Finance
E.D.P.
ASSISTANT CITY.MANAGER
Council Liaison
Aqcnda Planning
Office Management
Ombudsman
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Personnel Administration
.Affirmative Action
Manpower
Labor Relations
Training & Development
Retirement Administration
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Industrial
Commercial
E.D.A.
POLICE
FIRE
Civil
Defense
PUBLIC
VORKS
Contract
Compliance
PROPERTY/
.CODES
LIBRARY
Acoulsitlon/
Relocation
Housing Code
Building Code
Zoning Ordinance
PARKS &
RECREATION
Auditorium
Theater
PLANNING
C.D.A.
FIGURE 2
5/4/73
ORGANIZATION CHART FOR THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
-------
DBPABTMERT OF PUBLIC VJOK8
A.8. TORTPHICI
DIRECTOR
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATIVE
SECRETARY
VACAHT
ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT
J. EAS
stva
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
OF
PUBLIC WORKS »
8. BLACKBURN
CHIEF ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
J. HINOaOSB
BUSINESS
MANAGER
F. OIBR
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
F. BELICK
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
OF
PUBLIC WORKS
W.P.C.P.
FIGURE 3: SAN»ffOSE DEPARTMENT OF
ORGANIZATION CHART
-------
residents contracted directly with private haulers for services-.
In 1951, the City Council solicited bids for a franchised collection
.« •
service, in which the rates, frequency of service and the waste
volumes to be collected would be established by the city. The
billing and the disposal activities were to be the responsibility
of the franchisee. The contract was awarded to the low bidder but
the company failed before service could begin. The City Council
asked the local collectors to put together a collection system
and Garden City Disposal Company became the prime franchisee. In
1954, the city awarded an exclusive 15 year franchise to Garden
City, which expired on November 30, 1969. On August 24, 1970, a
new contract was signed and it expires on November 30, 1975.
As the city began its rapid growth pattern, the city boundaries
expanded to include areas served by other companies. The area
served by Garden City Disposal remained the same. Of the new
companies then serving the newly incorporated area, San Jose
Scavenger Co. was the largest.
A franchise system continues to be the mode of operation for
solid waste collection and disposal. In November of 1972, Browning
Ferris Industries of Southern California acquired Garden City Dis-
posal and San Jose Scavenger (SJS), along with the Newby Island
disposal site operated by 3.J.8. Under the current city franchise,
Garden City is tha prime franchisee and oollects forty-five percent
of the stops. San Jose Scavenger is a '^subcontractor" to Garden
City and it collects another 40 percent of the stops. Four other
subcontractors, not owned by Browning Ferris Industries, collect the
remaining stops. The prime franchisee, Garden City, pays a. 10
percent franchise 'fee on mixed refuse collection and 3 percent fee
on gross bulky item collection revenues to the city. This amounts
to about $35,000 per month in payments to the city.
Under the previous contract, which expired in 1969, the
contractor's basic service was for 2 containers at a basic service
rate of $2.25 per month per dwelling unit. Under the current contract
24
-------
1 the service top IfttXteased from 2 to 3 cans per
week and the basic service cha-fg* was increased to $2.30. The
city required the contractor to provide tea additional vehicles of
" i • p *
20 or more cubic yard capacity. In> 1970, the city auditors who
reviewed the JioBt*aetor'i profit and los^- statement found that
.(' ' •*
the 6 month profit was slightly more, than 2%. By 1971, the re-
ported prof It MUTgin had increased baBewfaia.t . By March, 197$, the
city had foujqi .***$' the contractor's recjJMe, prepared on a nodi fled
cash basis MMO>n.tiitg ^etllolK1""*? W?".i3?~""iiid aot poperly
disclose the r4*l earnings. ttf fifcftehs' *e* paid to the city
vf • • . i •
is baaed on c,ipfe receipt* **»,|c^' ar* MbJ^fet to the errors of the
billing syste *j«f laggitg apc^mts reottVable. The contractor's
statements ard p*e|>ared oin ai'' csM b*01£, but nod if led by the
accountants tp re^tect an "accrual bfwplsiJ*- used for th* AOO tractor's
Income tax re^titrns.
rt -
The fraiichlseee wijl collect uji'to three 32 gallon cans placed
at curbaide from single family dwellings! duplexes, fournlexes, and
condominiums.. Apartment buildings a«d_ <>6mmercial/ industrial stops
are contracted for on a free' enterp^e jnteis. Additional service
for residential stops mturfe h4 arraaf^T ^cjr by the resident at
additional coft.
• /•
Within 'tile, total so}14 Iratite mn|i%aj^lpiit context, there are
a niaaber of . | fectora irhidMrJIU 'kiaf|iie$«j)^be futur^ natiire of th*
system. Some of these sirs £elkted .-cbWvatfe ahd coifity Agencies
' i ' . ' ' !•••*',.•
and will be 41ecusi>ed later In this section. A major, set of fac~
•' i • •
tors are the .'following:
j
i
(1) The state will «oo& be adopting stringent waste
disposal legislation;
(2) lite area's population and waste generation stream
will continue to grow rapidly through 1990;
-------
(3) The dSjgmftt 9* 8>4kvW. f$udie to meet EPA
receiving wfctW rtqjpfements represents an
additional id&l oakt;t>roblafil.
»
To date, all Disposal, «xo*pt for a dity disposal site which accepts
only street 'cleaning waates-, bias bean bandied by the private sector.
State requirenwntB for a county sai*/l^ acceptance of n*w landfill ,
site* will n^jeaeitate mteuitl gov*^»Wjital plan^lnt W and ooiitrol
, • . \ ' ' • ' ' ' ' ' * *
of solid w40« disposal '
In Marfth, IflTJ, tbe o'^t^^ Coaulttee on Refuel M*pftsAl sub-
mitted the irisuatjl of a ;t^O-y«*r •t&'Vf refuse ' '
city's study utilised dajta a^4>a»ti>feseration citegop.^ deve-16ped
In a 196^report for San Joct^y We 1JPMC Corporation .^:T»e follow-
ing recommendations are extttatfted from a summary of the 1973 repqrt:
1. Collection Service1
RECOMMENDATION > It <&• recommended that
^ith a
: ? It s MrVooo»ended that
«p«ii fi cation* l>e preared' detailing
City requirements and that competitive
be Bjoiiclt^d from private contyactoye.
''
2. Disposal of Solid Waste
RECOMMENDATION: -It i* recommended that
tfan Jose acquire- and operate its own
^anltary landfill sit*.
WC C Soli* wptte^ispoas* (A*s»Mttatien
>s ****** -|Mfcui»ii«ua<.t fe, ;
of ledi J^fe aad tha/^fi^y of Santa Clara.}
••j
-------
RECOMMENDATION;
San Jose's u
-.hat
v§-. be the recovery
ifeio • the wfrste'
• '** '
. To :a~ccomplieb tb'iy c&iect ive, it la
fit ifcl tine* incor-
opt to
achieving
Affective.C9ntftl;>*'< ^~ * f • F i *.•*'«• '
plajvtf to meet f$A •r.fetiuirenttatp. ' Consfchiotlon will teg,inM,a 1975.
i ''tf / A " I" ^ "* '- «•»•? '!" 1 4 C -" " ' **< * *
The plant is •jftfyb($ -to tb» <3« take H^hcfe, except that aetivfitqd
ChMftoal fllt^*''*^^ be n&ftd^ Also,
, *^y»tems
Calif,', May
ia p,
; suamiry description.
'
-------
of Los Gatos has a plant for garbage and sewage incineration.
It is a conveyor fed, horizontal, gas fired incinerator in which
shredded waste is forced along with controlled volumes of air to
achieve high burning temperatures. To date, it has not met air
quality requirements, nor has it attempted sewage sludge incinera-
tion. San Jose has discussed with Los Oatos the potential use of
the plant for disposal of San Jose wastes.
Paper and cardboard reclamation efforts are handled by
private firms in the area. Cardboard reclamation efforts use open
trucks, resulting in sloppy handling of wastes and curbside litter.
A BFI subsidiary. Consolidated Fibers, undertakes paper salvage by
collection from Garden City commercial accounts whose volumes
merit such collection. Reclaimed fibers are exported.
In December 1070, the City Council approved a Joint demon-
stration project between the Department of Public Works an- -he
San Jose State College (Department of Environmental Studie - j.
A s.»i.,ile recycling center went into operation in April 1971
Ctti/ens bring in materials on a voluntary basis. Appendix C
prt >ents documents describing this program and its results. As
ot fiscal year 1973, seven satellite centers, in addition to the
main San Jose Recycling Center, were in operation. Glass, bi-
metal, aluminum and newspaper are reclaimed. As of the end of
fiscal 1973, 761,600 pounds of materials, sold for $10,253, were
handled. Net income was almost $5,000. Expansion of this pro-
gram is anticipated.
Agencies Impacting San Jose's Solid Waste Management System
There are four groups which have had an impact on the solid
waste system in San Jose. These are discussed in the following
subsections.
28
-------
State of California
The California State Environmental Quality Act of 1970 initiated
a process in which state agencies were created and assigned the
responsibility for various aspects of environmental control. Sub-
sequently, State Senate Bill 5, Solid Waste Management and Recovery
Act, passed in 1972, created the State Solid Waste Management Board
within the Resources Agency The board is required
to prepare by January 1, 1975, the state policy for solid waste
management and the State Solid Waste Resource Recovery Program.
Within this board, a State Solid Waste Management and Resource
Recover Advisory Council has been established. This council inter-
acts with local government in the state, since the primary respon-
sibility for adequate solid waste management and planning is to
rest with local government. Under state law, each county now must
prepare a comprehensive regional solid waste plan for all waste
disposal within the county and for all waste originating therein
which is to be disposed outside the county. Such responsibility
can be transferred to a regional planning agency, although this
has not yet occurred in the San Jose area. The plan must be sub-
mitted by January 1, 1976. It must receive approval by a majority
of the population within each of the cities in the county.
Santa Clara County
Under the requirements of the State Solid Waste Management
and Recovery Act of 1972, Santa Clara County must develop a
comprehensive solid waste control plan in cooperation with the
cities within the county. A County Planning Policy Committee
(PPC), consisting of a councilman and a planning commission
member from each of the fifteen cities, has been formed. As of
the date of the site visit, August, 1973, the county had not yet
appropriated funds for the estimated two-year planning project
29
-------
required. Appendix 8 presents a county memorandum outlining the
proposed planning approach and its objectives. The county
plans to have a private.consultant perform most of the planning
effort under the guidance of a nine-member Technical Advisory
Committee.
While the PPC gives a one-city/one-vote perspective to the
planning process, the City of San Jose, which has almost 44% of
the county's population, wants a larger share in the planning/
decision-making process. . The city fears that the smaller, more
affluent communities may establish a plan that the city could not
afford and might not be witling to accept their share of the
disposal problem burden. Unless resource recovery becomes
economically feasible, landfllling will be the ultimate disposal
methodology for some time to come. In essence, the city wants
the county plan to conform to the city's needs. And, the city
wants to take control of the solid waste problem by becoming
the disposal system operating (or contracting) agent. How this
impasse will be handled remains to be seen, but it is clear that
by 1076 it will be resolved.
Private Sector Waste Collectors
In recent years, the national pattern of agglomeration has also
occurred in San Jose as the big national firms have bought out the
' • *
smaller operators. By 'controlling the franchise and the major
nearby disposal site, one company essentially monopolizes the
i
vast majority of local residential accounts and many of the connor-
cial accounts. Unless independent solid waste haulers can find
their own acceptable and economically feasible disposal sites,
30
-------
they are forced to use the BFI site and pay its disposal fees.
The long-term trend is evident; one by one they are likely to
either sell out or to become a merged operation so they can com-
pete with the dominant firm.
The city is affected in that there is now only one local
firm, essential BFI, which is capable of handling all city
accounts. While BFI needs the city franchise to operate, the
city needs BFI unless it is willing to undergo the risk of
opening the bidding up to outside firms and living through the
changeover should BFI lose the franchise, BFI is in the process
of integrating and modernizing the local firms which comprise
its operation. Accounts and billings are being computerized,
equipment is being upgraded, recycling operations are being
evaluated, and new management has been brought in to revitalize
the local subsidiary. This can only result in better service
and a better competitive position for BFI, should the franchise
be offered for open bid.
Local Groups
In response to the pressure of local groups, the city has
•instituted a recycling center and associated activities.
The local citizenry are active participants in goal setting
efforts and desire that the city move towards resource reclama-
tion as fast as is economically and technically feasible. This
is an important factor in planning efforts, in that the city
believes it can gain additional control of the solid waste
system only if it has ownership and control of the disposal
sites. The city believes, that private industry will not incor-
porate any innotative or improved disposal systems unless the
result is an increase in profits.
31
-------
SOLID WASTE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS
The solid waste management system for the City of San Jose
is described in this chapter. Data on the "efficiency and pro-
ductivity" and "manpower and equipment" are presented in
a limited form, as the system is a franchised private contractor
with five subcontractors. The franchisee is in the process of
aggregating and computerizing its data and had only limited infor-
mation available at the time of the site visit.
Authorization and Regulations
Chapter 3, "Accumulation, Transportation, and Disposal of
Waste Matter," of the San Jose Municipal Code (see Appendix "jC),
establishes the authority and regulations for the storage, collec-
tion, transportation, and disposal of solid waste in the City of
San Jose. This section of the code covers the following basic
areas:
• Purpose of section,and definitions of pertinent
terms
• General regulations concerning who may collect
and dispose of solid waste; container specifications
• Licensing of collectors
• Requirements for city contract for collectors: and
for license tax, annual reports, and manner of
disposal.
32
-------
Of special interest are the sections of this code which require
that: (1) all rubbish and garbage collectors be licensed; (2) all
rubbish collectors pay a three-percent license tax on total gross
receipts; (3) all garbage collectors pay a ten-percent license tax
on total gross receipts for garbage collection and a three-percent
license tax on receipts for rubbish collection; and (4) all such
collectors and disposers of garbage and rubbish must be under
contract to the city for the provision of residential collection
service.
Collection Operations
Within San Jose, all- refuse collection services for single
family residential, low rise condominium, and some apartment
dwelling units are provided by private sector firms under direct
contract or subcontract with the city (see Appumlia A ipy oopy
-ef"lSOiitracl"y. Commercial, industrial, and high-rise apartment
building wastes are directly contracted for by the facility
owners with the private sector haulers. All city residents
must subscribe to this contractor collection service. Within the
Department of Public Works, the Utilities Division is responsible
for administration of refuse collection and disposal contracts.
The Housing, and Community Development Division of the City Health
Department monitors contractor performance and handles complaints
not resolved by the city contractor. The Street Sanitation Section
of the Department of Public Works performs street cleaning opera-
tions and the department provides its own equipment maintenance
for the street sweeping fleet.
33
-------
Mixed Refuse Residential Collection
Duties and Level of Service
As discussed, the City Code provides for the removal of solid
waste by licensed haulers under contract to the city. Rules and
regulations are distributed to all citizens by the Department of
Public Works (Appendix-jjl)" in both English and Spanish versions.
The citizens of San JoSe receive a "basic weekly service" which
consists of a maximum of three, thirty-two gallon containers
which must be placed at curbside and must weigh no more than 75
pounds each. Residents are specifically instructed not to separate
their refuse nor to use plastic bags except as can liners.
Frequency of mixed refuse service is once per week. Special.
pickups for bulky items, other rubbish, or for additional
service may be requested by the resident, who would call the
refuse collection company to arrange for such service.
Garbage cans must be lined with newspapers or lined with
plastic bagSi Cold ashes will be collected if they are placed
in a bag or box before being placed 'into the can. Cans, must be
• • "
covered and placed at curbside the night before the day of scheduled
collection. Cans may be plastic or metal.
The basic charge for curbside collection, paid directly to
the contractor on a quarterly basis, is $2.30 per month for curb-
side collection. Each extra container for curbside service is
$.75 per month. Figure 4 presents the collection rates for "on
premise" or carry-out service, as well as for container service.
Apartment buildings may receive either on premise or container
service. Obviously, residents may elect to receive a higher level
and volume of service at significantly higher cost. Bulky item
pickups are negotiated directly between the resident and the con-
tractor of his choice. Table 7 presents the approximate number
of stops receiving«curbside and on-premise service for each type
-------
RATE SCHEDULE
MONTHLY RATES BASED ON NUMBER OF CANS COLLECTED PER WEEK
CANS (On-Premises or Carry Out)
Basic
2 or LESS $ 3.90 All
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
5.55
7.20
8.80
10.50
12,00
13.65
15.05
16.40
17.75
19.10
20.45
21.85
23.20
24.55
25.90
27.25
28.60
89.95
31.30
32.65
34.05
35.40
36.75
38.10
39.45
40.85
42.15
43.50
44.95
46.30
47.65
49.00
50.35
51.70
53.05
54.45
55.80
57.15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
over 40 cans - add: Curbside Collection:
•
$ 1.35
2.70
4.05
5.40
6.75
8.10
9.45
10.80
12.15
13.50
Container Rates (Rent
One
iX
2X
3X
4X
6X
ex
Two
Ik
2X
3X
4X
5X
6X
Yard (6.00 Rent)
$18.00
27.85
37.50
46.85
56.35
65.85
Yards (7.00 Rent)
$28.85
47.85
66.85
85.75
104.65
123.55
Deposit
3 Cans -
Extra Con-
tainers -
Included)
One-i Yards
IX
2X
3X
4X
5X
ex
Three Yards
IX
2X
3X
4X
5X
6X
- $4.50
$2.30
$ .75
(6.00 Rent)
$22.40
35.95
49.50
63.15
76.65
90.15
(8.00 Rent)
$39.30
67.85
96.20
124.55
152.90
181.25
502-215 (Rev. 6/73>
FIGURE 4: SAN JOSE CONTRACTOR COLLECTION RATE SCHEDULE
-------
TABLE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY TYPE OF DWELLING
UNIT*
Type of Dwelling Unit
Single Family or Duplex
Dwelling Units
Condominiums
(4 or more units/stop)
(5,000 stops)
Apartment Houses
(39,000 units) .
(3,700 stops)
.Total Stops
Type of Service
Curbside
— 105 ,' 000
stops
—
—
105,000
On Premise
Few
5,000 stops
740 stops
5.740
Bin Service
—
For rubbish
ft Yard Waste
2,960' stops
2,960
•Estimates based on approximations given by city personnel. "Hard"
data are not available from either the city or the contractor.
Contractor data.indicate service of about 120,000 "accounts" in
the city, but an account for an apartment building or condominium
may be either the unit dweller or the owner. Condominiums are
generally townhouse or garden apartment developments.
36
-------
of dwelling unit. Very few single-family or duplex units elect
to receive carry-out service, while condominiums (4 or-more unit's)
and apartment buildings are essentially forced to on-premise or
bin service by the need to avoid a massive curbside set-out of
cane on collection days.
Manpower/Equipment Allocations
As discussed, the city residential collection is carried out
by a prime contractor, Garden City, its subsidiary, San Jose
Scavenger, and four smaller independent subcontractors. Garden
City and San Jose Scavenger account for 85 percent of the total
residential stops (SFD's, condominiums, and apartment buildings).
Crews are currently a mix of two-man and three-man, depending on
the number of stops per route. From 66 to 70 routes are served
daily by Garden City and San Jose Scavenger. The average number of
stops per route ranges from 350 to 400 and the average route length
is 20 miles. Single-family dwellings are collected once per week
at curbside, while condominiums and apartment buildings receive
"on premise service" which is either carry-out or bin service.
For its apartment building and condominium containerized service
and its commercial service, the two firms use the following
specialized equipment:
Roll Off Bodies - 130
Stationary Containers:
Rear loader - 3000
Front loader - 5700
Front Loader Compactor
Containers - 5
Stationary Compactors - 10
These pieces of equipment are not listed in the Manpower and
Equipment table (see Table 8) because it was not possible to
allocate them to city vs. commercial collection activities. Never-
«
theless, it is known that over 2960 apartment houses receive "bin
service," so many of the stationary containers must be used for
that function.
37
-------
TABLE 8: MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT ALLOCATION
~~~^~— — — __^fwiet loo
PertOSnel """•-•• ^^^_^
Management
" Bupervlsor/Foreaeo
Clerical
teles
Maintenance
Drivers
Laborers
"""""^-•^^^^ total*
Equipment ""-"-^^^^
Rear Leaders
Side Loaders
Scraper
Bulltfosern
Compactor
Loaders
Dragline
later Truck
Sweepers
3/4 Ton Pick-up •
tap Truck
1| Ton Trucks
(Borrowed from
Street llaioteMoce)
Front End Loaders
Buck Rakes
(Lp»f Sweeping
%
TotaU
HiBed kfttiie
OollectlM \f
9
4- •
U
s
u
«v
ml/
su
•el/
• (i
-
-
'
-
-
-
''
•
' -
-
-
88 •
• tMd Refuse DlftpDSsl
Ncwby Island Landfill g/
-
1
-
-
-
•
7
-
•
1
9
1
'
1
1
-
-
-
-
.
7
City Street
SweeplBC
1
4
-
-
-
93
19
47
-
1
-
-
-
-
i
-
wl/
ioS/
•
«
6
44
City
Landfill
1
1
3
9
- T
-
•
*
9
1
i
-
li
-
-
-
-
9.2!>
Total
3 '
10
91
3
96
98
193
314
66
1
2*
4
a
i
1
9ft
IS
10
8
6
!
123. 2!i
38
-------
NOTES ON MANPOWER AND EQUIPMENT ALLOCATION TABLE
-'Besides Garden City and San Jose Scavenger, there are four sub-
contractors which service the city. Their manpower and equip-
ment data were not available at the time of site visit.
-'Newby Island Landfill is operated by a Garden City subsidiary,
San Jose Scavenger, and is used to accept mixed refuse and
rubbish (bulky items) from city franchise collection as well
as from commercial/industrial and other private collectors.
-'Garden City and San Jose Scavenger reportedly had 66 packers
collecting on residential routes and 33 packers collecting on
"commercial" routes which include apartment building and con-
dominium stops. Thus, it is impossible to determine the total
effective equivalent number of trucks used to service the city.
A total of 71 routes are', reported by the city for Garden City
and San Jose Scavenger, who together account for 85 percent of
the total stops served in the city. During the interview, the
contractor claimed to have 66 trucks in operation that day. It
might be assumed that a total of approximately 84 trucks are
required to serve the city (71 » x(.85)) with approximately
252 drivers and laborers, assuming a three-man crew for all con-
tractors and subcontractors. This is probably close to reality
as Garden City reports 27 A.U. routes and 14 P.M. routes and
San Jose reports 29 A.M. routes for a total of 70 routes.
4/
—'Fourteen sweepers plus one "spare" are used. Fleet consists
of: 11, 3-yard Mobil; 3, 4-yard Wayne; and 1, 3-yard Airtemp.
All are 4-wheel sweepers.
-'These trucks are used to support hand-sweeping operations.
There are ten crews, each with a driver and a helper.
—'The contractor is in the process of converting to two-man crews,
Currently,' three-man crews are used to collect routes with
450-500 stops and two-man crews are used to collect routes with
350-400 stops. It is expected that all routes will be converted
to two-man crews by September 1973.
39
-------
Crews begin at 5 A.M. and work on a task incentive system.
The average number of trips to the disposal site Is 1.5 per
day. The average round trip distance, and time for disposal
activities is 20 miles and one hour, respectively. Crews may
take two 15-minute breaks and a half-hour lunch at their option.
On the average, routes are completed in 8J to 7 hours.
Generally, drivers do not help collect, and each stop requires
about one minute to service. Men may walk or ride between
stops. Only one side of a street is collected during a pass,
except for cul-de-sacs. With minor exceptions, the area is
relatively flat; there are, however, several outlying routes
with some stops which are virtually inaccessible by the trucks
due to steep dirt roads.
Efficiency/Productivity
To the extent available data permit, efficiency and pro-
ductivity data are presented in Table 9. Since annual cost
reports were not available from all subcontractors, the total
cost of collection and disposal could not be determined*. Given
that there are a total of 135,778 dwelling units at a minimum,
the least cost of collection on an annual basis for the basic
service would be $3,747,473. True costs are higher because of
additional services (additional cans, bins, compactor) provided
by the contractors. In any event, the accuracy of the contractor's
financial accounting system has been called into question in a
recent city, ,study and will be discussed in the financial section
of this chapter.
The total cost per unit per year and per person per year
are within the usual range of costs observed in similar systems.
The waste generation rate of 1.9 Ibs. per person per day and
49.4 Ibs. per unit per week are relatively low, slightly more
than half that of Fresno, for instance. Without sufficient data
to derive total collection cost and tonnage for each type of unit
40
-------
TABLE 9: EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY DATA
^~ — Collection Function
Parameter
CemmuBitr
Description
ii
Collection Syntam
Description
(Inc. Level of Service)
•
•
Collection
Celt/Effi-
ciency Flgi.
Disposal
13
III
Pooulatlon Served
No. of Bold, or Cotnm. Unit* I/
Street Miles
Alley Miles
Area |*i. naUI
Pap. density (neo/eq.mi. )
Annual Amounts Collected ay
U». /imit/wB
Uts. /person/day 9/
Point of CoUactlaw "
rreq. of Collection
Type of Starve Container
Avt. Dial, to Diep. SIM
Avg. Miles r>rreva7trwc'k7aay 4/
Avfl. Hours wor'kwoYemr
Direct mm .,_,-. - f '
Crew* 5/
Crew Sisu S/
Trocas B/
Avg. wage* >m! fringe for L*b0rer*
Avg. »a(et and (rings for drivers . .
Stops/ Crew/ Day
Coll. Cost/resid. unit/yr. «/
C«tl. Cosl/BfrcairVr. H"/
Coll. Coit/lon/vr.
Taul Colt. Cast/yr.
Type k Ho. of Own. Sites
Total Dlip. Cost/yr.
Total Coet/yr. ?/
Coll, r>p*n>.% of lot, ^>p__. __,
Coll, labor expense na % of tot. Coll .
Coll. equip, ennettae a* % of lot, CoU.
Proc. ft Disp. ejtpCQic as % of tot. op.
Proc. h Oiap. labor expense as % of
tot. disp.
•l>od Bafuae BMltfoatlal COsj tract Oello«tloB
soe.ooo
105.000 unites I 5. MO atom 1 3.7OO •tooo
l.SOO
Stroot Sweeplac.
Lawf. Llttor.Cullvutluei
3.000 HWi.-ut
tmm. no >!!•• servleo
14B
3.495
174.393 tona
«.«*'
Curbald*
1/WMk
32 vat plaatic
or •rial cann
•A
1.9
terry out or
oa-prcatla* bis
1/Mvk •!•.
ruaa or blaa
HA
Ma
!/•«•* •!•.
blna
O all PS l-vay
...
W '+*
963
BJI
3 - 3 MB
-«8
$4.81/bour
M.M/hour
350 - 400
O-IT tnnii
S27.BO
J 1.44
kA
KA
MA
IM
MA
MA
E*
M
NA
NA
1 Clau It A Saaltarr Undflll
KA
93.808. 000
hA
KA
KA
KA
KA
NA
MA
HA
HI
Ht
NA
NA
HA
HA
NA
tl,
iHi
HA
NA
21.500 yds9 ?7
-
.-
•utter
9f* Note a
-
Za Bile* 1O/
R
JT
(4
l/mwH-rwr
4* t«/
- .
a yaroa
n.oo if/
s -its
saa.ii/yda
8407. noo i-V
CUy Uodflll for
•wBopInK and rvbhinh ABly
•N.530 ii'
fMB.SM
HA
NA
' HA
HA
RA
uced from
i»t available copy.
-------
NOTES FOR EFFICIENCY/PRODUCTIVITY TABLE
I/
Based on estimates provided by city. Garden City and San Jose
Scavenger alone claim to have about 120,000 "accounts," but an
account for a condominium or apartment house may be either the
entire facility or each individual dwelling unit within the
facility. The 1970 Census shows 135,778 year round housing
units.
3/
I/
Based on an average of four seasonal generation rates of 608
(spring), 659 (summer), 668 (fall), and 631 (winter) pounds for
single-family unit per quarter.
Based on an average of 49.4 IDS. /unit/week divided by 7 days
divided by 3.72 persons per unit, equals 1.89 Its. /day /person.
Annual tonnage is 49.4 Ibs. /unit/week x 52 x 135,778 equals
174,393 tons.
Route length is 20 miles. Round trip to disposal site -is 20
miles and 1.5 trips per day are made.
For Garden City and San Jose Scavenger, only. They account
for 85 percent of total city collection efforts; thus, these
numbers are low by about 15 percent. No data were available
for other four independent subcontractors.
Assumes 105,000 SFD units with an average of 3,27 persons per
unit (based on 1970 Census data for total dwelling units and
total residents). These costs include both collection and
disposal and are therefore high by about 5 to 10 percent,
Assuming 105,000 dwelling units all at a basic service of
$27. 60/ year, the total cost would be $2,898,000 for the single
family portion of the service. This agrees closely with
revenues' reported by Garden City for FY 1972: Garden City
reported revenues of $2,817,685 and they collect about 45 per-
cent of the SPD's (see Appendix B).
Assuming a normal daily volume of 70 cubic yards for 200 days
of operation and a peak volume of 150 cubic yards during leaf
season for 50 days, the annual amount would be 21,500 cubic
yards .
42
-------
—' Central Business District swept 6 days per week; 105 service
10/
routes swept once per month; 22 arterial road routes swept
once per week.
Curb miles swept for each service route.
—' Costs for total site operation are $309,000. Assuming that
sweeping contributes 17 percent of volume (21,500 + 125,000
yds.*), the cost would be $52,530.
Based on 1970 Census data showing 135,778 year-round housing
units.
—' Includes costs for power sweeping ($203,000), litter cleanup
from litter cans and hand sweeping ($182,000) and CBD sweeping,
flushing, and handsweeping ($112,000), These expenditures do
not include equipment operating and maintenance costs which
come from the General Fund.
—' Includes street sweepers, trucks, front end loaders, and leaf
rakes.
43
-------
served or in total. It is impossible to derive the collection
costs per ton and per year. Given that the waste generation
rates are accurate, these costs are likely to be significantly
higher than normal. The number of stops per crew per day is
lower than expected. For example, in Fresno there are 420 stops
per day made in a much hotter climate and with higher waste
generation rates. In general, it would seem that the system may
be relatively inefficient and costly on a per-ton basis. The
age of the equipment (8 to 10 years) and the inclusion of commer-
cial stops in residential routes may contribute to this problem.
Street Sweeping and Litter Control
Duties and Level of Service
This function is performed by the San Jose Department of
Public Works, Street and Sewer Maintenance Section, Street Sani-
tation Services branch. It utilizes the men and equipment indi-
cated in Table 8 to perform the following activities:
• Power Street Sweeping
105 service areas (routes), each consisting of
25 gutter miles, are swept once per month
22 arterial sweeper routes, each consisting of
25-30 gutter miles, are swept once per week
• Litter Clean Up
Solid waste from litter cans in business dis-
tricts and near schools is removed as required
Streets are bandswept throughout the city as
required
• Central Business 'District
CBD is swept 6 days per week
Streets are washed once per week
Litter cans are emptied as required
Handsweepers patrol the CBD 6 days per week
During normal sweeping operations, the volume of refuse
collected averages 70 cubic yards per day. During leaf season,
44
-------
the volume rises to over 100 cubic yards per day for sweeping and
an additional 200 cubic yards per day of front end loader leaf
pickup. For leaf operations, buck rakes are placed on sweepers
and the leaves are piled on corners. Front end loaders pick them
up on a double-shift-operation basis. Normal sweeper loads are
dumped on the streets and the trucks pick' them up for disposal at
the municipal landfill.
Manpower/Equipment Allocation
A total of 47 men provide this service function. There are
11 Sweeper Operators and two Maintenance Men II's who man the
sweepers. Another 10 Maintenance Men I'8 and 19 Laborers cover
the pick-up trucks and the handsweeplng operations. Front-end
loaders are manned by two men, a driver (MMI) and a Laborer.
During leaf season, two rubber-tired tractors with special loading
buckets are utilized in addition to the equipment listed in
Table 8).
All equipment is part of the Department of Public Works fleet
and is maintained by the department's Equipment Management and
Maintenance section (which is responsible to the department's
business manager). City equipment is relatively old and funds
are not readily available for replacement. Currently, the city
tries to replace the equipment on a ten-year basis. The Equip-
ment Maintenance Superintendent stated that "all maintenance costs
are the same for sach year, about $3,000." Maintenance records for
the sweeping equipment are kept manually and were not in a form to
« <
permit detailed analysis. Gutter brooms are usable for about 600
to 800 miles and main brooms for about 1,000 to 1,200 miles. No
other equipment data were readily available.
Efficiency and Productivity
While the cost of street sweeping and litter control per
unit and per person are average, the costs per cubic yard are
high. This is due to the low volume of refuse collected.
Also, sweeper routes are longer than in other cities.
45
-------
Quality of Service and Resident Survey Results
Complaint Calls
Currently, all complaints regarding,refuse collection service
are received by the Housing and Community Development section
(General Services Division) of the City's Health Department. The
city receives a reported average number of legitimate complaints
at the rate of 80 per month, mainly for spillage/rudeness/noise
(70-80%) and for missed service (10-15%). Figure 5 presents historic
data for the last three years of operation. Originally, complaint
calls could be received by either the contractor or the city (1969-
1970). In 1970-71, the system was changed so that all complaint
calls were received by the General Services Division. At this
time, the level of service was also increased from two to three
cans per residence for this "basic service." The division also
receives about 160 calls per month from the contractor to complain
about the residents' lack of cooperation.
During the year preceding the level of service changeover,
the General Services Division of the City Health Department in-
vestigated 1,707 refuse-related complaints. During the first year
after the institution of the new system (1970-71), the number of
complaints dropped substantially. In large part, the decline in
customer complaints was attributed to citizen acceptance of the new
level of service; however, much has also been done to distribute
refuse disposal information to new residents before they have had
a chance to settle into habits that would result in problems.
General Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction with the solid waste collection service
is directly related to the type and amount of information they re-
ceive about that service. Consequently, every means available have
been used to contact both new and older residents to familiarize
them with this service.
46
-------
FIGURE 5: HISTORIC COMPLAINT CALL DATA
H
as
03
300 r
250
200
150
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Number of complaints received against the Garbage Hauler by
month for 3 fiscal periods: 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72
638
100 -
188 (<69/'70>
178 ('70/f71)
July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec .Jan Feb Mar Apr May. June
-------
to Measure customer ac&^hvM) to the newly instituted level
of service, a 26 question O^w#»*T Attitude Study was developed 'to
determine community .pr^lcreM** and attitudes regarding the col-
lection and disposal of soliA vasts within the City of San Jos*.
1fce research was performed trjr tfce Diridon Research Corporation in
tferee phases starting in late. IwTl and ending; in mid IfrTJ.* It had
• total sample size of be twees 1,900 and 1,800 respondents per
pfease and was reliable at a plus or minus five percent erVor on, a
t5- percent level of confideace.
BMcd on the results of this study, the following observations
were made:
1. Customer Satisfaction
•Althoufth subject t» fluctuation between surveys,
tshea last measured in Phase It (December 1971),
1JS percent of San Jfcse residents indicated
satisfaction with their garbage pick-up service.
Thi» compares. f&Vorably with the systems used by
other Bay Area eeMsanities."
"There is a strong
-------
CD
o
22
w
E-
s
I
CK
Minimum cost per month for
weekly service.
Minimum cost per month for
additional one-can service
per week.
Unlimited Service
at minimum rate.
3.60
1 can/week
cans/week^ 3 cans/week_
o
c
ft at
oi h
00 fa
•o
s
§
•p
o
•4
M
O
rt
CO
(1)
o
d «J
•P
2
CO
o
a at a at (o -P
cd iH aj Q) o rt
CQ o eai-3 JO
00 >
r-l -P
Ol i-t -P
S S
•p
1-1
o,
H
3
o *»
^> Tl
o,
r-i
6
FIGURE 6: GARBAGE PICKUP COMPARISON OF 13 CITIES IN THE BAT AREA BY COST AMD
MINIMUM SERVICE FOR PICKUP SERVICE PER WEEK
-------
pay for more than an additional two dollars ($2)
per month for this service. Sixty-eight percent'
(68%) of the cities' residents expressed an un-
willingness to finance such a program."
"The Diridon Study also disclosed that 68 percent
of the cities' residents use the municipal dis-
posal site less than two times a year."
"It would appear that the average homeowner Is
satisfied with the present level of refuse service
aud the realistic economic rate structure which
allows him to add to his level of service on an
individual basis. This procedure precludes the
low volume producer from having to pay for service
which he doea not need, and allows each homeowner
to contract for that level which would meet his own
Individual need."
4. Annual Trash and Large Item Pick-up
"Although there was a slight variance on a district
basis within the City of San Jose, the general
consensus was an unwillingness to pay for an annual
trash and large item pick-up. Sixty-five percent
(65%) of the residents expressed a negative re-
sponse to this inquiry. On a seasonal basis, there
appears to be a slight preference for such a cam-
paign during the spring of the year."
5. Pick-up Tines
"There is a general acceptance by San Jose residents
to early npr-nlng collection of refuse. Within the
geographic area of San Jose, 72 percent of the resi-
dents prefer their refuse be collected between the
hours of 4 a.m. and 11 a.m."
"The following is a breakdown of starting times most
preferred:
4 a.m. - 6 a.m. - 31%
6 a.m. - 8 a.m. - 25%
8 a.m. - 11 a.m. - 16%
Although there was a slight Interest in later col-
lection times, only 9 percent of the San Jose resi-
dents preferred refuse collections to be made after
11 a.m. Nineteen percent (19%) of our citizens
expressed no concern to the starting time and. stated
"whatever is convenient for the company" is accept-
able."
50
-------
6. Recycling of Solid Waste
"Over 80 percent of the respondents within the City
of San Jose indicated an awareness and interest in
recycling. Although there was a slight variance
in the definition of the term "recycling" the ma-
jority of the respondents indicated it was a "reuse
of waste materials" or "using things over." A fair
conclusion is that the majority of the San Jose
residents have a good conception of the term "re-
cycling." A significant percentage (12%) indicated
they were not interested in recycling. It should
be noted that this group is not willing to partici-
pate and could develop into a highly vocal minority
opposing such a program."
"Although there was a slight variance on a district
basis within the City of San Jose, there appears to
be a willingness to incorporate a recycling system
into the present collection procedures; however,
the method for financing such a program is varied.
Forty percent (40%) of San Jose residents would
support such a program through an increase in the
garbage bill, sixteen percent (16%) would support
such a program through their taxes, however, thirty-
two percent (32%) rejected both methods as a means
of support.'*
"At the present time, the garbage companies limit
their recycling efforts to paper only. They have
demonstrated little interest in expanding this
operation to include metal, glass or other recyclable
materials. The primary reason for their reluctance
to become deeply involved in recycling is the. in-
adequacy of the rate structure to absorb the cost
that would make a recycling program financially
feasible and the undependable financial market for
the profitable disposal of such salvaged material.
As a result, much material must be stockpiled in
anticipation of a favorable disposal price. Such a
stockpiling and delays serve to discourage the
development of an aggressive recycling program by
private disposal companies. Recycling efforts
within the City of San Jose are presently limited
to the Department of Public Works working with
volunteer student groups, ecology action clubs
and various service clubs. Public response and
acceptance to a voluntary recycling program is
good; however, all support services, the disposal site
and improvements are being provided by the City of
51
-------
San Jose. Under these conditions, it is difficult
to ascertain if such an operation produces enough
revenue to cover operation costs."
"The operation of a recycling center at the City of
Palo Alto sanitary land fill resulted in substantial
financial loss to the franchised collector for the
year 1971."
7. Public Contact by Telephone with the Garbage Company
"Over 80 percent of the citizens of San Jose in-
dicated there was no reason to contact the garbage
company. Fifteen per cent (15%) experienced
satisfactory, helpful and pleasant treatment; and
two per cent (2%) indicated dissatisfaction with
the manner in which they were treated."
"To improve public relations, and provide a more
efficient response to customer complaints,. Garden
City Disposal Service increased their telephone
service from 5 to 10 incoming lines. (This was a
strong recommendation in the May 25, 1970 report
of the CCIC Study Committee on Refuse Disposal.)
This made telephone communication with the garbage
company and the citizens readily available and
virtually eliminated the complaint that citizens
were having difficulty getting through."
"In addition, garbage company office personnel
attended, at the invitation of the City Health
Department, the in-service training program presented
by the Pacific Telephone Company."
"To further improve customer relations, several meet-
ings were held with Health Department personnel and
garbage company supervisors to standardize procedures
that would serve to further improve customer
satisfaction."
Inner City Problems
San Jose's Model Cities program was initiated in .'April,'1969
and has isolated six "problem areas" on which to focus: one of
these is "housing and environment". The Model Neighborhood Area
is composed of four distinct districts, each requiring urgent
remedial action. These area residents have lower income
and educational levels and higher unemployment levels than do
52
-------
residents of the areas of the city. As part of the area's en-
vironmental development, special bulky items, litter and other
waste removal projects were undertaken. In the first year of
this effort, over 21,000 cubic yards of these wastes were removed.
Special central collection bins were put in by the Department of
Public Works for the special waste collections, there are 5,000
to 6,000 dwelling units in this area, of which up to 20 percent
are "problem units" from the refuse collection perspective.
Absentee landlords add to the problem. As previously noted,
refuse collection information brochures are printed in Spanish
to help educate the area residents to the refuse collection
requirements. In the Diridon studies, it was found that Mexican
Americans and Blacks were the least satisfied with the refuse
collection service.
Disposal Methods
City Disposal Operation
The City of San Jose operates a municipal landfill which
only accepts bulky items and yard wastes from residents and
city-collected refuse from street sweeping, parks, vacant lot
cleanup, and other city-operated functions. Withiii the city,
the Diridon study indicated that 29 percent of the residents
never use either, the city or private fills, 22 percent carry solid
solid waste to the fills once a year or less, and 27 percent
make two to four trips per year. Since residents have to pay
extra charges to the contractor for special mixed refuse or
bulky items, pickups, this utilization rate is not surprising.
The Municipal Disposal Grounds is a Class II landfill which
essentially accepts only bulky wastes and yard wastes in addition
to city waste collections. Its total lifetime was estimated to
be six years and it has a remaining life of three years. Since
charges are based on cubic yards received, the total revenues
indicate that the landfill receives from 300,000 to 350,000 cubic
yards per year. The site is covered once per week with enough
cover to prevent blowing of litter. Dust blowing is a problem.
53
-------
Table 10 presents a profit and loss statement for the operation
of the Municipal Disposal Grounds. Obviously, the "net profit"
is declining. The Department of Public. Works has proposed that the
operation be modified so that the completed fill could be utilized
as a golf course to optimize net cash flow for the city. (See
Appendix E) This plan (Alternative 3) would Include raising the
current residential rate from 50£ to 75$ per cubic yard and the
commerical rate from 75$ to $1.00 per cubic yard. At the date of
the site visit, the plan had not yet been approved, but it is
expected that the rates will be increased.
The fill covers 50 acres, approximately 1500 feet by 1500
feet, and is excavated to a depth of 50 feet. The Coyote River
runs on the east side of the fill and the one other side is enclosed
by "snow fencing". The west side is bordered by a prune orchard.
The north side borders an expressway, and the south side borders
a cherry orchard.
The site is worked by means of trenches 800 feet In length
and 50 feet deep. Three to four cells are put in each trench.
Each trench is "filled" to four feet over natural grade level,
but the extra four feet is the final cover. The site swill eventually
be contoured for use as a golf course.
The site lies over a stratum of clay, which is at a depth
of 200 feet below grade. The water table lies at a depth of fifty
feet. Monitoring wells are in place and the site its monitored by
the city.
Private Contractor Site - Newby Island Landfill
The private site is operated by San Jose Scavenger, a
subsidiary of Garden City and Browning-Ferris Industries. The
54
-------
TABLE 10: CITY DISPOSAL GROUNDS PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
SINGLETON ROAD DISPOSAL GROUNDS
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENT YEARS-EHDING JUUE 30, 1972. 1973, 1974
OPERATING INCOME
Disposal Revenue
Salvage Revenue (2)
TOTAL INCOME
ACTUAL
1971-72
300,487
40,010
340,497
ESTIMATED
1972-73
/300,000
12,700
312,700
EST. ALT. NO. 3
1973-74 (1)
462,000
15,000
477,000
en
en
OPERATING EXPENSES
Direct Costs Charged to Program
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program
Indirect Costs
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
NET PROFIT FOR YEAR
161,05V
110,639
34.227
305,923
34^, 574
166,000
110,434
28.637
305,071
161,120
152,555
27.341
341,016
135,984
CREDIT FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATION (3)
-0-
-0-
194,333
(1) Assumes residential rate increase from $0.50 to $0.75 per cu. yd. and
commercial rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 per cu. yd.
(2) Fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 include loam sales and salvage. Fiscal year
1973-74 is salvage revenue only.
(3) Estimated contractual cost of golf course grading is $780,000 (390,000 cu. yds.
at $2.00 per yard). The City cost would be $196,300. This is a savings of
$583,700, which is an average annual savings of $194,333 over a three year period,
Prepared 4-25-73 KWB
-------
site is located on a peninsula ("island") jutting into the Bay.
The site is officially run by the International Disposal Corporation,
covers 342 acres, and has an estimated remaining life of 30 to
40 years. The site is worked 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,
and is open to the public on weekdays from 6 A.M. to 4 P.M. and
on Sundays from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. The disposal charge for the
public is 75$ per cubic yard, and the installation of scales is
being considered.
The,site receives approximately 105,000 cubic yards per
month and is covered daily. The detailed rate structure is:
• Minimum Charge - 75$ • Trees/Stumps -$3.00/cu. yd.
• 1 Can - 75$ • Auto Tires - 25$ each
• Each Add'l Can - 50$ • Trucks Tires -$1.00 each
• Rate Per Cubic Td - 75$ • Appliances/Furniture-$1.50 up
The water table for Newby Island is 15 feet below grade and
there are pockets of surface water visible. Seagulls are an enor-
mous problem. There is no monitoring nor are there leachate drains.
The site is surrounded by a levee 15 feet above sea level. The
site appearance is generally sloppy, a condition contributed to by
the gulls feeding on refuse, the prevailing winds which blow litter,
and the enormous size of the site.
5.4.3; Other Disposal Sites
Table 11 presents a list of the Santa Clara County Com-
%t ... v
munities, their collectors, and their disposal sites. Apparently,
only Garden City (San Jose) and San Jose Scavenger utilizes the
Newby Island site. Other firms, including three who are subcon-
tractors to Garden City for San Jose collection (Green Valley
Disposal Co., South Valley Disposal Co. and Los Altos Garbage
Co.), utilize other disposal sites.
5.5: Future Changes
As noted in earlier discussion, the citizens of San Jose
have a strong and active interest in .their city's development
56
-------
TABLE 11
REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN SAN JOSE AREA
Government Jurisdietloi
San Jose
Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
Ifilpltas
Mountain View
Palo Alto
Cupertino
Loa Altos
Los Altos Hillc
Saratoga
LOB Gatos
Campbell
Morgan Hill
Cilroy
Santa Clara County
Collector
Garden City Disposal
•Mission Trails Gar-
bage Co.
City of Santa Clara
Specialty Garbage Co.
San Jose Scavenger Co.
Foothill, Disposal Co.
Palo Alto Sanitation
Service
Los Altos Garbage Co.
Los Altos Garbage Co.
Los Altos Garbage Co.
Green Valley Disposal
Co.
Green Valley Disposal
Co.
Green Valley Disposal
Co.
South Valley Disposal
Co.
Souta Valley Disposal
Co.
See Attached Hap
Disposal Sits Utilised
Newby Island Disposal
'Site
Los Altos Ranch Site
•«->
Santa Clara Disposal
Site -
Sunnyvale Disposal
Site
Newby Island Disp.Site
lit. View Disposal Site
Palo Alto Dlsp. Site
Los Altos Baac.h Site
Los Altos Ranch Site
. Los Altos Ranch Site
Guadalupe Dump Site
c.
Guadalupe Dump Site
Guadalupe Dump Site
Morgan Hill Disposal
Site
Gilroy Disposal Site
See Attached tap
Class/Type/
Ownership
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
- II/MSL/PUB
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PUB
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
•
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
II/MSL/PVT
*\
Compulsory
Disposal
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
In con-
jee ted
j Areas
Franchise
Agreement
Yea
Yes
Kb
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
;>
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes i
Yes
Yes
No
*
Termination
Date
Rov . 1975
Oct. 1976
N/A
June, 197S
Dec. 1980
Aug. 1975
Feb. 1983
Nov. 19TS
Kov. 1977
Jan. 1976
Apr. . 1979
June. 198O
June. 1981
Oct . 1984
Jan. 1975
H/A
GarbageVosly. City provides unlimited rubbish collection service.
: &c^~ -» . &> ^
Source:_^~8tudy of Refuse Disposal for San Jose. City of San Jose - Staff Report. March,'1973.
-------
(Citizens' Goals Committee) and in solid waste recovery (see
Quality of Service discussion). Appendix F presents a memorandum
from the Director of Public Works to the City Manager outlining
points for discussion in a City Council study session on waste
recovery systems. This memo has three sections dealing with:
(1) overall management systems; (2) collection systems; and
(3) disposal and reclamation systems, from a review of this memo,
it can be clearly seen that San Jose is moving towards a system
which will provide for:
(1) A more formal systems management structure and
trained staff to develop performance standards,
select and publicize desired systems options, pro-
vide for better billing (city billing) and cost
control procedures, and move the system more
aggressively towards waste reclamation activities.
(2) An improved collection system operated by private
contractors and based on detail performance criteria,
bid specifications, and open bidding.
(3) An improved disposal system in which:
- priyate business will dispose or (or reclaim)
liquid and semi-liquid toxic wastes
- public sector will plan for, acquire and operate
transfer stations and landfill disposal sites
(Class I)
- additional public sector waste materials reclama-
tion activities will be financed with revenues from
disposal site and current recycling operations.
The net profit projections for such a system indicate a trend
towards relatively good profit levels within five years of
system initiation.
As previously noted, the city is not satisfied with the
contractor's cost accounting and billing procedures. Appendix J
58
-------
presents a summary of the city's position in these areas and
discusses a series of three'alternatives to the current
accounting and billing system. These alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE A - CITY TAKES OVER ACCOUNTING OPERATION:
1) Initiates state legislation to place mixed refuse
collection fees on the County tax rolls.
2) Contracts the company to collect mixed refuse City-
wide.
3) Creates revolving fund to finance delinquent mixed
refuse fee collections from general fund revenues
of the City.
4) Establishes accounting system similar to weed abate-
ment and special assessments to administer accounting
operation.
ALTERNATIVE B - CITY IMPOSES CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE
COMPANY WHICH CONTINUES ACCOUNTING OPERATION;
1) Company establishes accrual basis accounting system
2) Company establishes specified accounting controls
3) Company establishes a special accounting reporting
system
4) Company develops a more imposing,.official bill
accompanied with an addressed return envelope.
ALTERNATIVE C - COMPANY OPERATION. COMPULSORY COLLECTION. CITY
GUARANTEES PAYMENT
1) Contractual requirements as in Alternative B
2) Requirement of compulsory residential mixed refuse
collection
3) Guaranty that City will reimburse contractor for un-
collectable fees
4) City reimburses contractor for uncollectable fees
and places them on tax roll in accordance with Chapter
175 of California Government Code
It is apparent that the dissatisfaction with the current con-
tractor accounting procedures and billing inequities may force
the city to take over or control these functions In some manner.
At the time of the slty visit. Garden City was in the process of
implementing an automated accounting and billing system to
improve their management situation and billing services.
59
-------
In general, because of the need for a county plan, the
need for improved services and higher levels of citizen satis-
faction, the city Interest in recycling, and the city's desire
to gain control over the system by operating the disposal and
reclamation function, it is clear that the city will soon be
taking action on a variety of issues relevant to solid waste
management. The form the new system will take is not yet clear.
60
-------
APPENDIX A
SAN JOSE RECYCLING PROGRAM INFORMATION AND DATA
61
-------
RECYCLING PROGRAM 1972-73
The Recycling Program, to this date, consists of seven satellite
centers with the San Jose Recycling Center as the main center. The
locations are as follows:
1. San Jose City College
2. Branham High School
3. Oak Grove High School
4. Abraham Lincoln High School
5. San Jose State University
6. Andrew Hill High School
7. Fremont High School
Each of the centers is located on the school campus, with the
exception of.Andrew Hill High School and Fremont High School.
Andrew Hill High School maintains, with a work force of 10 students,
the singleton Road site once a month. Fremont High School uses an
area off campus.
The Recycling Centers have been successful in their endeavors to
acquaint the public with the practice o'f household recycling. In
addition to household recycling/- many companies and businesses have
taken advantage of this service*?'
The Program has been successful for many reasons. The cooperation
of Industry has been unfailing since the inception of the program.
The City, as well as public support has been the needed Incentive
to keep the program generating involvement. At this point,
expansion has been beyond present means. There are three additional
sites to be handled as soon as the program can accommodate them.
The centers are working on extensive educational campaigns in the
form of printed literature. This literature would cover each
individual center and its general public, informative meetings with
the participating centers are scheduled monthly to discuss problems
or changes that might arise. The expanded program will be aimed at
brining information and education to the public.
The two main objectives of the program were to provide a more
ecological means of disposal and education of the public. The first
of the goals has been accomplished. Now the need for education must.
be filled.
62
-------
MONTHLY CUMULATIVE TOTALS FOR JULY - MARCH (1972-73)
Ubs.)
JULY
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
AUGUST
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper:
SEPTEMBER
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
OCTOBER
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper:
NOVEMBER
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
88, 540
19, 981
.1,947
10,460
0
23,799
(Scrap)
10,320
66,730
14,660
(Scrap)
22,340
40,220
12,322
1,620
26,780
24,960
15,050
1,580
35,480
63
$885.40
199.81
194.70
41.84
0
$237.99
319.49
41.28
$558.30
146.60
84.56
89.36
$402.20
123.22
162.00
107.12
$249.60
150.50
158.00
141.92
-------
Cumulative Totals - cont'd.
(Ibs.) ($)
DECEMBER
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
JANUARY
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper:
FEBRUARY
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
MARCH
Glass:
Bi-Metal:
Aluminum:
Newspaper :
0
0
0
10,280
96,040
10, 764
640
13.260
32,300
20. SOS
14/476
26,660
84,040
8,176
10,400
17,270
0
0
0
$ 41.12
960.40
107.64
64.00
53.60
323.00
205.05
144.76
106.64
840.40
81.76
104.00
154.86
64
-------
STATEMENT OF REVENUE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972-1973 (JULY 1-MARCH 6)
TOTAL REVENUE AND MATERIALS
Materials
Glass
Tin & Bi-Metal
Aluminum
(cans & household
aluminum)
Newspaper
(print-out &
tab cards)
Recycling Revenue
(beer bottles,
aluminum scrap)
Cumulative Totals:
$ 4.328.30
1,252.57
3,066.30
777.74
828.25
$10,253.16
(Ibs.)
432,830 ® $20.00 per ton
125,257 ® $20.00 per ton
30,663 @ $200.00 per ton
172,850 ® $8.00 per ton
761,600 Ibs.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972-1973 (JULY 1-MARCH 6)
Expenditures
1. Payment to workers at Singleton Road
2. Payment to Recycling Centers
3. Forklift Rental
4. Bin Construction
5. Miscellaneous (Printing, metal work, 'etc.)
Cumulative Total
Total
$3,075.50
1,271.71
62.21
840.11
200.00
$5,449.53
Total Income
Total Expenditures
$10,253.16
S.449.53
$ 4,803.63
KAH:ms
4/24/73
ET R. Toschi
'Principal civil Engineer
65
-------
CITY OF SAN JOSE --MEMORANDUM'
«° T. W. Fletcher, City Manager **<>" A. R. Turturici, Director
of Public Works
SUBJECT council Referral No. 10-12-71 - 31C BATC November 1, 1971
Status Report on Deportrion Project in Recyclipg
BACKGROUND
The City Council, in December 1970, approved a joint demonstration
project in recycling, by the City of San Jose, Department .'of Public Works,
and San Jose State College, Department of Environmental Studies. The
two principal goals of the project were:
1. To ascertain if a significant number of householders would
process and bring waste materials to a recycling center.
2. To determine if recycling waste materials in this manner can
be done on a self-supporting basis.
The recycling center was established on Singleton Road across from the
Municipal Disposal Grounds and started operation in April 1971.
ANALYSIS
The response to the project clearly demonstrated that householders were
willing to separate glass and cans from their household refuse, process
and bring them to a recycling center. Not only in San Jose, but across
the country, householders have demonstrated they would take the time
and trouble to sort recyclables from their household refuse and transport
them to a recycling center if they felt their efforts were helpful.
Initially, the center was open only on Saturdays, from 9:00 a.m. to
1*00 p.m. In July, the operating hours were extended to both Saturdays
and Sundays, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., to better satisfy the require-
ments of householders bringing the material to the center. The center
has been in operation for seven months and approximately 300,000 pounds
of glass, and. ISO, 000 pounds of steel, bi-metal and aluminum cans have
been .recycled .
The second goal of the project was to determine if the recycling of
waste material at a center could be done on a self -suppor ing basis.
Analysis of operations to date indicate that it is feasible a center
could be self-supporting, provided the markets for recycled materials
remain stable and effective materials handling techniques are employed.
There is reasonable assurance from industry that the market will
continue at §20.00 a ton for glass, $20.00 a ton for steel and b.i-metal,
and $200.00 a ton for aluminum. The prices quoted are for materials
delivered to industry end in all cases, the delivery points are within
a 50-mile radius of San Jose.
66
-------
T. W. Fletcher, City Manager
Page 2 ;
November I, 1971
i
The cost of loading and transporting the recycled materials from the
center to the market site is by far the single most costly item. In
order to reduce the excessive amount of labor and equipment being used
now, it is necessary to invest in.containers specifically designed to
store the materials, being handled and a towable forklift to load the
containers.
DISCUSSION
The success of the demonstration project does not imply that the solid
waste problem is solved or that the segregation of household refuse
'by the consumer is the ultimate answer. Zt is probably more reasonable
to assume that the reclamation and recycling of waste materials will be
done mechanically after collection from the consumer.
The.success of the project does indicate there are a large number of
persons concerned about the solid waste problem and axe willing to do
what they can to help alleviate it. The establishment of recycling
centers not only provides a place for concerned persons to bring
reclaimable materials to be re-used, but they serve as a. focal point
to increase public awareness of environmental problems.
»,
Statistics developed in Eastern' cities indicate that a large majority
of the persons frequenting a recycling center live within a three to
five-mile radius. With this in mind, it would appear that a number of
•mall centers would be preferable to one. central location.
Ideally, these centers could be located at schools throughout the area.
Generally, schools have an ecology club or a group of students who are
interested in developing an action program to help protect the environ-
ment. Many schools have attempted to establish recycling centers, but
they have not been too successful because of the problems encountered
in loading and transporting materials collected.
Through meetings with John Stanley from San Jose State, Department of
Environmental Studies, and two of the local industries, Continental
Can Company and Coca-Cola Bottling Company, who have actively supported
this demonstration project from the start, a proposal for an expanded
recycling effort has been developed.
The expanded recycling program would combine the efforts of City of
San Jose, San Jose State College, and interested industries. The
recycling program would consist of a central center, located at the
present site on Singleton Road, and a number of satellite centers
sponsored by schools or other organizations in the community. Each of.
these satellite centers would be equipped with containers which would
be supplied and transported by the central center. The sponsors of
satellite centers would also receive organizational aid and information
with regard to developments in technology, equipment and other factors
affecting the solid waste problem.
67
-------
T. W. Fletcher,'City Manager
Page 3
November 1, 1971
In my opinion, the proper City commission to review and make recom-
mendations on the recycling program would be the new Environmental
Commission. However, the City of San Jose staff will provide coordin-
ation and administration. The City would establish the fiscal con-
trols for the program and provide transportation for naterials collected.
San Jose State College Department of Environmental Studies would provide
student help to man the central center and students to act as advisors
to the satellite centers. The two industry representatives contacted
to date have offered their expertise in the design of materials-handling
techniques and miscellaneous equipment.
The satellite centers would be paid for the recycled materials collected
at approximately 40% of the market value. The central center would re-
tain 607. to pay for cost of containers, transportation and administration,
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that the City adopt a resolution authorizing the
recycling program as proposed and providing that the revenues from
the sale of recycled materials be utilized for purchase of equipment,
supplies, and hiring of part-time help for the operation of the
.center.
2. It is recommended that the entire recycling program be under the
review of the Environmental Commission. However, it is recommended
that a special technical committee of the Commission be established
consisting of representatives from the City of San Jose, San Jose
State College Environmental Studies Department, and industry. The
purpose of the committee would be to —
'serve as an advisory group to the recycling program;
'assist in planning and organizing an efficient recycling system;
'evaluate improvements in technology, equipment, material handling
and packaging methods;
'recommend programs and practices which will enlarge and broaden
the market for reclaimed materials.
3. It is recommended that the sum of $12,000 be allocated to implement
the program. These funds are needed for the following items:
a. Towable forklift, $7500.00.
b. Purchase of necessary containers, $3000.00.
c. Miscellaneous improvements at existing site and contingencies,
$1500.00.
ACTION REQUIRED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECG>C-tENDATIOyS
1. Resolution by Council authorizing program.
2. Establishment of fund for revenues and expenditures of program.
3. Ordinance allocating $12,000.00 for the Recycling Program.
Respectfully submitted,
-------
CITY OF SAN JOSE ~ MEMORANDUM
to A. R. Turturiei, Director of «on Hydraulics Division
"Public Works
MMJKCT Personnel Requisition »*« March 6, 1972
AFMOVCD DAT*
Attached is a personnel requisition for a Staff Aid (Limited). The
position will assist in the operation of the new program for the
San Jose Recycling Center by coordinating the activities of satellite
centers* scheduling glass and bi-metal collection, keeping records
of material collected from each satellite canter, distributing
environmental information and other miscellaneous duties.
Economic considerations of the recycling program would be improved
by the hiring of a staff Aid (Limited) as it would relieve an
engineer of many of the day to day duties concerning routine
operations.
Salary provisions for the position have been provided by Ordinance
No. 16071.
A
B. R. TOSCHI
Principal Civil Engineer
ERTiXWB:ms
Attachment
-------
SUPPLEMENTAL XMFOfcMATXON TO MEMO DATED 3-6-72
The Staff Aide (Limited) position would be paid out of 01-726-974.
and the salary would be limited to a oaxiroum of $300 per month.
budget, for the recycling program has been
t,,._.M,r.. MONTHLY INCOME
1. 40 tons glass 9 $20/ton » $ 80°
2, 15 tons bimetal » $20/ton • 300
3. 1 ton aluminum © $200/ton » 200
4. Misc. Salvage (iron, copper, etc.) » 200
Total $1,500
MONTHLY SXPEiTOITURES
Labor
a* Truck drivers » $ 350
b. Operation of center «• 400
c. Administration (Staff Aide) » 300
2. Payments to Participating Centers » 240
3* Equipment Payments & Maintenance « 210
Total $1,500
-------
THE CITY OF SAN JOSE
RECYCLING PROGRAM
Z. Pick-up Procedures
ZZ. Calendar of Scheduled Pick-ups
III. Proper Method of Recycling
IV. Newspapers, Cardboard, & Traih Pick-ups
V. Signs, Printed Material, Safety Equipment
-------
I. PICK-UP PROCEDURES
There -are a few necessary procedures which should be followed in
order to have .an effective as weir as trouble-free Recycling.
Program.
1. When bins need picking up, call City Hall at 277-4000,
extension 4215. on or before every Monday prior to Scheduled
Pick-up (calendar enclosed). A call must be made even if
no materials are available for pick-up to eliminate confusion.
Ask for Kathy Henry or Karl Hild. if neither one is reached,
then leave a message with the following information:
a. The number of glass bins and the color of each.
b. The number of tin bins.
As an added convenience, the City is going to construct small
tags of metal or another material which will be -used to mark
the bins to be picked up. These tags will slip-over the
edge of the bin and be clearly -visible.
Then only the tagged bins will be picked up. This must be
done in order to aid the driver in pick-up procedures.
2. The City will then be out on the scheduled Wednesday to pick
up the bins and leave empty ones. A receipt will be left
with someone if presents; if not, it will be mailed.
We now have a towable forklift which makes it possible to
weigh the materials on the spot. We will no longer need to
approximate weights.
72-
-------
II. CALENDAR OF SCHEDULED PICK-UPS
September;
1. Call in on September 5
Pick-up, September 6
2. Call in on September 18
Pick-up, September 20
October;
1. Call in on October 2
Pick-up, October 4
2. Call in on October 16
Pick-up, October 18
November;
1. Call in on October 30
Pick-up, November 1
2. Call in on November 13
Pick-up, November 15
3. Call in on November 27
Pick-up, November 29
December;
1. Call in on December 11
Pick-up, December 13
2. Call in on'December 26
Pick-up, Decmeber 28
7S
-------
III. PROPER METHOD OF RECYCLING
The procedures for the proper method of recycling are outlined
below. These are the sane procedures followed by the individuals
who use the center.
It is the responsibility of the Recycling Centers to see to it
that these rules are followed correctly.
There have been problems arise with unbroken glass* metal rings,
and unwashed materials from various centers in the past. It is
hoped that this brief explanation will clear up such mishaps.
It is most important to remember that the white bans are to be
used for glass only! Keep glass out of the green, Continental can
bins. These bins are for tin only!
GlaSS Jars and Bottles may be broken
I wash out
2 remove lids
3 remove metal rings
4 separate colors
Tin Cans do not have pop-tops
I wash out
2 remove paper labels
3 remove ends
4 crush flat
Cans have pop-tops and side seams
I flatten in middle first
2 crush ends over
Aluminum Cans have pop-tops; no side
seams
crush ; same as bimetal cans
74,
-------
IV. NEWSPAPER, CARDBOARD, & TRASH PICK-UP
Newspapersi
Newspapers are now being accepted at the Singleton Road Center
(San Jose Recycling Center) across from the City Disposal Grounds.
Inform the people who may ask, and in the event newspapers are left
at your center, bring them to San Jose Recycling Center.
Cardboard;
Industry has now created a market for recycling corrugated cardboard.
The City is researching the possibility of having a cardboard bin
located at Singleton Road. Information on this should be available
by the middle of September.
Corrugated cardboard makes up the bulk of boxes used for packaging.
All cardboard is acceptable only if the staples are removed and
is not the type that utilizes a black tar glue tape for construction
of the box.
Trash Pick-up;
Trash and refuse of the non-recyclable type can be hauled away
from the centers on the scheduled pick-up days. Mention it when
calling for a pick-up.
All trash and refuse should be stacked neatly and securely to
prevent blowing away and to minimize complaints. Keep in mind,
however, cleanliness is the responsibility of each center. The
City is not in the garbage business. It will not be subject to
clean-up procedures, only assistance.
73
-------
V. SIGNS, PRINTED MATERIAL, SAFETY EQUIPMENT.
Signs;
It is very important to make clear to the public what must be
done in order to make operations as trouble free as possible.
Signs, if properly done, are a very effective means of relaying
this message. The city has .available facilities and materials
to print such signs.
Some points to remember when designing a sign:
1. Signs should be precise and to the point. Read with a
minimum of time and effort.
2. Signs should be appealing as well as functional.
Printed Material;
Flyers, hand-outs, etc., can be produced through the City's
Duplicating Department for each Recycling Center. A flyer such
as the one used by San Jose Recycling Center has proven to be
' effective (refer to next page). These same flyers can be altered
to contain the name and location of each of the centers, if requested
two weeks before needed.
On the back of these same flyers, information of each center's
activities or background can also be printed. Environmental
information from various industries is available upon request.
Safety Equipment;
If equipment such as gloves and eye goggles are not already in
use, consider ordering such equipment for the safety of each
w6rker. Safety must be the number one consideration in managing
a Recycling Center.
76
-------
SOME GOOD FACTS ABOUT RECYCLING
Dumping refuse onto the land, in the water, or in. the air is not
a wise use of our garbage resources. The materials used to make
a product are present in our trash, but we go after new resources
instead to make new products. Our object should be to begin treat-
ing garbage and trash with due respect.
Reduce the amount of waste you produce by considering what will
happen to each purchase you make. Packaging will play an important
role here. Things like cellophane, waxed paper, styrofoam, and
plastics are not biodegradable. They are also unsuitable for re-
cycling, and will be here many years after we are gone. Avoid
them whenever possible, and recycle all things you do not need.
When considering recycling, first re-use the item' in its original
form (e.g. cardboard box as a box). Zf this is not possible, utilize
it for its material content (e.g. cardboard used by wastepaper in-
dustry) . An empty garbage can is a sign of ecological living. So
the next time you recycle an empty beer can,.don't do it with dis-
dain—for it may become part of a surgeon's scalpel which will save
your life!
WHAT HAPPENS TO RECYCLED MATERIALS?
It's enough to bolster belief in reincarnation when discarded tuna
fish cans come back to life as steel plate to build ships or glass
bottles become something you can drive oh. The destination of such
material is often hot known. It's abqut time the public was aware
of what can be done with .'their discarded!'garbage.
GLASS
The glass taken in by recycling is mixed with the natural elements
which make up glass—sand, silica, & quartz. This in turn is melted
and formed into new bottles. Recent experiments may have opened up
a whole new field for the use of recycled glass though, research now
being conducted deals with a new means for using glass salvaged from
municipal refuse. The proposed use for this waste glass is as an
aggregate used for urban road paving and maintenance operations.
The use of glass aggregates in asphalt concrete has been shown by
both laboratory and field tests to be a viable means for using waste
glass. Performance of glasphalt field installations have proven
satisfactory.
77
-------
What Happens to Recycled Materials? Page 2
Glass - cont'd.
For recycling purposes, glass is very easy to recycle. It need only
to, be washed out, separated by color* and 'all metal caps or rings
removed.
TIN AMD B I -METAL
"
Tin" cans are actually tin-plated steel containers; while bi-metal
is made of steel sides and bottom with an aluminum pop-top. These
cans will decompose after about 25 years of exposure to the elements.
The new aluminum pull tab tops will take 100 years.
For recycling purposes, the cans should be washed out, all labels
removed, and crushed flat. The aluminum tab from the bi-metal, can
and should be put in with your recyclable aluminum.
There are four major markets now for the recycled tin can:
1. Steel Mills; Using any of the three basic processes -
oxygen furnaces, open hearth or electric furnaces - to
.produce new products made of steel.
2. Pet inn ing Companies: Tin recovered from scrap is the only
domestic source of th.is mineral, which must otherwise be
imported at a cost of $3,600 a ton. The companies have
stated they will accept for remelting all the used cans
they can get.
3. Ferroalloy Production; Iron is combined with other elements
to manufacture specialty steel and foundry casting. This
market has the potential of absorbing more than 3 billion
cans a year.
4. Domestic Copper process ing ; Nearly 15 per cent of domestic
copper is processed by the leaching-cementatiqn method
involving a chemical exchange of the copper and iron ion.
The consumption of can scrap is limited only by the
economics of long-distance shipping to western mines. The
potential market has been estimated at 18 billion cans.
Mines can pay $50 to $65 a ton for the shredded cans.
ALUMINUM
Aluminum drink cans are recognized by the seamless molded bottoms.
If you purchase these containers, it is your responsibility to
recycle them.
For recycling purposes, wash out the can, then flatten by stepping
in the center and then stepping on each end.
78
-------
What Happens to Recycled Materials? Page 3
Aluminum - cont'd.
Although aluminum cans are worth the most money when redeemed, and
although they are the easiest cans to crush, aluminum cans are the
most polluting. It takes approximately 6 times more polluting
energy to make an aluminum can as compared to a steel can. Also*
aluminum does not rust, therefore it is not biodegradable.
Most paper products can be recycled. They usually need to be
separated according to categories of newspaper, cardboard, magazines
and mixed paper. Companies often require they be tied into bundles.
Carbon paper, paper with plastic or wax coating, cellophane,
styrofoam, etc., generally cannot be recycled.
CLOTH
Cloth is generally recycled through charity organizations as used
clothing or given to second hand stores. These small store's
operate .from the donations of old clothing which are then sold at
a great discount. The clothing industry requires a great deal of
agricultural land. The clothing purchased should be utilized to its
fullest extent.
WHY RECYCLE?
"Nationally, each person generates 4.5 Ibs. of garbage per day.
But in California, the average rate is 20 Ibs. per person, per day."
It costs the taxpayers of this country 2,8 billion dollars per year
to throw away their garbage.
Can you really afford to throw that money away?
79
-------
CITY OF SAN JOSE-.-MEMORANDUM
vo R. R. Blackburn. .Chief Assistant
Director of Public Works
1973-74 f.y. Budget for
Recycling Program .
»••« E. R. Toschi, Hydraulics
Division
March 6. 1973
APPROVED
BATE
Attached is the 1973-74 f.y. budget for the Recycling Program. The
program requests an additional $2*500 over last year's budget to cover
additional expenses due to an anticipated 25 per cent, increase in
material collected*
B. R. TOSCHI
Principal Civil Engineer
BRTtKWH:ms
Attachment
aa
-------
09715 Recycling Program
The recycling program encourages recycling of glass, bimetal,
aluminum and newsprint. Non-profit recycling centers are
provided collection containera and transportation for material
collected.
Actual Estimated Program
Work Program Data 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74
Tons of Material Collected — 460 575
Activity Cost
General Fund $12,000 $ 5,000 $ 7*500
Emergency Employment
Act Fund -0- -0- -0-
Total $12,000 $ 5,000 $ 7,500
Detail of Personal Expenses
One Staff Aide (LTD) - 840 hrs. ® $3.56A? * $3,000
-------
i. DGET WORKS112ET 02
Flieal Year 1973-7-
Department Public Works
DETAIL OF NOS-PSRSttlAL EXPENSES
Obj
Code
30
34
52
EXPENDITURES
Prior
Year
Actual
-0-
-0-
-0-
•
Current
Year
Estinatec
-0-
-0-
2,000
Ifext
Year
Proposed
$ 300
200
4,000
$4,500
Detail
SUPPLIES, MATERIALS AND SMALL TOOLS
Lumber for signs, paint, steel strapping and
hand tools
PRINTING AND ADVERTISING
.City duplicating, reproduction of educational
material and advertising flyers
SERVICES - Contractual and Professional
Glass and bimetal bins,' miscellaneous improvements
to recycling center.
- ^? *y —
2f&^- "
. Contin- s on fee verse
-------
110-40
CITY OF SMN JOSE - MEMORANDUM
•"> Mrs. Janet Gray Hayes r"0*1 Hydraulics Division
City Council
•VMCCT Recycling Program in San Jose »*« March 30, 1972
APMIOVBD DATt
Zn January of 1971* the City of San Jose approved a joint demonstration
project in recycling with the Environmental-studies Department of
Ban Jose State College.
A recycling center was established on Singleton Road north of the
Disposal Grounds* Due to the success of the project, the Council, in
November, 1971, approved a new recycling program which will expand the
present demonstration project* :
The new program will provide containers and transportation for recyclable
material, publicity, and printed educational material to any non-profit
organization that wishes to participate. The participating organisations
will share in the revenues derived front the sale of the recyclables
collected.
On January 31, 1972, the City Council approved an ordinance that provided
funds for the implementation of the program. These funds are now being
utilized in setting up the program.
<•
Plans have been drawn for needed improvements to the existing recycling
center and these improvements should be completed by mid-April. Also
the construction of additional containers for the recyclable material
is expected to be completed by the same date.
Meetings have been held with representatives of industry, recycling
centers now in operation at .schools and with the San Jose Youthh
Commission. In addition, a meeting has been scheduled for April 18,
1972, in which all organisations that are interested in establishing
recycling centers will be invited to attend. Our plans are to have
the new recycling program in operation by the date of this meeting.
This will enable us to provide immediate service to those organizations
that attend the" 'meeting and wijph to participate in the program.
Respectfully submitted.
E. R. TOSCHI
Principal civil Engineer
ERTiKWHsms
.83
-------
APPENDIX B
SANTA CLARA COUNTY MEMO REQUESTING
BOARD APPROVAL OF SOLID WASTE PLANNING EFFORT
84
-------
memorandum ,
— ,n . .XT I
TO FROM
Boa£d of Supervisors Howa/d W. Tampanf County Executive
SUBJECT " ~ "OATI "
DEVELOPMENT or^cQUMTv-yipg sQL^p WASTE ,._ .. July ll> 1973
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Attached is a proposed project description for the development of a
County-wide solid waste management plan. Development of this plan
is mandated by the State Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act of
1972.
The County must develop this comprehensive plan in cooperation with
the cities within the County. The proposed work plan provides for
city input of both a policy and technical nature via use of the
Planning Policy Committee.
Because the project is expected to require at least two years to
complete, timing becomes critical. Therefore, it is recommended
that your Board:
1. Approve the attached project description for the development
of a county-wide solid waste management plan.
2. Authorize staff to commence with initial phases of the consultant
selection process.
3. Refer the project description to the Planning Policy Committee
and request their participation In the project.
*». Request the PPC nominate members to the Solid Waste Management
Technical Advisory Committee as described in the project work
plan.
5. Refer the project description to the Inter-City Council and the
Association of Bay Area Governments for review and comment.
Funding
A proposal for this project has been submitted for Entitlement Period IV
General Revenue Sharing funds, however, the Board may wish to resolve the
funding issue during the current I973-7** Budget Hearings. We would not
anticipate the execution of a contract for consultant services prior to
September 15, 1973, when these Revenue Sharing funds would be available,
however, immediate resolution of funding of this project would allow
County departments and the PPC to move definitively toward forming the
planning organization and selection of the. consultant.
le
Attachment
cc: Public Works
Planning
Public Health
85
t tuni • C0a>* ISA.
-------
Project Description • Development of County-wide Solid Waste
Management PIin
Background -
The Solid Waste Management and Recovery Act of 1972 requires the County
to submit to the State Solid Waste Management Board by January I, 1976.
a comprehensive coordinated solid waste plan. This plan must be prepared
in accordance with established state policy and guidelines to handle
all solid waste disposal within the County and all solid waste disposal
destined without the County. ~~~
The plan must be approved by a majority of the cities within the County
which contain a majority of the population of the Incorporated area of
the County. This Act establishes solid waste management and planning
as a primary responsibility of local government (counties).
Plan Development •
Whereas Solid Waste Management shell be Included as an element In the
County General Plan and since the study Is to be undertaken cooperatively
with the cities, the primary responsibility for plan development will
rest with the County Planning Department.
An itemized list of steps necessary to develop the comprehensive plan Is
shown as Appendix A. The major elements of the plan development are:
A. Formulating solid waste management goals.
B. Data gathering, Inventory, anjl analysis
C. Establish crlterie for pursuing components of solid waste management.
D. Examine alternative*.
E. Establish management alternetives.
F. Establish economic feasibility.
6. Make final recommendations on plan to Board of Supervisors and
cities for adoption and submittal to the State Solid Waste
Management Board.
Due to the specialized nature and complexity of the problem, a private
consultant will be hired to perform the major study elements. The
Planning Department will have the responsibility of administering the
consultant contract. Planning will also act as liaison with appropriate
city, State, and Association of Bay Area Government (ABAC) officials.
City Participation -
The Planning Policy Committee (PPC) will act as the city-county, multl-
jurisdictlonal coordinating body for development of the County-wide
Solid Waste Management Plan. A nine member Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) will monitor the progress of the consultant and provide much of
the local knowledge and expertise necessary for development of the plan.
.86
-------
This nine member TAG Mill be composed oft
I member representing County Planning
I member representing County Public Works
I member representing County Public Health
2 members representing City Management*
2 members representing City Planning*
2 members representing City Pubjlc Works*
^membership selection by PPC
ABAC staff associated with solid waste planning will be requested to serve
as ex-officlo, non-voting members of the TAC.
In addition to the TAC, the PPC may wish to establish a sub-committee
for the purpose of reviewing and commenting on the final draft of the
plan. It Is expected that this sub-committee would address itself to the
policy decisions inherent in the management alternatives posed in the plan.
The Inter-City Council will also be contacted to review and comment on
the project description and the final draft of the plan.
Final adoption of the plan will be requested from each city council via
a communication from the Board of Supervisors. A majority of the cities
within the County which contain a majority of the population of the
incorporated area of the County must adopt the plan prior to submlttal
to the State Solid Waste Management Board for approval.
Consultant Selection -
The County Planning Department, with assistance from the County Public
Works and Public Health Deportments, will be responsible for developing
a draft request for consultant proposals (RFP). ABAC and State Solid
Waste Management Board staff will be asked to review and comment on the
draft RFP. The TAC will finalize the RFP and the County Planning Depart-
ment will then solicit consultant proposals.
The TAC, or a designated sub-committee of the TAC, will review all project
proposals and Invite those firms with the best proposals and the most
qualified personnel to conduct the study to an oral interview. Final
selection of the consultant will be based on the oral proposal presentations.
One staff member each from ABAC and the State Solid Waste Management Board
will be requested to review all written proposals and assist the TAC in
the ultimate selection of a consultant.
Once the selection is made, the County Planning Department will be
responsible for negotiating and administering the consultant contract.
The Planning Department wilt also act as liaison with ABAC for regional
plan development and for coordination necessitated by the Bay Delta Resource
Recovery Demonstration Project.
Project Costs -
Costs for consultant services lo develop the County-wide Solid Waste
Management Plan are estimated to be $100,000. (The method of financing
this project has not yet been determined--a General Revenue Sharing
87
-------
proposal has been submitted for Entitlement Period IV funds.)
Whereas this project Is • state mandated County responsibility, all
costs for consultant services will, be! bpjrne by the County. , The
consultant contract will be for approximately 18 months.
Project Timetable -
The County must submit a Solid Waste Management Plan to the State Solid
Waste Management Board by January I, 1976. The following timetable
has been established to meet this deadline and stlII provide sufficient
time for plan development, review and approval.
ACTIVITY TIME PERIOD (weeks)
I. Draft RFP, Form Committees 1 to 3
2. Solicit Consultant Proposals b to 6
3. Select Consultant, negotiate contract 7 to 9
k. Develop Draft Plan 10 to 88
5. Review Draft - PPC, ICC, ABAC. State 89 to 92
6. Finalize Plan 93 to 102
7. Adopt Plan 103 to 110
8. Submit Plan to State 111
88
-------
wi 3
-------
9. Establish the financial criteria and impact
on separation, recovery and recycling of
waste; Determine the extent of these methods
that would be desirable, within the financial
parameters, for the short range future (10 yrs)
and the middle range future (20 years).
10. Analyze the County's geography, its road net-
work and population distribution to determine
feasible haul distances at reasonable cost for
the purpose of locating solid waste and toxic
waste transfer stations and disposal areas
within the criteria of "8" abova.
11. Identify and map broad general areas of County
suitable for transfer station sites and solid
waste disposal sites meeting criteria in "8"
and "10" above. Including an assessment of the
social and environmental impact of solid waste
disposal operations on the population and
environment of these areas.
12. Examine alternate future uses of solid waste
disposal sites based on relationship of solid
waste sites to other countywide planning pro-
grams and adopted plans. Develop standards
for rehabilitation of sites for future use.
Relate these criteria and standards to "&'
and "7" above as wall as to future sites.
13. Examine the impact of regional planning
(ABAC Solid Waste Committee) preparatory to
preparing a sketch plan for Santa Clara
County to enhance compatibility and coordin-
ation with the regional plan.
Examine solid waste management alternatives,
with consideration for private and governmental
structure and financial arrangements inherent
in these alternatives.'
15. Submit progress report to the Board of Super-
visors and establish a P.P.C. solid waste sub-
committee to review, In detail, the progress to
date and participate in-preparation of sketch
plans.
90.
-------
16. Prepare sketch plans of transfer stations and
solid and toxic waste site or sites, based
on general areas Identified in "10" and "11"
above and fulfilling reuse functions of sites
identified in "1?" above.
17. Submit recommended sketch plan to cities,
A3AG and other appropriate government agencies
for review and comment.
18. Adjust sketch plan and prepare additional social
and environmental statements as required.
19. Recommend the most favorable of the solid waste
management alternatives examined in "I**" above.
Present the most attractive overall arrangement
for implementing the plan in light of this
management alternative.
20. Hold public meetings on plan and alternate
means of implementation.
21. Hake final recommendations of plan and imple-
mentation program to the Board of Supervisors
for adoption.
22. Submit report to the Board of Supervisors,
Planning Policy Committee and City Councils
for adoption of the plan and necessary
implementation measures.
91
-------
APPENDIX. C
MUNICIPAL GODS FOR WASTE MATTER MANAGEMENT
92
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL, CODE
0212.11 Prophylactic Goods. No per-
son other than a duly registered phar-
macist, shall sell or give away, through
the medium of vending machines, or in
uny other mnnncr any prophylactic rub-
ber goods, or any other articles for the
prevention of venereal or other diseases
or infections in the City; provided, how-
ever that the provisions of this Section
shall not apply to wholesale druggists!
jobbers and manufacturers selling the
foregoing articles to retail drug stores.
6212.13. Advertising of Nostrum Pro-
hibited. No person shall exhibit or dis-
tribute, In any public toilet, urinal or
lavatory, or In any toilet, urinal or lava-
tory in «ny saloon, pool or billiard room,
or hotol. or at any other place within ths
City, any written or printed matter, or
any fom of advertising, which either
directly Or indirectly, by Statement or
implication, advertises that any person.
whether a licensed physMpn or not,
offers to treat, or does treat, venereal
diseases,,, or diseases or weaknesses of
the genito-urinary system In imn or
woman; or which either directly Or in-
directly, by statement or implication,
advertises that any drug store or medi-
cine, compounded, or uncorapounded, for
external or internal use, is a cure for,
or will alleviate or be in any manner
beneficial for any venereal diseases or
uny disease or weakness of the genito-
urinary system in man or woman.
No person owning or in charge of any
premises specified in this Section, shall
permit any written or printed matter or
advertising prohibited in this Section, to
be posted in any public toilet, urinal or
IMS, 46
lavatory, or in any toilet, urinal or lava-
tory in any saloon, pool or billiard room,
or hotel, or any other place within the
City which Is owned, leased or in charge
of such person.
5218.14. Privies and Cesspools Pro-
hibited. No privy . vault, cesspool, or
reservoir into which any privy, water
closet, toilet, stable, sink or other recep-
tacle of sewage or liquid refuse Is
drained, ohall be maintained upon any
premises within the City where connec-
tion to the street sewer is practicable.
except aa hereinafter provided.
5212.1*. Contractors' Privies'.' Ade- sm.if
quote sanitary toilet facilities shall be *?££*
made available for workers on all con- *«"•
structlon operations. Whenevnr privies
must necessarily be installed to com-
ply with the provisions of this Section,
they shall be constructed in accordance
with specifications of the Health Offi-
cer, and shall be maintained at all times
in a sanitary condition and fly-proofed.
Upon failure to comply with this Section,
the Superintendent of the Building De-
partment is'empowered to require dls-
contiauftnce of all construction opera-
tions.
6212.10. Vehicle Lots. Every operator itu.u
of any lot used to pork, store, maintain art"*'
or load and unload vehicles shall keep
such lot in a clean and sanitary condi-
tion at all times and shall so treat the
surface of the ground upon which the lot
is located, as to effectively prevent tke
blowing or drifting of dust and the
tracking of material by vehicles there-
front
Chapter 3—ACCUMULATION, TRANSPORTATION
AND DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATTER
PART 1. PURPOSE AND
DEFINITION
uoi.i- 6301.1. Purpose. This Chapter is de-
AftM1 termined and declared to be a health,
44411 8anitary BIM* lafcty measure necessary
for the promotion, protection and pres-
ervation of the health, safety and general
welfare of the people of the City of Son
Jose.
5301.2. "Refuse" Defined. The word
"refuse" as used in this Chapter moans
and includes any and all garbage, swill,
rubbish and stable matter.
6301.3. "Garbage" Defined. The word
e" as used in this Chapter means
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
and included any and all'dead animals
of less than ten pounds in weight, except
those slaughtered for human consump-
tion; every accumulation of waste ani-
mal, vegetable and/or other matter that
result* from the preparation, processing,
consumption, dealing in, handling, pack-
ing, canning, storage, transportation,
decay «r decomposition of meats, fish,
fowl,'birds, fruits, grains or other ani-
mal or vegetable matter including, bat
not by woy of limitation, used tin cans
and other food containers; and all put-
refactive or easily decomposable waste
animal or vegetable matter which la
fit
IMS. 48
likely to attract flies or rodents; except
any matter hereinafter included in the
definition of "swill" or 'rubbish" or
"stable natter."
SS01.4. "Swill" Defined. The word
"swill" as used in this Chapter means
and Includes any animal or vegetable **rrr
waste resulting from the handling, pack-
ing, canning, cooking, preparing or pro-
cessing of food, which (a) is fit tor eon-
sumption by, and may lawfully be fed
to, animals or which will he made fit
by beat «r other treatment for otasmap-
tlon by snlttals and may thereafter be
94
-------
SAN JOSH MUNICIPAL CODE
Oit.
*I(M*
«4Mi
lawfully fed to •nimali, and (b) has been
segregated from other refuse and kept
and accumulated in separate containers
by tha producer thereof for the purpose
of feeding It or having it fed to animals,
and (c) is actually and lawfuBy f«d to
animals.
6soi-s- MRubbiBn" v*n*c*. *** *«*
"rubbish" as used In this Chapter means
and Includes all waste wood, wood prod-
ucts, tree trimmings, gross cuttings,
dead plants, weeds, tarns, dead trees or
branches Uureof, chips, shavings, saw-
dust, printed matter, paper, pasteboard,
rags, straw, used and discarded mat-
tresses, used and discarded clothing, used
and discarded shoes and boots, estnbuaU-
bl« waste palp and other prodaeto atteh
as are used for packaging, or ^rappiBg
crockery and gloss, ashes, cinders, titor
sweepings, glass, mineral or metafile
substances, earth, rock, used, demolished
or discarded building materials, and
other waste material not included hi the
definitions of garbage, swill or stable
matter!
6301.0. "StahU Matter" Defined. The
words "stable matter" as used la this
Chapter moan and Include all manure
and other waste matter normally accu-
mulated in and about stable or any ant*
mal, livestock or poultry enclosure and
resulting from the keeping of annuls,
poultry or livestock*
5301.7. "Swill Catiector" Deffeed, fhe
words "swIH collector" as used. m this
Chapter mean and Include any penon
who possesses a valid swill collector's
license issued in accordance with the pro-
visions of Part 6 of this Chapter.
5301-8- "Rubbish Collector* Defined.
The words "rubbish collector" as used
'n tnis Chapter mean and include any
person who possesses a valid rubbish
collector's license Issued In accordance
with the provisions of Part 6 of tills
Chapter.
5301.9. "Garbage Collector" Defined.
The words "garbage collector" as used
in r.is Chapter mean and include any
person who is authorized by contract
existing between him and the City to
collect, transport and/or dispose of any
garbage or of any rubbish, stable mat-
ter nnd garhag* produced, kept and ac-
cumulated in tlio City, in accordance
with the provisions of Fart 6 of this
Chapter.
6301.10. "Premises" Defined. The word
"premises" aa used in this Chapter
means and Indodes any land, building
and/or structure in the City where any
refuse Is produced, kept, deposited,
placed or accumulated.
5301.11. "Health Officer" Defined. The
words "health officer" as us«oT In this
Chapter mofB cad include the head., of
the Department of Health of th« CHjr
and/or his dub/ authorised agents and/or
representatives; . ' ' •
5301.12. "Demolition Materials CoHee-
tor" Defined. Hie words "demolition O
materials caJtaftor" aa used in this *>
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
R-41
6302.8. Public Property. No person
•hall throw, drop, leave, dump, bury,
burn, place, keep or accumulate any
refuse upon, on, into or in any street,
way, sidewalk, gutter, stream or creek
or the banks thereof, or any public place
or public property, nor sweep, gather or
take any refuse from any toch plan or
property or portion thereof and throw,
drop, place, deposit, dump, leave or ac-
cumulate it in any other tueh place or
property or portion thereof, either with
or without intent to later remove the
same, except and to the extent that men
ia authorised by other ordinance of Ban
Jose or by other action of tha GouncD of
the City of San Jose.
6802.4. Dangeroun AceumulatloM, otc.
No person, ahall keep or accumulate, or
permit to b« kept or accumulated, any
refuse in or upon any premises or place
in the City owned, leased or rented by
him or in his possession or control, in
such manner that the some shafl become
a fire hazard dangerous to persons or
property, or become unreasonably of-
fensive or dangerous to the public peace,
health or safety, or become a public
or private nuisance.
6302.6. No Refuse on Premises, etc.
Except That Produced Thereon. Except
aa otherwise expressly authorbed by
tha provisions of this Chapter, no per-
son other than the City shall place,
keep, accumulate or diapota of any
rcfiM of any kind in or upon any prtm-
SAN JOSB MUNICIPAL GOBI
5302.3. Public Proqer/tv. No person shall throw, drop, leave,
dump, bury, burn, place, keep or accumulate any refuse upon, on, Into or In any
street, way, .sidewalk, gutter, stream or creek or banks thereof, or any public
place or public property, nor sweep, gather or take any refuse from any such
place or property or portion thereof and throw, drop, place, deposit, dump,
leave or accumulate it in any other such place or property or portion thereof,
either with or without intent to later remove the same except and to the extent
that such is authorised by other ordinance of San Jose or by other action of
the Council of the City of San Jose.
5302.4. ftangeroua Accumulations, etc. No person shall keep or
accumulate, or permit to be kept or accumulated, any refuse in or upon any
premises or place in the City owned, leased or rented by him or in his possession
or control, in such manner that the same shall become a fire hazard dangerous
to persons or property, or become unreasonably offensive or dangerous to the
public peace, health or safety, or become a public or private nuisance.
DB:rk
4/67
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
iscs, land or place in the City other
than the promises wherein such refuse
is produced unless so authorized by res-
olution or ordinance of the City Coun-
cil: and no person other than the City
shall establish, maintain or operate any
dump or disposal grounds in the City
(or the keeping, accumulation or dis-
posal of any refuse of any kind unless
so authorized by resolution or ordi-
nance of the City Council; and no per-
son shall permit any premises, land or
place in the City owned, leased or
rented by him or in his possession or
control to be used for the keeping,
accumulation or disposal of any refuse
of any kind other than refuse produced
thereon, unless so authorized by resolu-
tion or ordinance of the City Council
Sin.* 5302.6. Sorting Refuu on Streets.
b^old** No Pinon shall sort, separate or segre-
#4iio ' Rile any refuse of any kind within or
Adopts upon any public street or place, unless
it-it-M so authorized by the Health Officer or
the City Council, and then only In the
manner, place'and time and subject to
such restrictions as may be imposed by
said Health Officer or the City Council.
• '5302.7. Collection nnd Transportation/*
No person shall collect and/or transport
any refuse within or upon any public
st recta In the City, or anywhere in the
City, except in leak-proof containers or
vehicles so constructed that no refuse
can leak or sift through, or fall out, or
be blown from, such container or ve-
hicle. Vehicles or containers used to
collect or transport garbage, stable
matter or swill shall be completely
covered and shall be kept covered at
all times except when garbage, stable
matter or swill is being actually loaded
or unloaded and except when said ve-
hicles arc moving along a collection
route in the couisc of collection. Col-
lection and transportation of any and
all refuse shall be so conducted that
no refuse will fall, drain or spill out of
the collecting or transporting container
or vehicle. Any person collecting or
transporting any refuse shall immedi-
ately pick up all refuse which drops,
spills, leakc or is blown from the col-
lecting or transporting container or
\ohicle. nnd shall otherwise clcnn the
place onto which any such refuse was
\M> dioppcd. spilled. Mown or leaked. /
5302.8. Inlcrfcrome with Collectors!
No person shall Intcifere with or ob-
struct the nuthori/cd activities of a
Kiirbagc collector, swill collector or rub-
bish collector, in the collection, trans-
portation and disposal of refuse.
5302.9. Kesimnsibitity for Coni|)lianeo,
Etc. The primary responsibility for
proper keeping, accumulation and. dls-
posal of refuse in accordance and com-
pliance with the provisions of this
Chapter shall lie on the producer
thereof. Should such producer refuse.
neglect or fail to provide for such
proper keeping, accumulation and dis-
posal of refuse, the owner of the prem-
ises within or upon'which the same has
been produced shall keep, accumulate
and dispose of it in accordance and
compliance with the provisions of this
Chapter.
5302.10. Cnminiinlrnblu Diseases. Any
and all refuse which the Health Officer
may find and declare to be contami-
nated in that it carries or may carry
communicable germs and/or diseases
shall be taken by the collector thereof,
to the place of permanent disposal, on
the calendar day of its collection and
no later. The collector of suc^, refuse
shall not place, retain, store or keep
any such refuse, either temporarily or
otherwise, In any barn, garage or any
building or place other than the regular
disposal grounds, pending Us delivery to
and permanent disposal at the disposal
grounds.
5302.11. Epidemics. In the event the
Health Officer should .find and declare
the existence of an epidemic, or should
find and declare that an epidemic is
threatened, all refuse collected by.any
collector., which the Health Officer
should find and declare to be dangerous
to the public health in that it contains
or carries or may contain or carry
germs, diseases or disease-bearing
agents, shall be tnkcn by the collector
immediately to the disposal grounds
and be disposed of in such manner as
the Health Officer may direct.
5302.12. Health Officer's Power. The
Health Officer shall have power to
establish rules and regulations consist-
ent with the provisions of this Chapter,
such rules and regulations to have as
their purpose the enforcement of the
provisions of this Chapter nnd the
health and sanitary laws and ordinances
of the City subject to approval of the
same by the City Council; and upon
their approval by the City Council, such
rules and regulations shall hove the
effect of law.
5302.13. Enforcement. All members
of the Police Department and the De-
partment of Health of the City are
hereby specifically authorized and re-
quired to enforce the provisions of this
Chapter, and shall h.iye the right to
enter any and all premises or plnce.s In
the City to determine the sanitary con-
dition thei-cof. No person shiill deny or
obstruct any such entry by any such
persons for such purpose.
-------
SAM JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
provisions of this Part nml of Part 4
of this Chapter. Each such container
shall:
(a) be constructed of metal, plastic
or other substantial material;
(b) be of sufficient strength nnd rig-
idity to hold without collapse nil garbage
and/ur other refuse deposited and kept
therein;
(c) be of sufficient strength and
rigidity to prevent it from being broken
or crushed under ordinary conditions of
use;
(d) have close fitting rover;
(e) be equipped with two attached
handles or bales, one on each side of the
container, of sufficient strength and size
IIIK! MO lorntcd to fncilitnte lite liftlnK
nml hnndling «f the container;
-.Xf) he leaf-proof nnd fly-proof;
(R) be free of sharp, rough or jagged
surface* or edges likely to cause injury
to persons lifting gr handling the con-
tainer;
(h) he*of such shape that it can bo
lifted anil handled without unreasonable
strain;
(i) not exceed 32 gallons in rapacity.
5303.3. Garbage Containers, location.
Each and every garbage container shall
he placed, kept and maintained within
the eWs or renr yard of, the premises
wherein its contents are produced, pro-
vided and excepting however, that, ex-
cept as otherwise provided in this Chap-
ter, such container shall be placed upon
the public pnrkwny in front of said
premises for collection of its contents.
Nu such container shall be kept or per-
mitted to remain nt the last mentioned
Intatjon rxvcnl for not more than 12
hours itnincd-.atcly |irccediiii: the sched-
uled time of collection hy sniil collector,
and mi Kiuh contiunrr shall otherwise
In- plnri'd, kept or maintained within or
upon nny public yulcwnlk, parkway, curb,
gutter or street.
r.no.'t.-l. Carnage Container*. Use and
Maintenance. Eaih and every garbage
Kintuiner shall ln> kept «i>ulcd with a
iiKlit-Cittmi; cuvi-r «u as to prevent the
• I«.I|KT or Kakftgv rrum the tonlmncr of
any gnrhHgr or other refuse or of any
B-4S
offensive vnpnrs, gases or odors, ex-
cept when garbage or other refuse is
being placed into or removed from the
container. No such container shall be so
filled as to cause matter to overflow
therefrom; and the gross weight of
garbage or refuse placed or kept there-
in, including the weight of the container,
shall not at any time exceed 76 pounds.
Such container shall at all times bo kept
clean and'sanitary, treated in such man-
ner and to such extent and with* such
substance as may be necessary to repel
and keep away flies and rodents, and
render tho container odor-proof.
6303.5. Swill Container Required. Do- *>*>•••
srription. Any and all swill 'produced,
kept or accumulated within or upon any
premises or place in the City shall be
placed without delay in separate, swill
containers kept and maintained within
and upon such premises or place, and
shall bo kept and accumulated in such
containers within or upon such premises
or place until disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of this Part and of
Pnrt 4 of this Chapter. Such swill con-
tainers shall meet all specifications and
requirements applicable to garbage con-
tainers as herein set forth in Section
6303.2.
6303.C. Swill Containers. Location.
Each and every swill container shall be
placed, kept and maintained, at all times
in the rear of the premises wherein its
contents arc produced, at a place rea-
sonably accessible and ccnvenient for
collection of its contents.
6303.7. Swill Containers. Use and
Maintenance. Each and every swill con*
tainer shall be kept scaled with a> tight-
fitting mctul cover so as to prevent the
escape or leakage from the container of
uny swill, or of any offensive vapors,
gases or odors, except when swill is be-
ing placed into or removed from the con-
tainer. Nothing but swill shall be.placed
into or kept in a swill container. No
swill container shall be so filled, as to
cause matter to overflow therefrom, and
its gross weight including the weight
of swill kept therein shall not ever ex-
ceed 70 pounds. Each container shall at
98
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
ull times be kept clean ami sanitary,
ami iholt be sprayed and otherwise
treated in such manner and to suclt ex-
tent and with such substance as may be
necessary to repel and keep awny flies
and rodents and to keep the container
odor-proof.
i*vi.s. 5303.8. Rubbish, AccumuUtioti Of.
AMttdni Any and B" ruM)'sn produred, kept or
UH. accumulated within or upon any premises
"wu in tht City which is to be collected, re-
moved or disposed of by a garbage col-
lector, shall be placed, prior to its col-
lection and removal by said garbage col-
lector, in garbage containers of the type
specified in Section 5303.2 of this Port,
cither alone or intermixed with garbage
or stable matter or a mixture of any
or all of such substance*. Rubbish eon*
toiners shell not exceed with contents
75 pounds In weight
5303.0. Rubbish Containers. Location.
Each and every rubbish container shall
be placed, kept and maintained within
the side or rear yard of the premises
wherein its contents are produced, pro-
vided and excepting however, that, ex-
cept as otherwise provided in this Chap-
ter, such container shall be placed upon
the public parkway in front of said
premises for collection of its contents.
No such container shall be kept or per-
mitted to remain at the last mentioned
location except for not more than 12
hours immediately preceding the sched-
uled time of collection by said collector,
and no such container shall otherwise be
placed, kept or maintained within or
upon any public sidewalk, parkway,
curb, pitter or street
.W03.10. Rubbish Containers, Use and
Maintenance. No rubbish shall be so
compacted or otherwise so placed or kept
or accumulated in any such container
that all the contents of the container
will not fall out of their own weight
upon the container being lifted and
turned upside down.
5303.11. Stable Matter Containers Re-
quired. Any and all stable matter pro-
duced, kept or accumulated within or
upon any premises or place in the City
shall be placed without delay either in
IMS. U
(u) containers incvliin; and complying
with all niwcifiratioiis and requirements
applicable to garbage container* as here-
inabowj wt forth, or
(b) a box, bin or other receptacle
equipped with a substantial lid or cover
adequate to keep any and all flies from
the interior of said box, bin or recep-
tacle. No stable matter container shall
exceed 72 cubic feet in capacity. All
stable matter containers shall be kept
closed at all times excepting when stable
matter Is being placed into or taken out
of said receptacle; and shall be kept at
all times in the rear of the premises
where such stable matter is produced.
Stable matter may be mixed with gar-
bage ID the tamo garbage' container
when it is to be disposed of with and
in the same manner and at the same
lime as garbage, but in such cose each
container so used, including its con-
tents, shall not exceed 75 pounds in
weight
5303.12. Weekly Disposal of Garbage
and Rubbish. No more than ono week's
accumulation of garbage and rubbish
shall be kept or be permitted to remain
upon any premises in the City. At least
once each week all garbage and rubbish
produced, kept or accumulated within
any premises in the City shall be dis-
posed of in accordance with the provi-
sions of Part 4 of this Chapter.
6303.13. Daily Disposal of Swill No
more than one day's accumulation of
swill shall be kept or be permitted to
remain upon any premises in the City.
At least oiicc each day all swill pro-
duced, kept or accumulated within any
premises in the City shall be disposed
of in accordance with the provisions of
Part 4 ef this Chapter.
5303.14. Ashes. Stable Matter, Con-
taminated Matter. Etc. No hot ashes, hot
cinders or any burning matter shall be
placed or kept in any garbage con-
tainer or rubbish container. No other
ashes or cinders, and no stable matter,
and no refuse mentioned in Section
5302.10 of this Code, shall be placed or
kept in any garbage container or rub-
aa
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
exrrpt in an incinerator approved in
writing by the Chief of the Bureau of
Fin- Prevention of the Kirc Department
Said officer shall grant such appioval
If he finds thai the design and coMtruc-
tion of any incinerator proposed to be
used for the above purposes meets the
Emission Control Standards established
by Ki-tfulation 2 of the Buy Area Air Pol-
lution Control District, n copy of which
is on file in the office of the City Clerk,
available for public inspection, reference
to which is hereby made, which is here-
by adopted and incorporated herein by
reference the some as if fully set forth
herein. Such approval shall be revocable
at any time upon a finding by said offi-
cer that any such incinerator does not
meet said standards;
(c) No person shall create or cause
to uny unreasonable extent the omission
of noxious or offensive odors, den**
smoke, or any private or public nuisance
by burning any garbage or rubbish;
(d) No fire shall be kindled or main-
tained by any person within or upon
any public street, way, rond, alley, wnter
way, or other public property or place,
except by a member of the Fire Depart-
ment;
(e) No person shall burn rubbish on
any premises within the City, except
in a waste burner or incinerator so con-
structed and operated us to insure com-
plete and rapid combustion and incinera-
tion of all rubbish burned therein, and
no such waste burner or incinerator
shall be 'located •closer than fifteen feet
to any structure;
(f) No person shall burn any garbage
or rubbish within or upon any premises
excepting garbage or rubbish produced
within or upon such premises;
(g) Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision* of this Section the Chief of the
Bureau of Fire Prevention may author-
ize in writing nny |>crgon to burn grass,
stubble, leaves, trees, branches, tree
trimmings and clippings, weeds, vines
and bushes, or portions thereof, provid-
ing the BO mo may be kindled without
causing any fire hazard or other husnrd
or nuisance to uny persons or property.
4fl
6304.7. liurying. Except as otherwise
authorized by provisions of this Part,
no refuse of any kind shall be buried
anywhere in the City.
5304.8. Filling of Low Areas. No
refuse of any kind shall be used to
fill lew areas in the City; provided and
excepting that rubbish may be used to
fill such areas where prior written
approval is first procured from tiic
Health Officer and City Engineer. The
Health Officer shall grant such ap-
proval, subject to such conditions and
restrictions as he may find necessary
to protect the public health and safety,
if he finds that the proposed place and
manner of disposal will not endanger
tlio public health; otherwise, ho shall
refuse approval. The City Engineer shall
grant such approval if he finds that
the proposed fill will be sufficiently com-
pacted, covered and leveled and otherwise
•accomplished without endangering the
public safety, subject to such conditions
and restrictions as he may find neces-
sary to protect the public safety; other-
wise, he shall refuse such approval. Any
such approval may at any time be re-
voked by the grantor thereof or by the
City Council.
5304.9. Prevention of Erosion. No
refuse of any kind shall be used to
prevent erosion in the City; provided
and excepting that where written per-
mission therefor is first procured from
the Health Officer and from the City
Engineer, rubbish may be placed and
deposited upon the banks of a stream
or waterway in the City in order to
prevent erosion of such banks, subject
to such conditions and restrictions as
the Health Officer and/or City Engi-
neer may find necessary to protect the
public health and safety. The Health
Officer shall grant such permission
where he finds that the place and man-
ner of disposal will not endanger tthc
public health and safety; the City Engi-
neer shall grant such permission where
he finds that the place and manner of
disposal will in fact drier or prevent
erosion and will not obstruct or hinder
the free flow of water in a stream or
100
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
waterway and will not cause such rub-
bish to be carried away by flo«d waters;
otherwise, they shall refuse such per-
mission. Any such permission may be
revoked at any time by the grantor
thereof or by the City Council.
6304.10. Fertilisation of Land. Stable
matter may be used to fertilise land,
subject to such regulations as the
Health Officer may impose to protect
the Bublie health and safety. No other
11-45. l«
refuse may bo used for such purpose.
530411. Feeding Swill To Animals.
No refuse shall be fed to any animals
or livestock in the City; provided and
excepting that, where written permis-
sion is firat procured from the Health
Officer, swill produced and accumulated
within any premises in the City may
be fed to animals or livestock lawfully
maintained and kept within such prem-
ises where such swill is produced. The
101
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
R-34
PART S
OM.
'***'
Health Officer shall urnnt such pcrmls-
islon. subject to such conditions and
restrictions as he may find neccssnry to
protect the public health and safety. If
he finds the proposed plan and manner
of disposal will not endanger the public
health and safety, otherwise, he shall
refuse permission. Any such permission
IB revocable at any time by the Health
Officer or City Council. k
/ 5304.12. Sdrcial Rrfiwe Dbposal Ucnnse9
fee. No person shall dispose of any refuse
In any manner for which prior approval
or prior written permission by the Health
Officer or any other deportment head of
the City Is required unless he shall have
first procured from the License Collector
of the City a Special Refuse Dispos.il
License and shall have paid therefore In
advance a Special Refuse Disposal LI-
cense Fee equnl to 50.00 per each fiscal
year of the City during which he so
disposes of any sucht refuse, plus an
addltlona> 96.00 per such year If he dis-
poses of more than 8 cubic feet, ISO
pounds or 32 gallons Of sucn refuse in
such manner in any calendar week In .
\juch year. /
5304.13. Exceptions. The provisions
of this Part do not apply to the disposal
of any refuse by the City: nor to the
disposal by a garbage collector, swill
coUector or rubbish* collector of any
refuse collected by such collector.
'ART S. SWILL COLLECTORS
AND UVBBISH COLLECTORS
530SJ. Llecinse Required. No per-
son shall engage In the business of
collecting or transporting any swill pro-
("uced, kept or accumulated within the
City, nor of disposing of any such swill
either by feeding It to animals or other-
wise, unless he has a valid and subsisting
"swill collector's license" Issued to him
by the City pursuant to the provisions
of this Chapter; and no person shall
engage In tilt business of collecting or
transporting any rubbish produced, kept
or accumulated within the City, nor of
disposing of any such rubbish, unless
he has a valid and subsisting "rubbish
uollertor's license" Issued to him by the
City pursuant to the provisions of this
MOM
Ord.
»S977
Ord.
#5977
SECTION 5305.2.
• 5305.2(ii), Issuance of LI eon Res
to Rubbish Cullrctors. Except as hrreln in
this Chapter otherwise provided, nny per-
son desiring to engage in the business
of collecting or transporting any rubbish
produced, kept or accumulated within
the City, or of disposing of any such
rubbish, shall apply to the License Col-
lector of the City for the necessary license
or lirenses In accordance and compliance
with and In the manner provided and
subject to all the provisions of "Chapter
1— License Procedure- of "Article VI —
Business, Professions, Trades and Mis-
cellaneous Revenue" of the San Jose
Municipal Code. Any and ail licenses
Issued under the provisions of this Port
shall be subject to any and all terms,
conditions, limitations, restrictions and
other provisions set forth in said Chapter
1 of Article VI of the San Jose Municipal
Code.
5305.2(b). Issuance of Licenses to Swill
Colleetora. Prom and after the effective
date of this Section no license to engage
In tho business of collecting or transport-
ing swill produced, kept or accumulated
In the City, or of disposing of any swill.
shall be Issued except by the City Coun-
cil. Any person desiring any such license
shall file with the City Council a written
application requesting the some, setting
forth the name and address of the° appll-,
cant, the proposed principal place of'
business, the area proposed to be served.
the kind and quantity and quality of all
equipment and property and facilities
Proposed to be used by the applicant In
ssld business, 'the proposed place and
manner of disposing of swiH and all
other relevant and material information
respecting the proposed operations of
the applicant.
A filing fee of 175.00 per each' appli-
cation shall be paid to the City; said
filing fee shall be paid to the City Clerk
at the time of filing said application.
Upon receipt of any such application.
the City Council shall call a public
hearing thereon, setting a time and place
for healing. Notice of said hearing shall
be published in a newspaper of general
circulation published In the City, not
later than ten (10) days immediately
preceding the day of hearing. At such
hearing the Council shall consider whether
the present or future public Interest,
convenience and necessity require or
will require the Issuance of said license
to tho applicant. No license shall be
Issued to the applicant unless the City
Council finds, upon the conclusion of
said hearing, that the public Interest.
convenience and necessity requite tho
Issuance of said license to the applicant.
Nothlnn herein contained shall be deem-
ed to rescind or otherwise adversely
Affect nny swill collector's license here-
tofore Issued, nor apply to the extension
102
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
SEE
Or*
«IITSS
MOS.4
«IMI4
of nny such license heretofore issued.
6306.3. Swill Colleclor'a License Tax.
Each and every person who engages in
the business of collecting or transport-
ing any swill produced, kept or accumu-
lated In the City, or of disposing of any
such swill either by feeding it to animals
or otherwise, shall pity to tlic City, for
the privilege of engaging in such busi-
ness, a monthly license tax equal to
950.00 times the number of vehicles used
by such person in such business, said
amount to be payable in advance at the
beginning of each and every calendar
month, or at the time a swlU collector's
license is applied for, whichever Is the
earlier.
6305.4. RubbUh Collector's Tax. Each
and every person who engages in the
business of collecting or transporting
any rubbish produced, kept or accumu-
lated within the City, or of disposing of
any such rubbish, shall pay to the City,
for the privilege of engaging in such
business, a license tax equal to three
per cent (3tt) of the total gross re*
eeipts actually collected by himself and/
or by his sub-contractor or sub-con-
tractors, for the collection, transporta-
tion and/or disposal, by himself and/or
by his sub-contractor or sub-contractors,
of any and alt rubbish produced, kept or
accumulated in the City.
Each and every person who engages
in any such business shnll file with the
Director of Finance of the City, for each
calendar month during which he engages
in such business and for each calendar
month during which he and/or his sub-
contractor or sub-contractors collect any
receipts, revenues or compensation for
the collection, transportation and/or dis-
posal of rubbish produced, kept or ac-
cumulated in the City, a written state-
ment of the total gross receipts collected
or received by him and his sub-contractor
or sub-contractors during the calendar
month for which such statement is
rendered and filed. Each such statement
shnll also separately state the total gross
receipts collected or received by him and
those received by each of his sub-con-
tractors during said calendar month.
K-4&. 46
Each such statement shall include a
certificate in substance as follows: "I de-
clare under 'penalty of perjury that this
return is mode by me, that I am author-
iced to make such return, and that to
the best of my knowledge and belief it
is a true, correct and complete return
mode in good faith for the month stat-
ed, pursuant to the provisions of Article
V, Chapter 3, Part 6 of the San Jose
Municipal Cede."
No statement filed hereunder shall
be conclusive as to the matters set forth
therein, nor shall the filing of the same
preclude the City of San Jose from col-
lecting by appropriate action such sum
as is actually due and payable here*
under. The statement and each of the
several items therein contained shall be
subject to audit and verification by the
City Auditor who is hereby authorised
to examine* audit and inspect such
books and records of any person who
engages in the business of collecting,
transporting and/or disposing of any
rubbish produced, kept or accumulated
in the City, and of any of his sub-con-
tractors as may be necessary in his
judgment to ascertain the correct amount
of the license tax due. All persons en-
gaged in said business, and their sub-
contractors, are hereby required to per-
mit an examination of such books and
records forvthe purposes aforesaid.
Each of the above mentioned written
statements shall bo filed as aforesaid
within two (2) months inn and after
the calendar month'for which such state-
ment is rendered and filed. The above
mentioned license tax shall be due and
payable, for leach calendar month for
which a written statement is above re-
quired, within two (2) months from and
after each calendar month; and such tax
for each of said calendar months shall
bo delinquent on the first day of the
third month following each such calendar
month. Delinquent taxes shall bear inter-
est from data of delinquency at the rate
of ten per cent (10ft) per annum.
6308.5. Bookd, Records. Reports. Each MW.S
und every person engaged in any busi-
ness above mentioned in Section 6305.4 «»'ii
Ifl3
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
or rubbish by the City; nor to the col-
lection, transportation or disposal of
rubbish by u gnrtage collector.
5)oi.il 5305.11. Gross Receipts. The words
Ord. "gross receipts" as used in Section
*"" 6305.4 of this Code shall not include
or be -deemed to include the value, if
any. of any rubbish collected, trans-
ported or disposed of by a rubbish col-
lector; nor shall such words include
or be deemed to include whatever con-
sideration the rubbish collector may re-
ceive in gelling such rubbish as the
sales price thereof.
PARTS
8306.1 -
1306.S
Adilcd
Ord.
414481
woes
Amended
Did
PART 6. GARBAGE COLLECTORS
6306.1. Contract Required. No person
shall engage in the business of col-
lecting, transporting and/or disposing of
any garbage or of any garbage and
rubbish or of any garbage, rubbish and
stable matter, produced, kept or accum-
ulated in the City unless he is authorized
and licensed to so do under and by virtue
of • contract then existing between him
and the City. City may in its discretion
enter into a contract with any person
or persons authorising end licensing
such person or persons to engage in the
business of collecting, transporting and/
or disposing of garbage, or of garbage
and rubbish, or of garbage, rubbish and
stable matter, produced, kept or accu-
mulated in the City. Each and every
such contract shall contain and be sub-
ject to any and all terms, conditions,
covenants and/or provisions which the
Council of the City mny deem or find
necessary or convenient for the preser-
vation, protection and/or enhancement
of the public peace, health, safety and/
or general welfare.
6306.2. License Tax. Each and every
person who engages in the business of
collecting, transporting or disposing of
any garbage, or garbage and rubbish, or
garbage and rubbish and stable matter,
which is produced or kept or accuma
lateU in the City, shall pay to the Cityl
for the privilege of engaging in such
business a license tax equal to (a) ten
per cent (10%) of the total gross re-
R.45, 46
eeipts actually collected or received by
himself and of the total gross receipts
actually collected 01 received! by his sub-
contractor or sub-contractors for the
collection, for the removal, for the trans-
portation and for tho disposal of any and
all garbage produced, kept or accumu-
lated in the City, of any and all stable
matter produced, kept or accumulated
in the City, and of the following amounts
of rubbish produced, kept or accumu-
lated in the City, to wit: All rubbish
collected or removed from any container
at any single or other premises in the
City in any calendar week wherein such
rubbish is intermixed with "garbage or
•table matter, or both garbage or stable
matter, plus all rubbish contained in not
more than three (3) garbage containers
and collected from any single premises
in the City in any calendar week when
no garbage is collected from such single
premises in such week, excepting, how-
ever, all rubbish collected or removed in
any calendar month from any commercial
establishment wherein no garbage or
stable matter is produced, kept or ac-
cuanlated during said calendar month
and from which collector or«any of his
subcontractors does not collect or re-
move and is not required by any con-
tract to collect and remove, any garbage
or stable matter during said calendar
month; and (b) three per cent (3%) of
the total gross receipts actually collect-
ed or received by himself and of the to-
tal gross receipts actuary collected or
received by his sub-contractor or sub-
contractors lor the collection, for the re-
moval, for the transportation:and for the
disposal of any and all rubbish produced,
kept or accumulated in the< City other
than the rubbish or quantity of rubbish
which is hcreinabove included under the
ten per cent license fee.
Each and every person who engages in
any such business shall file with the
Director of Finance of the City, for each
calendar month during which he en-
gages in such business and for each
calendar month during which he or his
sub-contractor or sub-contractors collect
any receipts, revenues or compensation
,J94
-------
SAM JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
Manager or other authorised City Offi-
cial.
6306.4. Annual Report. Bach and
oWevery penon engaged In any business
ewene BboVe mentioned In Section 6306.1 shall
file, for each year during which he en-
gages in such business, an annual report
with the City Manager of the City show.
ing (1) the total gross receipts actually
collected or received by him and his
subcontractors during said year. (2) a
breakdown of such total gross receipts
showing the amounts received or col-
lected by himself and by each of his
subcontractors, (3) annual balance
sheet* for himself showing Us fixed
assets, current assets, notes .receivable,
accounts receivable, liabilities, notes and
accounts payable, and all other Informa-
tion customarily included in balance
sheets, and (4) annual profit and loss
statements for himself showing his
gross receipts, expenditures and ex-
penses and all other information cus-
tomarily included in profit and less
statements. Such report shall be filed
with the City Manager within ninety
(90) days from and after the end of
the calendar year for which such report
is made.
Each such penon shall also, for each
calendar year, file with the City Mana-
ger an annual report for each of his
subcontractors. Each of such annual
reports shall be made by an independent
Certified Public Accountant and shall
set forth a breakdown of the revenues
and the related expenses of each sub-
contractor attributable to business done
in the City of San Jose as • subcontrac-
tor under the collection contract. Each
of such annual reports shall be based
upon an examination made by the Cer-
tified Public Accountant making such
report, and said Certified Public Ac-
countant shall certify that he has ex-
amined the books of account and other
records of the subcontractor relating to
revenues derived in the City of San
Jose for the calendar year for which
such report is made and shall further
certify that the portion of revenues
shown In his report as being attribu-
table to business done in the City by the
subcontractor daring such calendar
year fairly reflects the revenues for
such calendar year. Each such report
shall also state the expenses alloeable
to •collections done within the City of
San Jose and shall disclose the methods
of allocation thereof. The City Auditor
shall have the right to examine the
records of each subcontractor to verify
the fairness of any or all statements
submitted. Each of such annual reports
shall be filed with the City Manager
within ninety (90) days from and after .
the end of the calendar year for which
such report is made provided, however,
that such annual report* for calendar
year 1968 shall be filed with the City
Manager on or before August 81, 1969.
6806.6. Place and Manner of pis- JjJM.
posaJ. No person engaged or proposing A
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
UC«.6t
Added
Old.
M06.1.
6300.8
Addtd
Ord.
4)4401
U at any time if it finds such action
neecssnry to protect tht public health
•nd safety.
. 6306.6. Faithful Performance Bond.
Each and every person who b author*
Ised, pursuant to the provisions of this
Part, to engage in tht business of col-
lecting, transporting and/or disposing
of any garbage, rubbish and/or stable
matter produced, kept or accumulated in
the City shall, at the time of execu-
tion-of the contract licensing or author-
ising him to engage in such business,
furnish to the City and file with the
City Clerk of the City a corporate
surety bond, approved by the Council
of the City of San Jose and approved
as to form by the City Attorney of sold
City, executed by the Collector as prin-
cipal bnd by a corporate surety as
surety, in the sum of Fifty Thousand
Dollars ($50,000), conditioned upon the
faithful performance, by Collector and
his subcontractors of said contract and
of all provisions and requirements of
"Chapter 8. Accumulation, Transporta-
tion and Disposal of West* Matter" of
"Article V — Sanitation and Health"
of the San Jose Municipal Code.
5308.6a. Security in Ltea of Faithful
Performance Bond. The Council of the
City of San Jose may require or accept,
at any time, in lieu of the faithful per-
formance bond required' by Section
6306.6 of this Code, any other security
which it considers adequate or suffi-
cient to .protect the City of San Jose.
5306.7. General Requirement. No per-
son authorized to engage 'in the busi-
ness of collecting, transporting or dis-
posing of any garbage, or garbage and
rubbish, or garbage, rubbish and stable
matter, produced, kept or accumulated
hi the City shall collect, transport or
dispose of any such garbage, rubbish
and/or stable matter except In full
accordance and compliance with the
provisions of the contract eclating be-
tween him and the City authorising and
licensing such business. Any license,
privilege or authorisation granted in
any such contract to any person or per-
sons to engage in the business of col-
lecting, transporting and/or disposing
of any garbage, rubbish and/or stable
matter produced, kept or accumulated
in the City shall be conditional upon
the faithful performance by such per-
son or persons and by hia or their sub*
contractors, if any, of any and all terms,
covenants, conditions and provisions hi
or of said contract
5309,8. Renegotiation, Etc. Any con-
tract entered Into between the City and
any garbage collector shall LOO subject
to renegotiation, alteration and/or
amendment by mutual consent of all
parties to said contract; and all rates
or charges, established by any such
contract, for the collection, .transporta-
tion and/or disposal of garbage and/or
rubbish, shall be subject to renegotia-
tion, alteration, change or '.amendment
by mutual consent -of all parties to said
contract
5306.9. Gross Receipts. 'The words
"gross receipts" as used 'In 'Section
6806.2 of this Code shall not include
or be deemed to include the value, if
any, of any garbage collected, trans-
ported or disposed of by a garbage col-
lector'nor shall such words.include or
bo deemed to include whatever'consid-
eration the garbage collector may re-
ceive in aelling such garbage as the-
sales price thereof.
saoui
CM.
«H*1(
106
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL CODE
M01.I
A
«IUOS
6806.10. Exception. None of the pro-
visions of this Part, excepting Section
6306.6 relative to the place and manner
of disposal, and also excepting Section
6306.7 relating to general requirement*,
shall apply to nny person who receives
In return for his services In collecting,
transporting and disposing of any such
garbage nothing more than the garbage
itself which is so collected, transported
and/or disposed of by him.
6307.1. Rubbish Vehicles. Initial In-
spectlon of. No rubbish collector, gar-
bage or demolition materials collector
shall use, in his business, for the purpose
of collecting or transporting any rubbish
within the City of San Jose, any motor
vehicle or any motor vehicle and trailer,
or any motor vehicle carrying a drop-
off box thereon, unless said vehicle, ve-
hicle and trailer or vehicle and drop-off
box have each been inspected and ap-
proved by the City Health Officer or
his authorised representative as comply-
ing with the provisions of this Code, and
unless such vehicle, vehicle and trailer,
or vehicle and drop-off box have affixed
to each vehicle, or to each vehicle and
each trailer, or to each vehicle and each
drop-off box, a license tag Issued by
the License Collector showing that it has
been Inspected and approved as afore-
said.
6807.2. Issuance of License Tag or
Sticker. Upon application therefor, and
upon payment of the license fee herein-
after specified in Section 6807.6, the
License Collector shall issue a license
Ing or sticker for each vehicle, each
trailer and each drop-off box which has
been Inspected and approved, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 6807.1, for
rubbish collection and transportation
purposes provided that no such license
tag'er sticker shall be issued to any
rubbish collector who is in default in the
payment of the license tax specified in
Section 6306.4 of this Code, and no such
tag or sticker shall be Issued to any gar-
bage collector who is In default In the
payment of the license tax specified in
Section 6306.2 of this Code; and pro-
vided, further, that no such license tag
R-4»
or sticker shall be Issued to any person
who is not complying with all applicable
provisions of this Chapter.
1907.3. Rubbish Vehicles. Additional
Inspection* Each motor vehicle or trailer
or drop-off box for which a license tag
or sticker has been issued pursuant to
the provisions of Section 6307.2, shall
bo subject to inspection at any and all
times by the City Health Officer, or
his authorised representative; and the
City Health Officer shall cause each
such vehicle, trailer or drop-off box to
be inspected from time to time to insure
that the provisions of Section 6802.7
are complied with.
6807,4. nevocation of UCCBM Tag or
Sticker. Any license tog or sticker Issued
for any motor vehicle or trailer or drop-
off box pursuant to the provisions of
this Part nay be revoked or suspended.
at any time by the License Collector for
failure of such vehicle, trailer or drop-
off box to comply with the requirements
of Section 6302.7 of this Code or for
failure of the licensee to comply with
other applicable provisions of this Chap-
ter, including payment of all applicable
license fees or taxes.
6807J. License Fee. Each and every
rubbish collector, garbage collector or
demolition materials collector who uses
any motor vehicle or motor vehicle and
trailer or motor vehicle carrying a drop-
off box in his business for the purpose of
collecting or transporting any rubbish
within the City of San Jose, shall pay
to the City for the p:ivilego of using
said vehicle, vehicle and trailer, or ve-
hicle and drop-off box la his business
for said purpose, and in order to reim-
burse the City for its costs and expenses
in inspecting such equipment and other-
wise carrying out the provisions of this
Part, the following license fees, to wit:
Twenty-five Dollars ($26) per each
motor vehicle need in the above men-
tioned business for the above mentioned
purpose per each quarter year, plus Five
Dollars (95) per each trailer used In
said business for said purpose per each
quarter year, plus Ten Dollars (110)
per year for each drop-off box need In
107
-------
SAN JOSE MUNICIPAL COOK
said business. 8aM fees shall be payable
in advance at the time an? license tag
or sticker is Issued, renewed or extended*
for the tern not to exceed one year, for
5401.1
Amvndcd
Ort.
R-4»
which such tag or sticker b issued. The
abort fen are and shall be in addition
to any and all other applicable foes or
tuns levied In tids Chapter.
Chapter 4—SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
PART L PURPOSE AND
DEFINITIONS
5401.1. Purpose. The purpose of this
chapter is to:
(a) Provide for ami regulate the dis-
posal of sanitary sewage Into the sani-
tary sewer system of the City in such
manner and to such extent as Is reason-
ably necessary to maintain and Increase
the ability of such system to handle and
dispose of sanitary sewage.
(b) Provide for and regulate the dis-
posal of industrial wastes into the sani-
tary sewer system of the City in such
manner and to such extent as may be
reasonably necessary to maintain and
increase the ability of such system to
handle and dispose of industrial waste
without decreasing the ability of said
system to handle and dispose of all sani*
tary sewage.
(e) Protect the physical structures of
said sewer system and the efficient fuae-
108
-------
APPENDIX 9
CITIZEN INSTRUCTION FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
109
-------
I
Garden Ci-.y Sisj-csal Conpany,
7r.s . collect? re •••.:•* under e. fran-
chise grants by th» City of Sao
Jos«. To start service, call the
vill t..-:i y:-j i.h- v.y o:" -joLl
tio-.: 3i:."-:C. !.1-3%I fcv y-?v.r !-.•%-* .-
:../:1 s..-.-: will rewesc «s •Se;^-tt>
of >•* .tO fro.T nev svibccriacx-a vl
»re renting.
""he friMi'*/ rcsiJonsibillL;* '.'or
proper kocrir.t;, accturilatlon and
disposal of refuse shall be on
-vhe producer thereof."
("•-it .7'jr-? Muniaipul Code, Section
"At least one* a vnV. all refuse
kopt or acciaulatej within any
prf?.ii^ea in the City shall be
4iap?£ci of."
(Sfl.:i J?3» "oniciprJ. Code, Section
5303.12)
Although you nay have a
disposal unit in your sink, tin
cans, bottles, paper containers
and food wrappers and Miscella-
neous garbage sxtst still be
renoved each veck.
• . -
As: of Jnnunvy 1, 1^70, all or.e«i
Sn.~ tc tti» r*-j»i;la
Area Air Voliutlo.i Control Lintrict,
i;r -.«•: Tl'Jri-'JF OK
BAts
.
container toe beavy - remwsfccr
75 iw-«n«» llait
container packed too tightly
tiv? cot:'.: *r-?r - ruch r>.s
iiaiv.'loe. cotton rua«
-------
r» c ^
p "•"-"•" ~
r- -
FjA 3;;- ••^F}.'« Y
. fc« a • wr i *" •• •—.'— I • «• I
3ILL1!:0
The norr.il blll'tv; period is
once every thre<: months;
are sent to you 1 7 the D
CAnrv.Sc: \At ifcr PS HALIJT TO
LOCAL RUBBISH DUTY'S FOR D
Ho tree stur-.ps or liabs over
I? ir---heB ir. .U:.r.eT.c.-.
I.'j cl»'.--r.iccJ £ or oili.
• •'
. S .':;.•.:/-?•. ^ .; Ijcr* r»*.:\sc
i at:*.: i will K- i:;-.f ; jp ij,
* or yy-ir rrc^r:. , C.T. t>.e 2u
"=v.- :•. .*s j •.. >.«.;<» L*. rfVjr
Vl-vv;. ••:• ..-Si>. •;,«.:• ft/ .-e-* jT
' . j.jn:.-..i.>:i c ; •;? r.i^hU before
ej.reo:". l.i^b v-'.ic
/ r:.s ,y; 33 i- 'AM.!- r:>, Ir.c
3t « d^jiosi-; of $'i.«;C
>:.-^ri*j«?r£3 %'!io ere
MISSED PICK-UP:
If a r-icK-up ia minsed , call
GAWSt Cm DIS'tJSM COKPAITf, I3C.
2914 -ffii 3.
SPECIAL PICIv-UTO:
"re rcquoste. for any extra
refuse in addition to the basic
wo-^'O.y r.<*rvij«. Cnll, the
conr-xny for infortt:».;it>i. nml
-ibou^ Bne.*i.''.l services.
HELPFUL HJNTS
. Remove container fro*, psrkstrlp
aftev c'iiloc ^'.on
. K'.-cp cc.r. covsre-!; rjiis vill
reduce fly b-ceaing und in
riiuy eecson pre/ent contents
from bcccr-.in; overweight vitb
w;iter.
. Put &£ld_ nuhra only in lx>x or
heavy bn^ nnt. tie securely -
Bi-nv.i:c i^ftci;.-G I:;TO ErKJ^r;
COK'i'AIMKB.
. Vr*ip cartajr^' Uli's will help
r'-uuce noisti re, mess end odors.
Line garbage cans with nevs-
papev; this '-ill help keep
can clean.
Htnsc c.in a:t.«*r pick-up, this
helps to pro* ong life of can.
At tiir.es you nay need re. ri
of extrfi n;bbish, not ^.-.
or elv>s.r away dirt, roc>.s cr
iKiild-'.nc; m«T.*rials. Tsic tsat-
c-r5.il f,--.y tit vaK,>r. to •'..' City .
d«.?p lo?-?toi or. ~itu;!'--.cr.. ;c«i
tlxsut oj!a-Jj.-\ir i.ile s-^'i'.h of
Ci:pjt-">l '.'xy-ct'iv.iy. ';": jr« is a
fee (r:ir.i.M :r. v.;') for t!.e M$H
of this fas 5 3 it;.'.
IT is R5ca*rsr?D3) THA? no POCKS
OR DIOT ?H PL/7SD Ji' YOUF. r%
FITUSJi C
SSHVICS
Obtain from Garden City Disposal
Company, Inc. at 29'*-68l3.
fr.^y directed' to Gr.rien City
Disposal Gonpany, Inc .
If your problem is not handled
in«a 8jtisfi,-2tcr/ tt.ij:ncr by the
cojcpr.:iy , phouc tV.i C'.-/ >1.^.1«.~
Dopo-'tment, Central ServiccJ
Di via ion, 2?T-1»000, extensioa
i
J02-?l8 (Rev 7/n)
•produced from
it available copy.
-------
La Garden City Disposal Conpany,
inc•, levanta bdsura Twijo un
priviicgio conceuido por la
Ciuied de San Jose. Para eapesar
su 'jrvicio lias-e la oor.pe.Ria al
29l.--.T2l3. I-a. eon-panit. le liira.
cu&l dia pas mi a reco^or en su •
veeir.ds.d y le pedirar. un deposito
de -^.60 a los client*» r.uevos
renter..
"la respcr.su'?!'3?.-! pri:aaris. para
R.SI -oninieTriO propio, iccuvola-
ci--. y iispc:icica is ;a:vura
qu. U en ei p'^cduetor.'1
(5: .Is. M-inioips.! de Iti Ciu.'.ad de
crios una vez par :;or.r-r.*
4'-i=r prcpitlsd sera di-^cr
(tt-::-la :-:uniciT.-l d* lit Ci-v
Sar. Jcse, Seocion 5303.12)
Au-.-.-us u3»-"ii tonjc. un 'liT-oc
de io^; r-r^iisics en. 3u cooi.'.a
tc-.--3, boteliaa, pa;., les,
du«-?a d* coraida, y tlraperdieion
»c-r
Desde Encro 1, 197C, el quemar
al aire libre es i]egal en a-
cuordo con la regulacion del
Bay Artsa Air Pollution Control
District, o sea el Distrieto de
Control du Aire Cor.taminado del
area de la Bahia.
F/ITEK IAS S1GUIEITBS COHDICIOME3
PARA ASEGL'SAH Ql>2 IZVACTE3 LA BA-
SURA Eli EL DIA FIJADO:
Ecte auy pesado - recuerden que
el linitc es 75 !*•
. Bote empacado Buy apretado
. Bote defective, caao acarraderas
cuebradas, o el fondo roto
. Bcu« 4ue no se ve porque hay un
auto u otras corea enfrente
. Bote puesto en una parte que sea
difieil.de airarse o alcansar.
Un pcrro que amonace.
. Bote que es&e lieno denasiado
Ci^ioas sucltas
bo'.a que s-.a in'-ropio.
Llama al Departaneuto de Salubridad,
Division de Serviciov Oenerales, al
telai'ono 292-31H,' ext«neion l»527,
o al Garden City D aposal Conipwiy,
Inc., ul 29U-6813 >.-i neeesita aais-
tcnsia de probleaia^ tocante a la
dispcciaion de basura.
-------
SERVICIO BASICO SEMANAL
,
por/mes
minimo
EERVICIO 3RSICC SEMA3AL
3 coves de basura per seir.ana
La basura sera levantada en frente
-------
APPENDIX E
PROPOSING CONVERSION OF CITY DISPOSAL
GROUNDS TO GOLF COURSE
114
-------
110.40
CITY OF SAN JOSE -- MEMORANDUM
10 R. R. Blackburn. Chief Assistant "«°* B. R. Toschi, Hydraulice
Director of Public V7orks Division
•OBJECT Disposal Grounds operating *>*** April 25, 1973
Budget vor 1973-74 f.y.
APPMOVCD DAT!
Please refer to the attached memo dated March 5, 1973, for detailed
background information. Ths nemo outlines three alternative methods
for operating the disposal grounds. Alternate Three, which incorporated
the golf course filling and grading with the disposal grounds operation,
was reroRiiaersdsd as the most economical operation.
Since the golf course planning would bo administered by the Parks
and Recreation Department, several conferences were held with them.
The concept of Alternate Three was agreed upon with the exception
that Personal Serv'cos costs were felt to be too low, fringe' benefits
and indirect costs should be included, and an estimated salvage
revenue should be added. The attached Singleton Road Disposal
Grounds Profit and Loss Statements wore prepared to reflect these items.
The ccsts include an additional $15,000 for Personal services. Fringe
benefits and indirect costs were added at the rates recommended by
the Finance Department. An estimated salvage revenue of $15,000 for
1973-74 fiscal year was also included in the Statement.
We rceommsnd that our department and Parks and Recreation finalize
the operating costs of Alternate Three and pursue its implementation
aa soon as possible*
B. R. Toschi
Principal Civil Engineer
BRTtKHH:ms
Attachments
, train
best available copy,
115
-------
SINGLETON ROAD DISPOSAL GROUNDS
COMPARATIVE ESTIMATED PROFIT AND LOSS
STATEMENT YEARS ENDING JUNE 30. 1972, 1973, 1974
OPERATING INCOME
Disposal Revenue
Salvage Revenue (2)
TOTAL INCOME
ACTUAL
1971-72
300,487
40.010
340,497
ESTIMATED
1972-73
.'300,000
12.700
312.700
EST. ALT. NO. 3
1973-74 (1)
462,000
15,000
477,000
OPERATING EXPENSES
Direct Costs Charged to Program
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program
Indirect Costs
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
RET PROFIT FOR YEAR
161,057
110,639
34.227
166.000
110.434
28.637
305,071
161,120
152,555
27.341
CREDIT FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATION (3)
-0-
-0-
194,333
(1) Assumes residential rate increase from $0.50 to $0.75 per cu. yd. and
commercial rate increase from $0.75 to $1.00 per cu. yd.
(2) Fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 include loam sales and salvage. Fiscal year
1973-74 is salvage revenue only.
(3) Estimated Contractual cost of golf .course grading is $780,000 (390,000 cu. yds.
at $2.00 per yard). .The City cost would be $196,300. This is a savings of
$583,700, which is an average annual savings of $194,333 over a three year-period.
Prepared 4-25-73 KWH
-------
SINGLETON ROAD DISPOSAL GROUNDS
PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1972
OPERATING INCOME
Disposal Revenue (1) $300,487
Loam and Salvage Revenue 40,010
TOTAL INCOME- 340,497
OPERATING EXPENSES
Direct Costs Charged to Program
Personal Services 141,902
Non Personal Services 19,155
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 161,057
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program
Maintenance of Equipment 51,300
Depreciation of Equipment 27,000
Payroll Fringe Benefits (2) (22.79%) 32,339
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program 110,639
Indirect Costs (3) (24.12%) 34.227
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 305.923
NET PROFIT 1971-72 34,574
(1) Residential Rate $0.50 cu. yd., Commercial Rate $0.75 cu. yd,
(2) Workman's Comp. 2.10-
Health, Life and Dental 3.49
OASDX 5.20
Retirement 12.00
22.79
(3) Indirect Labor and Fringe 6.80
Staff Support 13.95
Non Department 3.37
24.12
111
-------
SINGLETON ROAD DISPOSAL GROUNDS
PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30. 1973
OPERATING INCOME
Disposal Revenue (1) £300,000
Loam and Salvage Revenue 12,700
TOTAL INCOME 312/700
OPERATING EXPENSES
Direct Costs charged to Program
Personal Services 141*000
Non Personal Services 25.000
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 166,000
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program
Maintenance of Equipment 51,300
Depreciation of Equipment 27,000
Payroll Fringe Benefits (2) (22.79%) 32.134
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program 110,434
Indirect Costs (3) (20.31%) 28,637
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 305,071
NET PROFIT 1972^-73 . 7,629
(1) Residential Rate $0.50 cu. yd., Commerical Rate $0.75 cu. yd,
(2) Workman's Comp.
Health, Life and Dental
OASDI
Retirement
23.44
(3) Indirect Labor and Fringe
Staff Support
Non Department
20.31
-------
SINGLETON ROAD DISPOSAL GROUNDS
PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1974
ALTERNATE THREE
OPERATING INCOME
Disposal Revenue (1) $462,000
Salvage Revenue 15.000
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME 477,000
OPERATING EXPENSES
Direct Costs Charged to Program
Personal Services 134,620
Hon Personal Services 26,500
TOTAL DIRECT CHARGES 161,120
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program
' Maintenance of Equipment ' 63,100
Depreciation of Equipment 55,300
Gasoline 2,600
Payroll Fringe Benefits (2) (23.44%) 31.555
Direct Costs Not Charged to Program 152,555
Indirect Costs (3) (20.31%) 27,341
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 341,016
NET PROFIT
CREDIT FOR GOLF COURSE OPERATION 194,333
(1) Residential Rate $0.75 cu. yd.. Commercial Rate $1.00 cu. yd,
(2) Workman's Comp. 2.10
Health, Life and Dental 3.49
OASDI 5.85
Retirement 12.00
(3) Indirect Labor and Fringe 5.87
Staff Support 12.03
Non Department 2.41
20.31
119
-------
>PM IIU.4O
CITY OF SAN JOSE -- MEMORANDUM
70 R. R. Blackburn, Chief Assistant "»« E. R. Toschi, Hydraulics
Director of Public Works Division
SUBJECT Disposal Grounds Operating Budget DA« March 5., 1973
for 1973-74 f.y. .
APPROVED . ' DATE
The attached 1973-74 f.y. operating budget for the disposal grounds
is divided into three alternates. Each alternate reflects a different
operation with different equipment and personnel requirements.
Alternate one revises existing staffing to meet present operational
needs by the addition of personnel and replacing equipment. Alternate
two revises the operational method to increase efficiency by adding
personnel, new equipment and replacing equipment. -Alternate three
is an expanded operation which includes rilling and grading .of the
golf course in addition to the disposal grounds operation.
The estimated life of the disposal grounds is three years. In
all alternatives, it is assumed that any personnel or equipment
acquired will be utilized at a new disposal site.
Total costs, which include maintenance and depreciation* are shown
for comparison purposes.
We recommend the selection of alternate three for the operation
of the disposal grounds and grading the golf course. The combination
of the two operations results in a lower total cost for each operation,
This is clearly shown in the attached report.
E. R. TOSCHI
Principal civil Engineer
ERT:KWH:ms
Attachments
cc: J. S. Ringrose
120
-------
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ALTERNATES
for the
OPERATION OF DISPOSAL GROUNDS
Attached are chart summaries of the existing operational system
of the disposal grounds and three alternatives. The charts show
annual revenues and operating costs, alternate equipment needs and
alternate personnel needs.
Also attached is a budget for each of the alternates. Each budget
contains an expenditure summary, equipment and staff schedule,
cost summary of new positions requested, summary of new equipment
requested* new position request forms and new equipment request
forms.
121
Revised 4-17-73 KWH
-------
of Annual
Revenues and. Ouorating Costs
for
Singleton K-. £d Cjapoaal Grounds
i
1 T'ZPE OF
j Gi'ttXlATXOH
; . ACTUAL
• 19V] -7? riSCAL YE
- KSTIMATHD
• 1972-73 FISCAL YE/.
i
, Alternate OUR
• Sxifit'ng S"?tera
: .'.T i.i:rr.ate Two
1 ::ov7 Syste.n
Alt-ornate Three
; Golf Course
GROSS REVfiKUE
PRESI.KT
RAVES
1300.437
321.200
321.000
321,000
321,000
IHC.- EASED
RATES
-0-
-0-
',-102,000
162,000
462.000
BUUGi:? OPERATING
COSTS
. (1)
Pli;-.Sf:f7vL
$141,902
141.000
•
144,180
122,670
134.620
SON -10]
PERSONAL' J
$19,155
25,000
19,800
22,700
26.500
CASCLiMli
COSTS
(NOT INCL.
WIT.J KOM'-
PKRSCtaVL)
-0-
-0-
f.,930
" 2.510
2,600
EQUIPMENT,
CHANGE ^3)
v 73, 300
7(1,300
81,100
87,800
118.400
GROSS
OP CRATING
COST
*™ *^™^^^™^^^"^^^^
$239,357
244,300
251,010
235,710
282,120
M»NML(/>)
CREBITS
POl: CTiJuR
OPERATICN-
-0
-0-
. -0-
-0-
$194,333
fcrr-^p
^.•'Kfv.'* f I IT-
COST
V230.33-.
244 .30*.
251.01,
235.71v.
87. 7tim.
to
to
(1) Does not include fringe benefits and indirect overhead ccata.
(2) All non-per-ronal costs including diesal fuel.
(3) Baccd "n montlily rental rates tuken i:rom the "Building Construction Data -1972" iranual
v/hich inc3u--\:'5 ma j ntenanco and depreciation.
(4J Estimated contractual cost of gc.l£ course grading is $730,000. The City cost would be
$196,300. Thir ic a ravings of $583,700 which is r.pread over three years for an an.iual
savings of $194.333; See breakdown of golf course and disposal grounds operation costs
Sri the following page.
eproduecd from .
ft available, copy.
-------
ALTERNATE THREE
Comparison of Operating'Costs
for Golf Course and
Disposal .Grounds
Annual Golf Course Operating Costs
Item
0.8 Scraper
0.5 Crawler Tractor
0.5 Motor Grader
0.25 Water Truck
0.15 Supervision
Personnel
$7,670
5,980
1,200
2,530
1,760
Total
Total Cost
Fuel
Equipment
Charqe
$2,080 $23,040
1,460 11,400
730 5.700
370 1,500
-0- -0-
Annual Operating Cost
For Three
Year Period
Total
$32,790
18,840
7,630
4,400
1.760
$65,420
$196,300
Annual Disposal Grounds Operating Costs
Equipment
Item Personnel Fuel . Charqe
0.2 Scraper $ 1,790 $ 520 $ 5,760
1.9 Crawler Tractor 17,930 5.550 43,300
0.5 Motor Grader 1,200 730 5,700
0.75 Water Truck 11,720 1,100 4,500
1.0 Compactor 16,730 2,630 11,760
1.0 Pickup -0- 730 2,160
Misc. Equipment 25,000 370 3,600
0.85 Supervision 9,980 -0- -0-
1.4 Collectors 14,180 -0- -0-
1.8 Directors 16,930 -0- -0-
Misc. Non-Personal (Printing, utilities, etc.)
Total
$ 8,070
66,780
7,630
17,320
31,120
2,890
28,970
9,980
14,180
16,930
12,830
Total Annual Operating Costs $216,700
Total annual operating cost for golf course and
disposal grounds
$282,120
133
-------
SUMMARY
. OF
Alternate Etjaipment Needs
EQUIPMSXT
•
Co.Tpactor
Crawler Tractor
•
Scraper •
Motor Grader
M
*750 gal. water
Truck
3,500 gal..
Wa^er Truck .
Loader
Dump Truck
3/4 T. Fuel' ,
Truck
5j T. Pickup
j ' TYPE OF OPS3ATION
j Ex. 1972-73 System
| Exist
I
! l
i 1.4
.4
1
' .4
1.8
1
1
Add
•
*
Delete
•
•'
Alternate One.
Exist.
1
1.4
.4
1
' .4'
1.8
1 .
1
Add
•
1
•
Delete
:
1
-
Alternate Two
Exist.
1
1.4
.4
1
; ^
1.8
1
1
Add
1
•
1
r
-
Delete
1
* •
.4
1.8
, 1
Alternate Three
Exist.
1
1.4
.4
1
.4
1.8
1
1
Add
1
1
.6
1
-
"
Dele-
•
• i
- ^
.4
1.8
1
-------
SUMMARY
OF
Alternate Personnel Seeds
Personnel
,
MM III
EO II
1
MM I
to
01 Laborer
TYPE OF OPERATION
Ex. 1972-73 Svstem i
Exist.
1
4.8
2.8
l"
1
Add
\
\
Alternate One
Delete | Exist.
i
*
1
4.8
2.8
1
Add
1
.8
.
Delete
.6
•
Alternate Two
Exist.
1
4.8
. 2-8
1
Add
1
*
.8
•
Delete
2.4
Alternate Three
Exist.
1
4.8
2.8
1
Add
2
• .8
•
Delet
2.4
•
.
•
"
-------
APPENDIX % h-
MEMO OUTLINE FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ON WASTE RECOVERY SYSTEMS
126
-------
IONK IIO-40
CITY OF SAN JOSE-- MEMORANDUM
TO Ted Tcdesco, City Manager mow A. R* Turturici, Director
of Public Works
Council Study Session June 7, 1973 DATK June 6, 1973
Waste Recovery Systems^
AmiOVCD DATK
On June 7, 1973, the Council has scheduled a Study Session on
Waste Recovery Systems. Attached is an outline of the material that
we intend.to present to. the Council at that session.
Please let me know if this meets with your approval. Gene Toschi
will be making the presentation and has additional information on
the subject.
Respectfully submitted.
rA. R."Turturici
Director of Public Works
Attaclunent
III
-------
M. I1O-4O
CITY OF SAN JOSE -- MEMORANDUM
TO A. R. Turturici, Director of FROM E. R. Toschi, Hydraulics
Public Works Division
June 7 Council Study Session DAT* May 25, 1973
on Waste Recovery
— x-v*-2l^rZL_ — r-21-73
ff
On June 7, 1973, the Council has scheduled a study session on waste
recovery. I would like at that time to introduce to them the City
of San Jose waste Management System which is scheduled to be funded
in 1973-74.
The attached outline briefly describes the objectives of the system
and the attachments to the outline describe the implementation schedule
and projected revenues and costs.
I anticipate having additional information upon my return from the
Solid Waste Management Conference on May 31, 1973.
Please let me know if you want this information presented to the
Council at the June 7 meeting.
^
E. R. Toschi
Principal Civil Engineer
ERT:ms
Attachments
128
-------
CITY OF SAN JOSE WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Waste Management System is composed of three system categories
which are:
1. Overall Management Systems
2. Collection System
3. Disposal and Reclamation System
The general steps for implementing the above three systems are
outlined below, following a short statement of system of objectives.
1.00 Management System
The objective of System Management is to develop a comprehensive
plan for managing the waste collection, disposal and reclamation
systems, including organizational structure, staffing, cost
control and operations.
1.10 Hire Waste Management Staff including a Senior Sanitary
Engineer, Associate civil Engineer, Engineering Tech-
nician III, Supervisory Sanitarian, Sanitarian.
Begin a public relations program to publicize the need
for improving waste disposal and reclaiming waste
materials.
1.20 Identify combination of waste transportation, processing,
and disposal. Select most feasible economic solution.
1.30 Develop .proposals for Regional Authority.
1.40 Develop methods and procedures for billing and collection,
and cost control. Set fee rate schedule.
1.50 Develop financing arrangements such as capital expenditures
and budgetary procedures.
1.60 Sell Revenue Bonds.
1.70 Develop information, training, and research programs.
This item includes public relations, keeping employee
skills and systems levels up-to-date, and investigation
of promising systems components•for collection, disposal,
and waste recovery.
1.80 Develop performance standards and operations procedures.
1.90 Implement information, training and research programs.
•129
-------
City ot San Jose W?stc Management System Page 2
1.100 Review, hold hearings, and adopt standards and regula-
tions along with schedule for enforcement.
1.110 Conduct continual monitoring of all systems if or
evaluation and optimization.
2.00 Collection System
The objective of the Collection System is to provide for
collection of residential, commercial and industrial refused
The City will develop collection procedures and specifications.
contract with private business for the collection off waste
materials, and monitor the operation for conformance to speci-
fications and procedures, and system optimization . 'Under'
overall Systems Management, the City will establish an accounting
system for billing and collection of fees.
2.10 Develop collection system criteria including environmental
considerations, compulsory collection policies,, fee
collection policies (considering inclusion on tax rolls),
equipment requirements* collection schedules and methods,
and working conditions.
2.20 Prepare specifications and a request for .proposals
detailing all city requirements -for waste collection.
2.30 Contract with private business for collection of .wastes.
Approximately one year must be allowed for purchase of
equipment and construction of needed facilities.
2.40 Contractor begins collection. City monitors ^contractor
for conformance to specifications and .procedures, and
to obtain operational data.
3.00 Waste Disposal and Reclamation System
The objeptive of the Waste Disposal and Reclamation System is
to take waste materials collected to an Environmental Facilities
Park which is a system of operations for the total -.disposal
of v/astes including toxic materials and reclamation o'f waste
resources. The park will be developed for regional service.
Initially the park will be a Class I sanitary landfill facility
with a pilot recycling operation. With revenues .fr,om the
disposal and recycling operations, additional reclamation
systems will be financed, developed and implemented.
3.10 Contract with private business to dispose ,of .'liquid
and semi-liquid toxic wastes. Negotiations are currently
in progress.
130'
-------
City of San Jose Waste Management System Page 3
3.20 Determine Environmental Facilities. Park needs.
3.21 Define Service Area
3.22 Define service area characteristics such as
population, land use, waste composition and
quantity, service requirements, etc.
3.30 Make preliminary investigations, for possible Environ-
mental Facilities Park and transfer station site(s).
3.40 Evaluate and select disposal and transfer station
site(s).
3.50 Prepare master plan for development and future use of
disposal sites and designate first site to be used.
A completed landfill site may be developed for future
uses such as golf courses, play fields and botanical
gardens.
3.60 Acquire disposal and transfer station sites. During
property acquisition an on-going public relations
program will be in effect to inform and educate the
people as to the character of the waste facilities.
3.70 Design first sanitary landfill site, including CIAs* I
facilities, transfer stations and appurtenant facilities,
Prepare plan for site operation.
3.80 Construct landfill, transfer station and maintenance
facilities and access roads.
3.90 Purchase capital equipment such as crawler tractors,
scrapers, graders, water trucks, structures, etc.
3.100 Begin operation. Continually monitor and control
vectors, leachates, gas, safe operation, records, air
quality, site aesthetics, etc.
-------
PROPOSED WASTE MANAGEMENT STAFF
Class Title
1. Senior Sanitary Engineer
2. Associate Civil Engineer
3. Engineering Technician III
4. Supervisory Sanitarian
5. Sanitarian
Total Annual Salary
PAYROLL FRINGE BESPIT
Workman's Compensation
Health, Life & Dental
OASDI
Retirement
INDIRECT COSTS
Indirect Labor and Fringe
Staff Support
Non-Depa rtme n t
2.10
3.49
5.20
12.00
22.79%
6.80
13.95
3.37
24.12%
Annual Salary
$17,050
14,750
13,900
14,250
12.300
$72,250
$16.465
$17,427
$106,142
say $106,000
132
-------
CITY OF SAH JOSE WASTK5 HMXXGEMBNT SYSTEMS
SUMMARY OF RCSOUROQS AMD EXPENSES
SUMMARY OF S ;.SOURCBS
1. CS.T Disposal Grounds
9 ringleton Road
2. ttetite Cellection
anci Disposal Fees
3. Revenue Bonds
Total Pesources
ITEM
1. Watte Management Staff
a. Salary
b. Fringe
c. Indirect
2. Operation
a. Collection
b. Disposal
3~. Average Debt Service
a. $1,250,000 @ 7%
for 20 years
b. $3,600.000 9 7*
for 20 years
1972-1973
$17.825
-0-
-0-
$17.825
1973-1974
$135,000
-0-
-0-
$135,000
1974-1975
$ 135.000
-0-
1,250,000
$1.305,000
1975-1976
$ 135.000
13,302,819
3,600,000
$17.037.819
1976-1977
-0-
822,817.872
-0-
. $22,817.872
1977-1978
-0-
$22,817.872
-0-
$22.311,872
Total-
S 4^2.825
58, 9 <8. 563
4. 8 X). 000
SCMMABY OP EXPENSES
1972-1973
$17.825
12.133
2.765
2.927
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1973-1974
$106.950
72,800
16,591
17,559
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1974-1975
$ 106,950
72,800
16,591
17,559
-0-
-0-
-0-
116,295
116,295
1975-1976
$ 150.000
12.291.988
9,288.553
3,003,435
451,225
116.295
1976-1977
$ 200,'COO
21.072.100
15.923.325
5.148.775
451.225
116,295
1977-19.78
$ 200.000
21.072.100
15.923,325
5.148.775
451.223
116,29?
Total
$ 7fll.725
54,4:^.188
I,4u9,970
-0-
-0-
334,930
334,930
334.930
-------
Sunccary of Expenses - Cont'd. Page 2
ITEM
4. Land Acquisition
5. Site Development
6. Equipment
7. Reclamation Pilot
Plant
Totil Expenses $62,352 $136,950 $1,373,245 $15.693.213 -$22.723,325 $22,723,325 $62,867.083
Set Profit -0- ^ 1.95$> $11.753 $1.144,606 $94,547 $94.547 $1.343,505
1972-1973
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
1973-1974
-0-
30, 000
-0-
-0-
1974-1975
$1.000.000
150.000
-0-
-0-
1975-1976
-0-
$1.390.000
1.610. 000 /
-0-
1976-1977
-0-
-0-
-0-
$1. COO. COO
1977-1976
$1,000,000
-0-
-0-
-0-
Total
$2,000,000
1,570.000
1,610.000
1,000.000
-------
APPENDIX 6
CITY REPORT ON ALTERNATIVE REFUSE COLLECTION
ACCOUNTING, BILLING AND PAYMENT PLANS
135
-------
CITY OF Pfj? jnnr-1 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
I. THE PFOEZ.SM
Garden City Disposal Service, Inc., operates a presumedly minimum cost
billing operation which provides no financial information other than monthly
cash receipts. It is a system below the minimum standard acceptable for an
operation of this 'size and character. Cue toner account cards are maintained
in a "spindle" system (Customer cards are spun around for recording amounts
received by the con^ar.y.) Ho attempt is made to record amounts due the
company, consequently it is impossible to ascertain an accurate delinquency
rate. Control is weak, perhaps nonexistent. It is possible for caro> to
become lost and it is easy for collections to be posted ta the wrong cards.
It is difficult to determine the true Income of the company, since receipt
figures depend upon such biasing circumstances as the number of customer
accounts serviced during a particular period. No regular billing cycles are
used. Customers are sometimes mailed bills at irregular intervals. No de-
linquent account collection follow-up is practiced.
The records prepared on the Company's modified cash basis accounting
method do not properly disclose the real earnings for the period; the fran-
chise paid to the City is based on cash receipts subject to the inexactitudes
i
of the system. (The City obtains from the Prime Contractor annual statements
examined by a Certified Public Accountant. The statements are prepared on the
"Modified cash basis", however the C.P.A. -firm furnishes "adjustments" to
reflect "accrual basis" used for the Compcny's income tax returns).
It is probable that customer service is deficient, perhaps causing
undue hardship: Customers could be conceivably billed five times a year
136
-------
(instead of four)} their service could be cub off four months after billing
(instead of six). In short, the high rate of non-subscription to the collec-
tion service may be attributed, in part, to the unsatisfactory billing
operation.
II. Discussion
Even though the City is not in the garbage business, it is neverthe-
less responsible to insure that garbage collection is achieved efficiently
and at the lowest cojt possible without compromising the service provided
San Jose residents. The billing operation is an integral part of the garbage
collection effort. Lack of sufficient accounting control and management in-
formation in the billing system casts doubt on accounting and operational
efficiency elsewhere (for example, the expense of company operations, the
validity of the amount collected on the franchise by the City, the equity
of rates charged San Jose customers).
As-a minimum the company should establish an accounting system which
will achieve the following:
1. An accrual basis accounting system.' This provides for accounts
receivable to insure that income is not based on unequal cash
flow. (This, incidentally, is required to be in conformejice with
generally accepted accounting principles as stipulated by the
AICPA in order to reduce inequities which arise in a strictly
cash-basis system.)
2. A system of accounting controls. This provides for regular
billing cycles, more efficient accounting data inputs, better
internal control on cash handling, billing cycle reconciliation,
and the recording of accounting data in the company's general
ledger.
137
-------
II. DISCUSSION (Continued)
3. A set of accounting reports. This provides for a comparative
monthly report on amounts due, amounts actually collected,
delinquencies due, franchise payable,to the City and number
of customers for current month, year-to-date and previous year-
to date.
The City mny_ also impose other requirements on the garbage company
to provide for a better analysis of the needs of various sectors of the City
residents, to provide the development of a more equitable rate structure, to
reduce the delinquency rate, and to reduce (or eliminate) the rate of non-
subscribers for garbage collection. Examples:
1. Compulsory billing of all San Jose non-commercial residents.
This reduces (or eliminates) the non-subscription rate.(Note:
It may be possible to bill all owners which vould eliminate
the problem of tenants moving, etc.—see Attorney's opinion
elsewhere in the report.)
2. Compulsory garbage pickup re^ardlAs of the status of bill
collection. This reduces the incidence of garbage accumulating
on the premises of San Jose residences, a purported significant
health problem.
3. Use of a flexible account code structure and a ivore compre-
her.si ve isana&sac-nt report.. This provides for a more compre-
hensive analysis of customer problems as to customer type,'
geographical location, more detailed delinquency evaluation,
a more equitable rate structure.
U. Use of a more imposing, official bill, accorrnanled vith BTL
'addressed return envelope. This would provide greater induce-
ment for customer compliance, better cash flow and a lover
delinquency rate.
III. ALTERNATIVES
1. Ho change in billing policy: franchise contract is silent in
method of billing and changes in accounting system.
2. Impose certain contractual requirements on the company, such asI
A. Accurol basis accounting system
B. Specified accounting controls
C. Specified accounting reports
D. Delinquent recount follovup
E. Better billing medium
F. Compulsory billing of non-commercial residents
138
-------
G. Comprehensive management report
H. Compulsory garbage pickup
I. Compulsory billing of non-comncrcial owners
3. /unjement with company _that City Provides:
A. Complete billing operation
B. Delinquent account followup
C. Revolving fund and City subsidy for
delinquent accounts
D. Complete subsidy for all garbage collection
service provided City residents
1». Ii.Ltiate state legislative action to allow garbage collection
abatement to be added to the County tax rolls, (now in process)
After a thorough analysis of the various choices, ve concluded that the City
should consider three alternative systems:
ALTERNATIVE A - CITY TAKES OVER ACCOUNTING OPERATION;
l) Initiates state legislation to place garbage fees on the County tax
rolls.
2) Contracts the company to collect garbage City-vide.
3) Creates revolving fund to finance delinquent garbage fee collections
from general fund revenues of the City.
U) Establishes accounting system similar to weed abatement4 and special
assessments to administer accounting operation.
ALTERNATIVE B - CITY IMPOSES CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE COMPANY WHICH
CONTINUES ACCOUIITING OPERATION;
l) Company establishes accural basis accounting system
2) Company establishes specified accounting controls
3} Company establishes a specified accounting reporting system
k) Company developes a more imposing, official bill accompanied with an
addressed return envelope
ALTERNATIVE C - COMPANY OPERATION. COMPULSORY :OI.I.BCTIOH. CITY GUARANTEES PAYMENT
1) Contractual requirements as in Alternative B
2) Requirement of compulsory residential reruse collection
3) Guaranty that City will reimburse contractor for uncollectable fees
b) City reimburses contractor for uncollectable fees and places them on
tax roll in accordance with Chapter 175 of California Government Code
139
-------
V. BENEFITS ACHIEVED BY ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
Alternative A - City takes over accounting for receipts; initiates Stato
legislation to place garbage fees on County tax rolls; contracts company
to collect garbage City-vide; creates revolving fund to finance delin-
quent garbage fee collections; establishes accounting system similar to
special assessments.
1. Oreutly simplifies billing operation; reduces costs accordingly.
2. Reduces incidence of garbage accumulating on residential property
. within the City limits.
3. Probably reduces rate of delinquency from about 5% to about l£
since fee is added to tax bills.
1». More dependable accounting records are achieved since City
operates a better accounting system,
5. Simplifies arrangement made with company since no franchise fee
would be collected; the company would merely be reimbursed for
expense of garbage operations incurred; City could charge whatever
rates desired to make up for the franchise, or reduce garbage
rates accordingly.
Alternative B - City imposes contractual requirements on the company to
include a belter accounting and reporting system'2nd cr adequate billing
function.
1. Reduces rate of delinquency, and increases cash flow since a
better billing medium is used (Note: rate is not likely to be
reduced to .as low as In the case of Alternative A).
2. Provides better customer service and a higher potential for
proper analysis of customer problems through better accounting
controls.
3. More dependable accounting records are achieved.
1». Increase franchise fee collected by the City since accrual basis
accounting is required.
Alternative C - Same as Alternative fi with requirement of compulsory
collection. City would guarantee payment of fee end would plac? un-
collected garbage fee on the tax rolls as in A above.
1. This method achieves all the advantages of Alternative B plus
the benefits listed under Alternative A 2 and 3>
2. Chapter 175 of the Government Code provides that cities collecting
garbage fees may collect fees which have been delinquent for 60
or more days as a special assessment against respective parcels
of land end are a lien on the property for the cr.ount of such
delinquent fees. Chapter 175 was approved by the Governor and
filed with the Secretary of Stnte on June 23, 1972.
140
-------
V. ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Alternative A (City bill collection)
This alternative will require rather extensive legal action since the State
Legislature must pass a bill authorizing the City to impose a garbage
collection fee on taxpayers. (The City Attorney has initiated action to
obtain this legislation.) Further, the imposition of a garbage foe on
owners (in lieu of residents) is a matter which mi;;tit have to be tested in
court. (See December 1, 1972 memo on refuse disposal from Gov to Lucchesi.)
From a technical accounting point of view it appears that no special
problems exist which would preclude the system from efficiently operating
since the City is already operating similar activities. The development
effort is within our current systems capability and can probably be
accomplished with six months to a year of lead time. The cost of develop-
ment does not appear to be prohibitively high. The system could operate
efficiently within our current EDP system, or in an upgraded system.
No bid or contract problems are anticipated since this alternative does not
impose any special requirements on the contractor other than to pick up
solid waste from all residents, and to document the basis of reimbursement.
The contractor could be paid on a) cost plus, b) fee per cans collected,
or c) fixed fee basis.
Alternative B (City imposed upgraded billing system by company)
This alternative presents no special legal problem since the City can
currently impose specific operational and fiscal requirements on the
contracting company.
The billing and accounting operation proposed might be somewhat costlier
than the present totally inadequate system; however, refuse collection
in San Jose is a more than $5,000,000 operation; the added costs would
probably amount to a fraction of 1% of revenues and more then pay off
in better collections. (The company could contract with a computer
service for billing, accounting and reporting services. Also the City's
Account ins Systems Development Section could assist the comprjiy in
developing a suitable system.)
Alternative C (Company operation, compulsory collection)
It appears that this alternative docs not require legal action, since
Chapter 175 of the Governnont Code (quoted above) provides authority
for placing delinquent collection fees on the tax rolls.
141
-------
APPEKDIX
D
LEGAL OPINION
KEITH COW
142
-------
The Courts have held consistently that municipal regulation of refuse,
including cubage and rubbish, is a proper exercise of the police power
having a substantial relation to the protection and preservation of the
public health, so long as such exercise (and the costs thereof) are not
excessive or discriminatory. (City of Glendale v. Trondsen, U8 Cal 2nd
93; Cases cited at 101). Such regulations nay include prohibitions
against unreasonable accumulations of refuse upon private premises, fre-
quency of collection and segregation of materials, (Silver v. City of
Los Aarelsr. 217 Cal 'App 2d 13*0. A city r."v iinose a n'obish tax or
charre to rev for t.he_ o^tq of collection, actyithstanglng a charter
limit urn ^opl prc~?rV'__*_-:v;3i_flr.d .1 cVr".cr reiiiirerarit that_ the_ ques-
tion of q-.:'it.icri_cJL lev..eG be approved by vote of the people (Charter
§ 1219), so l^n~"_?_s_ the tax or charge bears a reasonable relationship
to the cost of pi'l'ie.ction, is imposed upon the producer cf the refuse,
and is not an ad valorenlevy (City of Glendale y. Trcndsen, supra).
There is, therefore, no legal objection to the present Municipal Code
provisions prohibiting dangerous accumulations of refuse (§S 5302.U and
$303.1), requiring at least weekly disposal of refuse (§ 5303.12), or
the provisions respecting refuse disposal contained in Part U of Chapter
3 of Article V of the San Jose Municipal Code (§§ 530U.1, et sec..).
Upon the basis of Trondsen, it is clear that an ordinance which imposes
a tax or charge upon the producer is constitutional. The Court found
authority for such tax or charge by analogy to those ordinances' that im-
pose sever service and use charges upon all households within a city,
notwithstanding tnat some such households cay not be connected to the
sewer facilities. In that case, the City of Glendale had charter limi-
tations ouite s'rctlar to those contained in Section 1219 of San Jose's
Charter, eld the Court held that so long as the tax or charge was not
an ad valorem tax, the charter tax Unit and the requlrenent for approval
by the voters, if that limit is to be exceeded, are not applicable.
It thus appears clear that a city procedure for billing and collecting
fees from producers based upon the cost to the City of providing refuse
collection service may be initiated without legal hinderanee. Whether
or not such taxes nay be iroosed upon owners, of property uho are not
themselves producers (i.e., fron landlords), in"the alternative, if the
acqual producers fail or refuse to pay such fees or taxes, is less cer-
tain. We believe that the imposition of such taxes or fees upon owners
would be sustained by the Courts, notwithstanding that they nay not them-
selves be producers, upon the theory that their use of the property In-
directly maltcs them producers through the activities of'their tenants.
Such a position may have to be tested by litigation, however.
It must be apparent, however, that any attempt by the City to collect
refuse collection fees or taxes would produce a substantial amount of
143 I best available copy.
-------
work over and above the routine billing and collection that would ne-
cessarily have to be put into effect. For exanple, a substantial
amount of effort would have to be devoted to locating delinquent pro-
ducers, collecting fror. then, suing then in Small Claims Court, and
attempting to collect upon Judgements that nay be obtained. It Is
also apparent that r. certain percentage of the bills would be uncol-
lectible end would have to be written off. We believe that provision
for uncollectible bills may legally be built into any rate structure
that is designed to reimburse the City for the cost of refuse
collection, but we caution that the City should make provision lor
reasonable collection efforts so as to avoid the possibility of rates
that contain provisions for uncollectible debts being held discrimina-
tory or excessive.
KEITH L. COM
Division Chief Attorney
KLC:hs
APPROVED:1
F. P. PALLA, City Attorney
M0918
144
------- |