My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
MANDATORY CONTAINER SERVICE; COUNCIL RESOLUTION 72-7
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Legal Opinions
>
1972-2010 Opinions
>
MANDATORY CONTAINER SERVICE; COUNCIL RESOLUTION 72-7
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:31:31 PM
Creation date
7/20/2010 11:45:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Legal Opinions
Description
MANDATORY CONTAUINER SERVICE; COUNCIL RESOLUTION 72-7
Date
6/12/1972
Agency
Public Works
Notes
OPINION 72-13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
n <br />~`yW~~ ~~~~ t~~~u <br />('' ~ ;~:. <br />ate,,' ~ ~~;,;~'/;,~,. <br />f o: Date <br />F. <br />subject: <br />We have also considered section 16-32(e)(1) which states: <br />"No person shall place any refuse...upon any private property <br />in the city, whether owned by such person or not, except... in proper <br />containers for collection without express approval granted by the <br />Director of Public Works." <br />This section simply prohibits the depositing of trash in other than <br />"proper containers" but does not define what a "proper container" <br />consists of nor does it tell us where to find such a definition <br />or who has the authority to so define. Legally we suppose the <br />Director could specify what constitutes a proper container in his <br />regulations, but as we understand none have been adopted in writing. <br />The Director could of course in writing adopt the council Resolution <br />as his regulation, but we would again lack an effective penalty <br />provision. <br />We have also considered section 16-32(e)(2) which states: <br />"Any unauthorized accumulation of refuse on any premises <br />is hereby declared to be a nuisance and is prohibited." <br />This section might impliedly give the City ~~ttorney's Office the <br />right to prosecute the use of containers nog: authorized by the <br />Director of Public Works as a public nuisance but it again lacks the <br />force and effectiveness needed to mak~lconsistently successful <br />prosecution,. <br />After thoroughly studying the various code sections contained <br />in the refuse collection regulations it is our opinion that after <br />a close analysis none of them gives us a completely adequate means <br />to prosecute for failure to use the specified containers. We <br />therefore strongly suggest that if the mandatory requirements as <br />specified in Council Resolution 72-7 are those that the Director <br />of Public Works wishes to have imposed then the resolution should <br />be put in ordinance form and enact•.it as such. <br />If such an ordinance is enacted there will be no need <br />for the required notices specified for the resolutions. However, <br />we would nevertheless request that you give at least two notices <br />to the parties involved with followup inspections after each by <br />either regular mail or certified mail at your discretion. <br />We have found no provision under the refuse collection <br />regulations prohibiting adjacent owners from using the containers <br />on neighboring premises although, in our opinion, we feel that such <br />a provision should be adopted by the city to stop this practice. <br />The neighboring owners are consenting to the use of their containers <br />by their neighbors, and if the Director has proof that such practice <br />is being carried on, the director can refuse to collect the refuse <br />of the neighbors allowing such use. If the neighboring owners are <br />20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.