HomeMy WebLinkAbout10A - Refuse Collection Report
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
APRIL 21,2008
10A
JANE KANSIER, BUILDING AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT ON REFUSE COLLECTION
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to review the alternatives for refuse collection in
the City of Prior Lake and receive Council input with respect to the objectives
you would like to achieve.
Historv
The 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan was updated and adopted on May 7,2007.
Included in the 2030 Vision is an element for Community Capital Assets. Part
of that Vision Element is a Five-Year Goal to provide community leadership in
energy conservation. The two-year objectives associated with the five-year
goal are as follows:
. Develop a plan for implementation of energy conservation in City
fleet and facilities
. Recommend improvements to City building energy efficiency
including audits for each building
. Evaluate and implement environmentally-sound and cost-effective
means to power City rolling stock
. Implement a public awareness program regarding energy
conservation
The Council has expressed an interest in exploring the various options for
refuse collection. The objective of a change, if any, would be:
. Continued high level of service;
· Equal or better price;
. Equal or better recycling program;
. Less wear and tear on streets
Current Circumstances
Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.94 (Exhibit A) defines organized collection
as "a system for collecting solid waste in which a specified collector, or a
member of an organization of collectors, is authorized to collect from a defined
geographic service area..."There are three basic models for organized refuse
collection:
1. Open System: In this model, the City licenses individual hauling
companies, but it is the responsibility of each resident and business to
contract with the hauling company. The City has no billing, collection or
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
operational obligations under this system. This is the system currently
utilized by the City of Prior Lake.
2. Contract System: In this case, the City would advertise for bids and
enter into a contract with a specific hauling company to provide service
to the entire community. As a result, there would be only one company
providing solid waste service to the City's residents. The City of
Shakopee utilizes this system.
3. City-Operated Organized Collection: This model allows the City to
organize collection services internally and to provide that service in the
same manner as other City services. In other words, the refuse
collection system is operated by City staff with City vehicles. The cities
of Farmington and Hopkins have an organized collection system.
In all three systems, the cost of refuse collection is paid by the city residents
and business owners. A survey of rates for residential customers in the City of
Prior Lake (open system) indicates costs from $12 to $17 per month,
depending on the size of the container. The residential rates for the City of
Shakopee (contract system) range from $12.06 to $17.68 per month,
depending on the size of the container. These rates, however, are guaranteed
for two years. Rates for Prior Lake customers may be increased at the
discretion of the hauler. The City of Farmington (city-operated organized
collection) charges from $14.66 to $20.66 per month. Farmington's annual
budget for solid waste services estimates revenues at $2,025,000 and
expenditures at $2,143,132 for 2008. Exhibit B is a table comparing costs in
Prior Lake, Shakopee and Farmington.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all three models. The chart below
is my attempt to summarize these:
Model Advantaaes Disadvantages
Open . Greater choice of vendors and . No organized
price packages for residents collection
. No cost to City for managing . Greater wear and
contracts tear on City streets
. City licenses haulers due to the number
. Competitive pricing of vehicles and
. Hauler is accountable to days if week on the
customer street
Contract . One hauler serves entire City . Cost to the City for
. Potential for cost savings for contract
consumers due to competitive administration and
bidding and economy of scale management
. Number of trucks on City . Time involved for
streets is decreased City to enforce
contract
. Hauler accountable
to City rather than
to customer
. Customer has no
choice in hauler
City- . City controls entire refuse . Potential for
Operated hauling system increased
Organized . Greater City accountability to personnel and
Collection customers capital costs to City
. Customer has no
choice in hauler
Another strategy used in all collection models is dividing the city into areas and
assigning each area a specific collection day. Both the City of Bloomington
(open system) and the City of Farmington (city-operated organized collection)
require collection to occur on specific days of the week in specified areas.
This policy, while not reducing the number of vehicles in an open system, does
reduce some of the trips on city streets. It also has aesthetic implications, in
that garbage containers would be on any given street only one day per week,
rather than all five days. There are noise considerations for every
neighborhood as well. Exhibit C is an example from the City of Bloomington of
how this system is organized.
Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.94 (Exhibit C) provides a city the option to
organize collection in anyone of the three methods. Changing the City's
current method of refuse collection would take six months or more. During
that time, the City is required, at a minimum, to:
1. Publish and mail notice of a public hearing at least 2 weeks prior to the
hearing date.
2. Conduct a public hearing.
3. Adopt a resolution announcing the intent to organize collection at least
180 days before implementing a new collection system.
4. Develop a plan for organized collection employing the assistance of the
licensed haulers (90 days).
5. Following the 90 day planning period, the City must discuss the
proposed plan with all licensed haulers expressing an interest (also 90
days).
6. If no agreement is reached, the City may then implement an alternative
collection method.
A chart illustrating this timeline is attached to this report as Exhibit D.
ISSUES:
Before undertaking this process, the Council may want to identify specific
goals. Attached as Exhibit E are the Solid Waste Collection Goals for the City
of Falcon Heights. For example, is it the Council's intent to:
. Reduce the number of trucks on City streets?
. Reduce the overall wear and tear on City streets?
. Improve aesthetics in neighborhoods, including appearance, noise, and
inconvenience?
. Determine a more efficient collection method?
. Reduce costs to consumers?
Once the goals have been identified, the staff can propose alternative
collection models and processes for implementation. If the Council desires a
contract system or a City-operated organized collection system, the process
set forth in Minnesota Statutes 115A.94 must be followed. If the Council only
wishes to restrict geographic location and collection days, while continuing to
utilize the open system, the City can develop its own approach.
In either case, the Council should decide if the staff should meet with the
haulers informally to solicit their input before taking any further action. For
additional reading, I have included an article entitle "Great Coon Rapids
Garbage Debate" as Exhibit F.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The cost of additional review is primarily in staff time, and perhaps some
consulting time. The overall costs of a change in the collection system will
depend on the system chosen by the City.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has the following alternatives:
1. Determine the specific goals it desires, whether city-operated organized
collection is desired and whether the staff should meet with the currently
licensed haulers to solicit input.
2. Do nothing.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
As per the City Council's discussion.
Reviewed by:
EXHIBIT A
2007 M i n nesota Statutes
115A.94 ORGANIZED COLLECTION.
Subdivision 1. Definition. "Organized collection" means a system for collecting solid waste in which a
specified collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is authorized to collect from a defined geographic
service area or areas some or all of the solid waste that is released by generators for collection.
Subd. 2. Local authority. A city or town may organize collection, after public notification as required in
subdivision 4. A county may organize collection as provided in subdivision 5.
Subd. 3. General provisions. (a) The local government unit may organize collection as a municipal service
or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded contract, or other means, using one or more collectors or an
organization of collectors. (b) The local government unit may not establish or administer organized collection in a
manner that impairs the preservation and development of recycling and markets for recyclable materials. The local
government unit shall exempt recyclable materials from organized collection upon a showing by the generator or
collector that the materials are or will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator, separately
collected, and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a manufacturing process. (c) The local
government unit shall invite and employ the assistance of interested persons, including persons licensed to operate
solid waste collection services in the local government unit, in developing plans and proposals for organized
collection and in establishing the organized collection system. (d) Organized collection accomplished by contract or
as a municipal service may include a requirement that all or any portion ofthe solid waste, except (1) recyclable
materials and (2) materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time
that the requirement is imposed, be delivered to a waste facility identified by the local government unit. In a district
or county where a resource recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section l15A.86, organized
collection must conform to the requirements of the designation ordinance.
Subd. 4. Cities and towns; notice; planning. (a) At least 180 days before implementing an ordinance,
franchise, license, contract or other means of organizing collection, a city or town, by resolution of the governing
body, shall announce its intent to organize collection and invite the participation of interested persons, including
persons licensed to operate solid waste collection services, in planning and establishing the organized collection
system. (b) The resolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing. The hearing must be held at least two
weeks after public notice and mailed notice to persons known by the city or town to be operating solid waste
collection services in the city or town. The failure to give mailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not
invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has been made. (c)
During a 90-day period following the resolution of intent, the city or town shall develop or supervise the
development of plans or proposals for organized collection. During this 90-day planning period, the city or town
shall invite and employ the assistance of persons licensed as of the date ofthe resolution of intent to operate solid
waste collection services in the city or town. Failure of a licensed collector to participate in the 90-day planning
period, when the city or town has made a bona fide effort to provide the person the opportunity to participate, does
not invalidate the planning process. (d) For 90 days after the date ending the planning period required under
paragraph (c), the city or town shall discuss possible organized collection arrangements with all licensed collectors
operating in the city or town who have expressed interest. If the city or town is unable to agree on an organized
collection arrangement with a majority of the licensed collectors who have expressed interest, or upon expiration of
the 90 days, the city or town may propose implementation of an alternate method of organizing collection as
authorized in subdivision 3. (e) The city or town shall make specific findings that: (I) describe in detail the
procedures it used to plan and to attempt implementation of organized collection through an arrangement with
collectors who expressed interest; and (2) evaluate the proposed organized collection method in light of at least the
following standards: achieving the stated organized collection goals of the city or town; minimizing displacement of
collectors; ensuring participation of all interested parties in the decision-making process; and maximizing efficiency
in solid waste collection. (f) Upon request, the city or town shall provide mailed notice of all proceedings on the
organization of collection in the city or town. (g) If the city or town and all the persons licensed to operate mixed
municipal solid waste collection services and doing business in the city or town agree on the plan, the city or town
may implement the plan without regard to the 180-day period specified in paragraph (a).
Subd. 5. County organized collection. (a) A county may by ordinance require cities and towns within the
county to organize collection. Organized collection ordinances of counties may: (I) require cities and towns to
require the separation and separate collection of recyclable materials; (2) specify the material to be separated; and
(3) require cities and towns to meet any performance standards for source separation that are contained in the county
solid waste plan. (b) A county may itself organize collection under subdivision 4 in any city or town that does not
comply with a county organized collection ordinance adopted under this subdivision, and the county may implement,
as part of its organized collection, the source separation program and performance standards required by its
organized collection ordinance.
Subd. 6. Organized collection not required or prevented. (a) The authority granted in this section to
organize solid waste collection is optional and is in addition to authority to govern solid waste collection granted by
other law. (b) Except as provided in subdivision 5, a city, town, or county is not: (1) required to organize collection;
or (2) prevented from organizing collection of solid waste or recyclable material. (c) Except as provided in
subdivision 5, a city, town, or county may exercise any authority granted by any other law, including a home rule
charter, to govern collection of solid waste.
Subd. 7. Anticompetitive conduct. (a) A political subdivision that organizes collection under this section is
authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to plan and implement its chosen organized
collection system and is immune from liability under state laws relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, unfair trade
practices, and other regulation of trade or commerce. (b) An organization of solid waste collectors, an individual
collector, and their officers, members, employees, and agents who cooperate with a political subdivision that
organizes collection under this section are authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent necessary to
plan and implement the organized collection system, provided that the political subdivision actively supervises the
participation of each entity. An organization, entity, or person covered by this paragraph is immune from liability
under state law relating to antitrust, restraint of trade, unfair trade practices, and other regulation of trade or
commerce.
History: 1987 c 348 s 27; 1989 c 325 s 26,27; 1990 c 600 s 1,2; 1991 c 337 s 46; 1993 c
249 s 20,21
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE LICENSED HAULERS RESIDENTIAL RATES
NAME CONTAINER SIZE RATE (monthly) RECYCLING TOTAL
Allied Waste
32 gal $13.95 Included $13.95
68 gal $14.95 Included $14.95
95 Qal $15.95 Included $15.95
Buckinaham
35 gal $12.00 Included $12.00
65 Qal $14.00 Included $14.00
95 Qal $16.00 Included $16.00
Dick's Sanitary
45 Qal $11.95 Included $11.95
65 Qal $12.95 Included $12.95
95 aal $14.95 Included $14.95
EverQreen Sanitation
32 Qal $14.95 Included $14.95
65 Qal $15.95 Included $15.95
95 gal $16.95 Included $16.95
Tidy Disposal
Commercial Only
Waste Management
32 Qal $7.95 $5.00 $12.95
64 aal $8.95 $5.00 $13.95
96 gal $10.95 $5.00 $15.95
CITY OF SHAKOPEE CONTRACT PRICES (DICK'S SANITARY)
YEAR CONTAINER SIZE RATE (monthly) RECYCLING TOTAL
2008
30 gal $8.53 $3.54 $12.06
60 gal $10.71 $4.47 $15.18
90 gal $12.48 $5.20 $17.68
2009
30 gal $8.53 $3.54 $12.06
60 Qal $10.71 $4.47 $15.18
90 aal $12.48 $5.20 $17.68
2010 thru March 2011
30 aal $8.87 $3.68 $12.55
60 gal $11.14 $4.65 $15.79
90 Qal $12.98 $5.41 $18.39
CITY OF FARMINGTON ORGANIZED REFUSE RATES
YEAR CONTAINER SIZE RATE (monthlY) RECYCLING TOTAL
2008
30 aal $14.66 Included $14.66
60 gal $17.66 Included $17.66
90 gal $20.66 Included $20.66
EXHIBIT C
Pickup days (residential)
The City of Bloomington requires your garbage hauler to pick up your recyclables. If you have questions or have
been missed, please contact your garbage hauler.
Monday:
East city limit to Portland Avenue South
Tuesday:
Avenue South of Penn Avenue South
Wednesday:
South to France Avenue South
Thursday:
South to Normandale Blvd.
Friday:
Normandale Boulevard to West city limit
Reminder. Please have your garbage and recycling containers out at the curb by 7 a.m. In the winter be sure to
have them far enough off the curb so the snow plows do not hit them.
Penn Avenue
France Avenue
Cl
-
....
~
~
~
EXHIBIT E
Goals of Solid Waste Collection in Falcon Heights
Solid Waste Commission of Falcon Heights
January, 2004
It is the mission of the Falcon Heights Solid Waste Commission to develop a more efficient,
more economical and more environmentally sound solid waste disposal system, and build a
waste management education plan for all age groups, starting with our youngest citizens.
Based on this mission statement, the Commission has developed the following goals for solid
waste collection in Falcon Heights.
More Efficient
1. Refuse collection shall be on one day of the week for all residences in single-family
residential zones.
2. Waste collection base plan shall include refuse, recycling and yard waste, with options
provided for appliances and other large objects.
3. There shall be an efficient quarterly billing procedure with clear, itemized charges for
each resident.
4. The City shall manage service and resident concerns.
More Economical
5. To reduce road maintenance costs, each street or alley shall be served by only one hauler,
one truck per collection day. The City may choose the option to designate one or more
zones, one hauler to a zone, and may choose to contract separately for recycling.
6. The City shall specify the maximum size of garbage trucks, in the interest of safety and
protecting citizens' investment in City infrastructure.
7. Prices shall be competitive with what Falcon Heights residents are paying now and with
what is being charged in other Metro area cities. Pricing options shall be the same in all
neighborhoods ofthe city.
8. A choice of service levels shall be provided, based on bin size. An extra-small size shall
be available. Residents shall be allowed to share service. Service shall include options
for additional services or special pick-ups.
9. Residents shall have option of temporary suspension of service, with either a one-month
or two-month minimum.
10. Any contract for organized collection made by the City shall be for 3 or more years and
shall include conditions for termination prior to the end of the contract.
City of Falcon Heights Final Report Rf1 Organizf-P CRI!-f=tiRfl- APPH1dix A
I ctober13,0304
35
More Environmentally Sound
II. Refuse shall go to the Ramsey/Washington County Resource Recovery Facility in
Newport, or a similar environmentally sound facility at the direction of the City, ifthe
Newport facility is no longer available. Hauler(s) must certify this quarterly.
12. Waste collection service shall be consistent with sound public health policies and a clean
city.
13. Within the first year of the contract, hauler(s) shall provide a viable plan to implement
collection of organics for composting.
Public Education
14. The City shall have the option to provide informational inserts to be sent out with bills, at
the City's discretion.
15. Hauler(s) shall provide accurate quarterly tonnage reports to the City.
16. ThHWas\MhauIH(s) shall sUPPRf\\WHCiWs I-fforts to educate residents and students on
solid waste and recycling issues.
City of Falcon Heights Final Report Rn Organizl-f:J C~lrFtiR1 - Appl-f1dix A
I ctober 13. aJ04
36
ABC Newspapers - The great Coon Rapids garbage debate
The great Coon Rapids garbage debate
Wednesday, 03 October 2007
by Peter Bodley
Managing editor
EXHIBIT F
Page I of 3
A tweak rather than an overhaul is Coon Rapids City Council's answer to the garbage collection in the city.
A vast majority of the standing room only crowd in the city council
chambers, which spilled out into the hallway, made it clear that they did not
want any change to the current open collection system by which residents
contract individually with one of the four haulers licensed in the city.
What prompted the hearing was a city staff recommendation that the city
switch to an organized collection system - either by going out for bid and
awarding a contract for one hauler to operate in Coon Rapids or by dividing
the city into zones, going out for bids and awarding a contract for each zone.
But following almost two hours of testimony, the council did opt for splitting
the city into zones, while retaining the current open system.
Under the motion by Councilmember Scott Schulte, the four haulers operating in the city - Are Solid Waste,
Walter's Refuse and Recycling, BFI and Waste Management - have until Oct. 29 to present city staff with
what the haulers call a day zone system.
The city would be divided into ,five zones and all four haulers would agree to pick up garbage, recycling and
yard waste in one zone one day only and another zone the next day etc., thereby eliminating one of the
reasons for staff recommending the organized system - haulers operating in every neighborhood of the city
every day of the week.
Schulte wants the day or open zone plan to be brought before the council for approval at the Wednesday,
Nov. 7 meeting (the normal Tuesday meeting will be moved back a day because of the Anoka-Hennepin
School Board election Tuesday, Nov. 6).
Schulte's motion also included tabling action by the council to the Nov. 7 meeting on the resolution of intent
to establish an organized system.
According to Schulte, if the council approves the day zone plan Nov. 7, the resolution will be denied.
But he said the plan would have to include garbage, recycling and yard waste and any other hauler wishing
to be licensed in Coon Rapids would have to abide by the plan.
The Schulte motion passed 6-0. Councilmember Denise Klint was out of town at a conference, but indicated
her support for the open zone proposal to Schulte in a phone call, he said.
"I am not convinced that organized collection is the way to go," Schulte said. "Zoning the city will maintain
competition and the free market."
At no time, according to Schulte and Councilmember Joe Sidoti, was the council considering a city-run
collection system.
http://abcnewspapers.com/index2.php?option=coll1_content&task=view&id=550&pop= 1 &page=O&Itemi... 4/ ll/2008
ABC Newspapers - The great Coon Rapids garbage debate Page 2 of 3
"We made it clear from the start that we were not interested in a city-operated system," Sidoti said. "It was
never on the table."
But some of the council members were upset with the mailings sent out by the haulers prior to the hearing,
asking residents to mail the city enclosed cards which stated they were "opposed to a government-
managed/public waste collection."
That was misleading, deceitful and in some cases false, Councilmember Bruce Sanders said.
However, the city was inundated by over 3,000 card responses and counc11 members received several
hundred phone calls and e-mails.
The impetus behind city staff's recommendation for a switch to an organized system were four problems
with the current system, according to Steve Gatlin, public services director.
Excessive damage to city streets caused by a large number of heavily loaded garbage trucks.
. Interference with the city public works department seasonal street maintenance activities, including street
sweeping and snow removal because of garbage cans placed on the curb.
Less attractive neighborhoods because of garbage cans on the street every day.
· Pollution problems relating to a large number of diesel garbage trucks including air and noise pollution.
According to Gatlin, an organized system would reduce the number of garbage trucks on city streets
significantly and extend the life of those streets by 10 years.
Gatlin also estimated that it would save residents $60 to $70 years in taxes for street maintenance and
reconstruction costs.
Using Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) figures, he said the impact of one garbage truck
on a city street is the same as nearly 1,000 cars.
I n addition, Gatlin produced a survey showing the respective costs for garbage pickup in other
communities, some with open and some with organized systems, in particular the city of Blaine, which has
organized collection - a single contract with a hauler - and a lower cost to their residents than in Coon
Rapids, according to the survey.
Before the hearing began, Schulte, Sidoti and Mayor Tim Howe all signaled their preference for the open
zone or day zone system.
For most residents who spoke at the hearing it was a matter of c1ioice and the free enterprise system.
They wanted to continue to have the ability to contract individually for their garbage pickup with a hauler
and if they had a problem with service or cost, shop around.
But several did not have any problems with the day zoning proposal if the competition among the haulers
remained,
"If you don't want wear and tear on city streets, build a dome over the city," said Del Sloan. "My hauler
http://abcnewspapers.com/index2. php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5 50&pop= l &page=O& I temi... 4/11/2008
ABC Newspapers - The great Coon Rapids garbage debate
does a superb job and if I want to pay more, that's my prerogative."
Page 3 of 3
"Competition means lower prices and better service," said another resident. "Don't change a thing."
And another resident said that any time there is government control, there is a loss of freedom and higher
costs.
A resident who had lived in Champlin, where there is organized collection, prefers the open system of Coon
Rapids because of the ability to change haulers, he said.
But there were a handful of residents who wanted the council to move forward with the organized system
believing it would be better for the roads, environment, lead to greater efficiency and a better price for
residents.
"An open zone plan does not reap cost or road savings," said Curt Isaac in support of organized collection.
The open or day zone system was embraced by George Walter, owner of Walter's Refuse and Recycling, as
well as owner Andy Schweizer and general manager Mike Berkopec of Ace Solid Waste.
"The day zone system is a very simple solution and has worked well in other cities," Berkopec said.
While Howe, Sidoti and Schulte were strongly in support of the open zone system, Councilmember Ron
Manning said if he had his druthers, he would go for an organized system, but residents had expressed how
they felt and he would support the motion.
And both Sanders and Council member Paul Johnson wanted to keep the option of moving forward with the
lengthy, state-mandated organized system process if there is no agreement on a day zone plan.
"It is public policy to regulate the use of roads," Sander said. "I have heard no complaints from Blaine."
The council action does not affect housing developments run by associations, which contract as an
association with a single hauler, and commercial properties, according to Schulte.
Peter Bodley is at peter .bodley@ecm-inc.com
Close Window
http://abcnewspapers.comJindex2. php '?option=col11_content&task=view&id=550&pop= 1 & page=O&Itemi... 4/] 1/2008
,
"
AJerd..a:- X+~rTl
IDA
.
-
,
REFUSE COLLECTION
Report to City Council
April 21, 2008
.t~.'~
:'.u~~
..~Msd~':-'
,
-
.
.
j
~
Objectives of Any Change
. Continued High Level of Service
. Equal or Better Prices
. Equal or Better Recycling Program
· Reduce Wear and Tear on City Streets
:.~\PR~Oif (
....~ "'"7
ij': \.~;
.JIf.\'),.rs~'I:
J
.~
.
.
J
,
Basic Models for Organized Collection
I. Open System
. City licenses individual haulers
2. Contract System
. City bids and contracts with single hauler
3. City-Operated Organized Collection
System
. City provides services internally
,~'.:RI~' <
/-0 '. <~ 7
:,U' '-:~:
1,!'~1\'EsO;": .
~
j
.
1
.
-
I
Cost Comparison
System
Open System
(Prior Lake)
Contract System
(Shakopee)
City-Operated System
(Farmington)
Monthly Cost
$12 - $17
$12.06-$17.68
$14.66-$20.66
""'I~l;f~~"/
j
~
.
o'i t'Rlo~"
:t: ~\
:,.U :II
.
J
~
Advantages/Disadvantages
Open System
Advantages
Disadvantages
. More vendor choices
. No cost to City for contract
management
. City licenses haulers
. Competitive pricing
. Hauler accountable to
customer
. Greater wear and tear on
City streets due to number of
vehicles
~
~
.
. Advantages/Disadvantages
,
~ Contract System
Advantages Disadvantages
. One hauler serves entire . Cost to City for contract
City administration and
. Potential cost savings due management
to competitive bidding . Hauler accountable to City.
. Fewer trucks on City streets not customer
. Customer has no choice of
hauler
ij) ~
.:., .' ..... -(", ~
... :' '~'"7
'u' - '~'
-ltI:',.NE,.o\I' .
2
. Advantages/D~advantages
~
- City-Operated Organized Collection System
Advantages Disadvantages
. City controls system . Potential for increased
. Greater City accountability personnel and capital costs to
to customers City
. Fewer trucks on City streets . Customer has no choice of
hauler
O~Ll'RIO.i' j
t~~ ~
u .
''!'I.\'MSO'\Io. .
.
J
,
Other Options
. Divide the City into quadrants
- Designate collection days for each quadrant
. Reduces some trips
. Aesthetic appeal
.\(]IV' TO .. . .~
~. 'L~, '.1'&
" . -
,
--.
~="""".
~""'"',.
'~""f9J'o~
~
~
.
O't.!Rlo.~ '
b i 1-
u ,.,,'
.
Y Changing the Current System
}
. Minnesota
Statute
~ 115A.94
. Process takes
at least 6
months
'" oij)' '~~o'<
,t:;.-- \:. ~
:u. '",
lt/.~.,.~'\~.
,
~
.
3
.
~
#
Questions for Council
. Does the Council have specific goals?
- Reduce the number of trucks on City streets?
- Reduce overall wear and tear on City streets?
- Improve aesthetics?
- Determine a more efficient method?
- Reduce costs?
,~O~~}Rl~~' ,
'" ,.' ,<,.,
:p-, -i-;:;
, ~/););E>?~1';,'
-
~
.
.
~
,
The Next Step
. Once goals have been identified, staff can
propose alternati ves
/aJ:}RI~' <,.,
- ','~ :1':.:
U ~_ _ ,> ll'l'
4"",~(#l-
s
j
.
.
&
REFUSE COLLECTION
Questions or Comments
~ on,)~~
5''.JJ~:
"''''l;[';O~'''
.~
,
.
4