Opinion ID: 1407029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: exclusive refuse collection by the city of princeton

Text: We begin this analysis by building on the premise that a challenge to a municipality's exclusive right of the collection and disposal of refuse have generally been unsuccessful because exclusivity is a proper exercise of a municipality's police power. See City of Hobbs v. Chesport, Ltd., 76 N.M. 609, 417 P.2d 210 (1966); Annotation, Regulation and Licensing of Private Garbage or Rubbish Removal Services, 83 A.L.R.2d 799, 819 (1962 & Later Case Service 1991). If the plain language of the Ordinance did vest the City of Princeton with the exclusive power to collect and dispose of residential refuse, absent any other challenge, we would be likely to uphold that exclusivity. However, we need not be concerned about upholding the City of Princeton's exclusivity in residential refuse collection, since the plain language of the Ordinance only gives the City a limited exclusivity. The rules for construing statutes also apply to the interpretation of municipal ordinances. Syllabus Point 1, in part, Town of Burnsville v. Kwik-Pik, Inc., 185 W.Va. 696, 408 S.E.2d 646 (1991). [W]hen the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the courts will apply, not construe such language. Rite Aid v. City of Charleston, 189 W.Va. 707, 709, 434 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1993). The Ordinance makes a valiant effort to assure that the City of Princeton has exclusivity in Article 1131.04(a) which provides that [e]xcept as provided otherwise in this article, all refuse accumulated in the City shall be collected, conveyed and disposed of by the City; and no other person shall collect, convey over any of the streets or alleys of the City, or dispose of, any refuse accumulated in the City. Princeton, W.Va., Ordinance art. 1131.04 (1993). It is, however, within the phrase except as provided otherwise in this article that exclusivity is lost. Article 1131.04(b) [7] provides the first exception to the City's exclusivity when it permits actual producers of rubbish to personally collect, remove and dispose of their own rubbish. [8] Another exception to the City's exclusive right to collect and dispose of refuse is contained in Article 1131.08 which provides, inter alia: (a) Permit Required. The collection, removal and disposal of refuse, inclusive of garbage, from buildings, yards and lots within the City shall be made only by collectors who have applied for and received a permit for such activities from the City Clerk. (b) Permit Fee. For each permit granted for the collection of refuse, inclusive of garbage, the City Clerk shall assess such fee as may be established by resolution of Council, which shall be paid to the City Clerk. (c) Equipment. Persons granted permission to collect refuse, inclusive of garbage, in the City shall be equipped with a sanitary vehicle, approved by the City Manager. Princeton, W.Va., Ordinance art. 1131.08 (1993). This provision requires a private refuse collector to obtain a city permit and to use a sanitary vehicle approved by the City Manager. [9] A final exception to exclusivity is found in Article 1131.08(d) which provides: (d) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person who, upon his own premises, shall lawfully consume by burning, burial, or other manner not in conflict with sanitary regulations as provided by law, any garbage, rubbish, refuse, offal, ashes, glass, cans, or other waste materials, including both vegetable and animal matter, which may accumulate upon his own premises in the ordinary conduct of his household or business. [10] Id. at Article 1131.08(d). [11] The plain language of the Ordinance permits alternative methods for the collection and disposal of residential refuse to the extent that the Ordinance of the City of Princeton is not the exclusive agency for the collection and disposal of residential refuse within the City. Accordingly, we conclude that the City of Princeton is not the exclusive agency for the collection and disposal of residential refuse within the plain language of Article 1131 of the Princeton City Code. However, within the boundaries of the record before us, there is nothing that would support the appellants' position that they satisfied any or all of the conditions authorizing alternative private methods of refuse collection and disposal. Regardless, so that there is no misunderstanding as to the effect of this decision, even when a resident satisfies all of the prerequisites established within the Ordinance that would permit the private collection and disposal of refuse, the use of this alternative method of collection and disposal does not excuse the non-payment of the refuse service fee.