Organized Refuse Collection1) 1/ G ► . \ 1 1/
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 16 May 2002
RE: Organized Refuse Collection — PC and CC Joint Meeting
FILE NO.: Comp Plan — Comm. Facilities
Subsequent to the statutory time requirements for the study of organized refuse
collection, the Planning Commission invited the refuse haulers currently licensed to do
business in Shorewood to their 23 April 2002 study session to discuss the issues
associated with refuse collection (see attached letter, dated 12 April 2002 — Exhibit A).
Four of the five licensed haulers attended the meeting. The consensus of the four was:
■ they work very hard to get and keep their customers
■ they feel that choice is very important to their customers
■ each company offers a somewhat different service
■ all were willing to work with the City to resolve the issues that have been raised
Based upon the discussion with the haulers, the results of the City's informal newsletter
survey (results enclosed for your review), and written comments received from residents
(also enclosed), the Planning Commission agreed on the following:
Refuse collection can and should be limited to one day of the week —
Wednesdays, in order to coincide with recycling.
2. Haulers will continue t4offer yard waste collection service to their customers.
.0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Organized Refuse Collection
16 May 2002
Garbage trucks should be limited to carrying limited loads during the City's
weight restriction period (1 March to 1 May). This will require a bit more study
with respect to the allowable weights.
If the City Council agrees with this approach, the Planning Commission has suggested-
that they would review draft ordinance changes to implement these items in June and
hold a public hearing in July. The ordinances could then be implemented as soon as late
August or early September.
This topic is one of those to be discussed at the joint meeting between the Planning
Commission and City Council on next Tuesday. To the extent that you have received
some of the enclosed information already, we apologize. Better, however, too much
information than too little. If you have any question relative to this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me prior to the meeting.
Cc: Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
David Wiggins
David Hayes
Steve Metz
Deb Gatz
-2-
12 April 2002
Rhonda Painschab
Randy's Sanitation, Inc.
4351 Highway 12 S.E.
Delano, MN 55328
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us
Re: Shorewood — Organized Refuse Collection
Dear Ms. Painschab:
Last Autumn, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 115A.94, the City of Shorewood published a legal
notice announcing its plans to organize refuse collection services in Shorewood. A ninety -day
period in which licensed haulers had an opportunity to submit proposals for organized collection
has long since expired without any response or comment from the five refuse haulers licensed in
Shorewood. The Shorewood Planning Commission considers your input to be an important part
of this process. As such, the Commission invites you to attend their study session at 8:00 P.M.
on Tuesday, 23 April 2002. The meeting will be held at the Southshore Senior Community
Center, located at 5735 Country Club Road.
The most significant issues associated with uncontrolled refuse collection are road damage,
frequency of collection, and lack of coordination with recycling services. Garbage trucks are
among the heaviest vehicles on the road. By the nature of the work, they travel the edges of the
street where pavement is most vulnerable. The twisting of tandem axles as the trucks turn also
damages pavement. Road repair and reconstruction constitute a very large portion of the City's
budget. There is presently no regulation as to when refuse can be picked up. Refuse containers
are often present several days of the week. On any given day, residents may see as many as five
haulers in a single neighborhood. There is presently no coordination between refuse collection
and recycling services.
In light of these issues the Commission has identified the following options relative to organized
collection services:
1. Do nothing — continue with the current system of collection services
2. Restrict days of collection.
3. Require use of smaller refuse trucks.
56 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Exhibit 1
Re: Shorewood Refuse Collection
12 April 2002
Page two
4. Divide the City into three or four districts, then solicit bids and contract with refuse
haulers for each district.
5. Solicit bids and contract with one refuse hauler to collect for the entire city.
6. Expand the Public Works Department to provide municipal collection services.
This is your opportunity to affect how Shorewood will regulate refuse collection services. We
hope you will be able to attend this meeting and participate in this important process.
Sincerely,
Bradley J. Nielsen
City of Shorewood
Cc: Planning Commission
Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Tim Keane
s
The attached letter, dated 12 April 2002, was individually personalized and sent to the following
licensed refuse haulers:
Frank Blackowiak
Blackowiak & Son
1195 Sunnyfield Rd. N.
Mound, MN 55364
David Hayes
Waste Technology Inc
8424 Noble Ave. N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
Rhonda Painschab
Randy's Sanitation, Inc.
4351 Highway 12 S.E.
Delano, MN 55328
Mile Illg
Waste Management of MN
128 — 6"' St. N.
P.O. Box 609
Winsted, MN 55395
Dan Jirik
BFI
9813 Flying Cloud Dr.
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
..?.
4.
& A- vocfates. bx.
't.'.."
.;;
..,: x.Fa•r:
.'. ' 415' i0190 ri" `;,•:
Merriorl3l i' w
•. Suite. 300: k Y7
7d3 :5A� j42i'0 { =:Yk ;: •. •.
�• Z00��
April 23, 2002
Mr. Larry -Brown, P.E.
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Load
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Pavement Impacts Due to Garbage Trucks Hauling on City Streets
City of Shorewood, MN
WSB Project No. 1074 -99
Dear Mr. Brown:
As we recently discussed, the City is co7lcerned with the numerous trash haulers who
service the City of Shorewood and the potential, impacts these haulers have on existing city
streets. As you are aware, the heavier the vehicle, the higher the possibility exists of
increased pavement distress, which directly translates to a more rapid pavement
deterioration. Previous studies have indicated that a fully- loaded semi -truck carrying
80,000 pounds of weight equates to approximately 1,600 to 2,000 passenger vehicles.
Trash haulers do not carry loads of this weight, however, when fully loaded, care. exceed 7
to 9 tons per axle, which exceeds the typical older city street design limits. A typicaI
garbage truck equates to approximately 800 to 1,000 passenger vehicles, which is about
what an average neighborhood street carries on any one day. As the number of heavier
vehicles, such as trash haulers utilize city streets, the greater distress, and the quicker rate
of deterioration and possibly even pavement failure to not only the pavement, but the
roadway substructure underneath, which provides the support to the driving surface-
During the spring thaw when the roadway substnrcture is the weakest, cities restrict heavy
vehicles to 5 tons per axle or lower limits, to which garbage haulers typically do not
comply. Therefore, during spring load limits, garbage hauling impacts to city streets
dramatically increases the damage potential.
It is important to note that limiting trash haulers can be very controversial, and restricting
the number of haulers within any city has both positive and negative impacts.
Positives
Negatives
1)
Lessens repetitive heavy loading of
1)
Reduces individual choices available
the roadway section.
to the residents.
2)
Lessens noise from vehicles.
2)
Hurts local haulers.
3)
Lessens gas Consumption and
3)
Favors larger, more national haulers.
exhaust.
4) Increases vehicular safety.
5) Possibility of lowering costs of
service by increasing the consumer
base.
4) Increases difficulty of resolving
issues of service.
5) Places more resporlsibility on
individual trash removal onto City's
staff
Minneapolis • St. Cloud Equat Opportunity Employer
N0I,LV,L,d0dSNHH,L gSAA 0STLLRU9L YVL4 ro:LT au 'cool /SZ /vo
D �►��t iii
Pr -� It is important to note that our analysis of pavement damage due to trash haulers
, incorporated several broad engineering assumptions. However, it is safe to say from an
engineering standpoint that anytime additional loading is placed on any street, especially
due to heavier vehicles, it will shorten pavement design life, which directly correlates to
increased cost to any municipality who is responsible to maintain and/or replace the streets
as necessary.
The analysis to determine the annual damage that one garbage truck has on city streets is a
complicated analysis due to the fact it is heavily dependent on traffic voltanes, ni rnber of
trucks utilizing streets, trash hauling routes, and existing subsoil roadway conditions. In
our analysis, we assumed a typical city street would have approximately 800 vehicles per
day with an existing street section consisting of 3 inches of bituminous, with 6 to 8 inches
of aggregate, which meets a structural strength of 7 tons per axle. The newer city streets
are currently designed for 9 -ton per axle design loading. Life spans of city streets are
typically 20 years and this can be increased with seal coating and overlays, which could
add an additional 15 years of life. The greater the repetitive loading, especially on the
existing older city streets, it could reduce the pavement life between 2 to 5 years and
possibly greater, depending on the number of repetitive loading and the condition of the
subsoil supporting the roadway. Typically, today's city streets cost between $800,000 to
slightly over $1 million per -mile, depending on amenities being constructed on that section
of roadway. By reducing the life of the pavement by one year per lane mi.le, you could
cause rougl,l.y $2,000 to $3,000 of damage per year per lane mile of city streets. For each
year the pavement life is reduced., it is safety to say that these costs only increase as the
number of repetitive loads increase.
v 7�
Respectfully submitted,
W,SB & Associate.
Donald W. Sterna, P.E.
Project Manager
Mad
MQ NOI,LyluodSNvul USAF OfiTLL8ZM Xvd SO :LT dal ZOOZ /LZ /tO
MEMORANDUM
CITY or
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha1I @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 15 August 2001
RE: Resident Survey - Refuse Collection
FILE NO.: 405(Org Refuse Study)
The response on the organized refuse study has been remarkable. To date we have
received 270 surveys back. Although the deadline for turning them in isn't until the end
of the month, we felt you might be interested in the results thus far. Attached is a
tabulation of the responses. We are keeping a running list of the responses to the two
open ended questions, these are attached to the tabulation.
As you are aware, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on 27 August,
announcing its intent to organize refuse collection.
Cc: Craig Dawson
��� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
270 Petitions Received
Resident Survey:
Refuse Collection Services
A.
How do you view the traffic and noise that is generated by the several refuse collection providers that
service your neighborhood?
No
Serious
Problem
1(102) 2 (40) 3 (54) 4 (44)
Problem
5 (34)
B.
How satisfied are you with the fees charged by your current refuse collector?
Very
Very
Dissatisfied 2 ( ) 3 (9 3) 4 (6 0)
15) 38
Satisfied 6 4
( )
C.
How important is it that your refuse collector accept yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, etc.)?
Not
Very
Important
Important
1(81) 2 (26) 3 (23) 4 (48)
5 (98)
D.
How important is it that refuse and recycling be collected on the same day?
Not
Very
Important
1(82) 2 (21) 3 (42) 4 (46)
Important
5 (86)
E.
To what extent do you find it unsightly to have garbage cans out on the street for collection
in your
neighborhood several days a week instead of only one day?
Not
Very
Unsightly
1(77) 2 (32) 3 (45) 4 (38)
Unsightly
5 (84)
F.
To what extent does road damage from garbage trucks concern you?
Not
Very
Concerned
1 51) 2 (27) 3 (44) 4 (55)
Concerned
5 (98)
G.
How important are any "special" services that your current refuse collector provides that others might not
(e.g., back up into driveway, take away yard waste for free, etc.)?
Not
Very
Important
1(69) 2 (31) 3 (3 2) 4 (47)
Important
5 (88)
H.
Of the issues noted above, which 2 do you consider most important to resolve or include in
any future
planning? (Please circle your 2 choices)
A B C D E F G
(52) (69) (79) (81) (64) (79) (65)
I.
Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like to share?
see attache
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the haulin services better?
see attachedlattachedl
K. Would you be willing to switch services in order to have one hauler for your neighborhood? Y N
(153) (84)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey!
Planning Commission
To Conduct Study
On Refuse Hauling
Services
id you know that approximately
$500,000 of Shorewood's $3 mil-
lion annual budget is allocated to
the repair and reconstruction of local streets? Large, heavy trucks are one of the significant
factors contributing to the deterioration of streets. Garbage trucks are among the heaviest
vehicles to travel our roadways. By their nature they travel on the edges of roadways where
pavement is most fragile. Since refuse hauling is a year -round necessity, seasonal weight
restrictions imposed on other heavy vehicles to protect roads during the spring thaw are not
imposed on garbage trucks.
horewood currently licenses four refuse hauling services. In the past, that number has
been as high as 12. For lack of regulation, residents may see multiple hauling services
in their neighborhood on any given day of the week. Separate recycling service adds to
the problem. Aesthetically, the daily presence of curbside trash facilities can become part of
the streetscape.The presence of trash also presents public health concerns.
t the direction of the City Council,the Planning Commission will be conducting a study
of refuse hauling service over the next 12 months. The study will attempt to resolve
/mAthe issues mentioned above. The Planning Commission seeks your involvement in this
process and asks that you please take the time to complete the resident survey on the
reverse side of this page.
esidents are asked to return the survey to City Hall by August 31, 2001, so that the
results can be compiled in early September. Drop off the completed survey or mail
it to:
Refuse Collection Survey
Shorewood City Hall
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
The survey also appears on the City's Web site at:
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you
would like to share?
Some haulers are sloppy and leave refuse in the road.
I like the idea of contracting one hauler. Why have 10 trucks rolling by, each picking up just a few?
Garbage blows out of trucks and left on side of roads.
This seems to be an artificial issue, survey seems slanted to creating an issue and perhaps regulation.
We should have our collector pickup on same day as recycling. Am also concerned about people that don't
recycle in my neighborhood.
Don't try to regulate; let competition amongst the various providers determine ultimate dominance and numbers
We are please with our service.
The Amesbury Assoc. has a big say in what affects Amesbury.
It's not the garbage trucks that are bad on the streets, it's the big gravel and Redi -mix trucks and construction
equipment.
I have very little for garbage pickup because I recycle a lot, however I am charged for pickup even if I have none.
Would switch haulers provided prices do not rise.
I like that there is unregulated competition among haulers. It keeps them fair and provides good service.
I feel we have very professional and thorough handlers. They always take the extras and never leave trash on
the ground.
Keep at least four contractors licensed at all times. Competition solves more problems than you can imagine,
enforcing regulations is expensive and ineffective.
The survey looks like a stacked deck against the small haulers.
Local government should not get involved unless they know the business and don't try to change citizen's
behavior (restricting container size; items picked up, etc.) thru regulations of refuse pickup.
Larger items such as mattresses, used appliances, etc. should be included.
I'm totally in favor of having only one collector in our neighborhood! Thanks!
It's about time the City has decided to simplify this situation. Having less noise and fewer trucks on our roads
would be great!
Please keep BFI as they give great service and are very dependable. BFI picks up the same day as recycling and
we really appreciate that.
This survey and cover letter ask some very leading questions. Obviously, you feel one hauler would be better and
you plan on using this survey to substantiate your decision.
It seems to me the City want to determine who hauls - while I am willing to see the City set limits on the number of
haulers (5 is fine) I am unwilling for Shorewood to determine who we (1) use.
Need choice of container size (one size won't fit all).
I was wondering if a refuse hauler could stop by a Council meeting and load up the Mayor and Councilmembers
and haul them away.
I think if we go with one refuse collector the fee will go way up just like everything else goes up in this City.
Therefore it should be left as is. I don't like being told what to do.
Encourage recycling and composting
The big issue not mentioned is safety for children in the streets. One garbage truck coming through instead of
many big fast trucks.
Waste Management was rude and tried to push us into switching. They were very aggressive when they came to
our door. BFI met WM offer and serve most of our neighbors.
Fewer haulers = higher prices.
Other residents garbage not property contained and blowing in our yard everytime the wind blows.
Middle of week pickup versus Friday pickup.
My neighborhood - The Seasons - has one hauler and is paid by Association.
I use Blackowiak who uses 1 large truck and several smaller ones to collect. Therefore they are quiet and road
damage minimal and are fairly priced.
We have a zillion school buses on our street all school year (Strawberry Ln). It seems petty to worry about a few
garbage trucks. Also, to make refuse hauling a monopoly seems unfair to the business.
This seems to be an effort to solve a non - problem. I'm satisfied with BFI prices and service (unlimited trash and
yard waste included with full service)
Handicapped and seniors with arthritis have to walk long private driveways to put trash out on street for
pickup.Use smaller companies with small trucks that offer valet service.
Please maintain competition - do not limit to one or two haulers.
We live in a closed area - only one service now.
Boulder Bridge already has organized one hauler - same day as recycling.
One hauler - save the roads - lower fees
It's crazy to have more than one refuse hauler per neighborhood.
The recycling service in Shorewood has impolite employees who block the road and don't yield to traffic.
I would like to see City- contracted hauler and bill with utilities.
Monopolies do not allow competitive prices. The consumer loses their choice. Standardizing garbage services
will not save $. Ice, snow and salt also cause damage. This survey has a subjective bias.
Would want hauler to come to house.
There should be a choice of only 2 companies and same day pickup for all.
Many children out playing and many different trucks are more dangerous than just 1 per week.
If everyone uses same hauler collection may be later in day. I like it collected early, especially in summer.
Competition is healthy.
Getting rid of branches from storms and just ordinary chopping or shredding of branches.
The recycling contractor is a SLOB.
I live in Amesbury and we only have 2 haulers - recyclables and garbage, so this doesn't affect us.
All residences should be same day. We use smaller can and recycle more.
We would like to have a light weight truck that picks up at the house which is several 100 yards from end of street
where pickup currently occurs.
Environmental impact of emissions and fuel consumption should be considered in this study.
I would switch hauler if yard waste is included and cost is fair.
Some refuse services pickup too early (4:00 a.m.)
Am concerned about increased fees with less competition.
Keep it competitive. Going to 1 hauler will result in poor service. Keep 3 -5 haulers for same day in a given
neighborhood.
Many of them drive too fast and the recyclers just throw stuff and don't care what lands in the streets.
Cost is very important.
Even just reducing to 2 carriers would help.
Prefer pickup day early in the week.
We believe in free enterprise. How much $ are we spending on this survey?
I've mentioned this issue to several people & wonder why it has taken you so long to address this. This is very
important.
I like the fact that we were able to choose which service to use. Competition is good for prices.!
Need smaller trucks to come down our driveway.
Impolite workers recycler breaking glass and not cleaning up.
Driving out competition will result in higher prices and worse service!
We find it important to be able to talk to a "person" about "special situations ".
We need a choice of dumpster size.
Switching depends on price.
Fees are somewhat excessive. City should negotiate lower fees.
Waste Tech Inc.is very courteous and a pleasure to do biz with compared to other companies.
I already pay in my garbage bill for leave and refuse. I don't like paying for the City cleanup again when I've
already had everything picked up.
It is essential that we continue to have Christmas tree pickup.
Truck speed on residential streets is too high and dangerous.
Our Homeowner Association fees include the cost of our neighborhood hauler.
4a.m. Mondays noise of diesel motor and compactor - they could pickup after kids go to school!
No choice of hauler will be like a Mediacom. Large hauler will have their way with us!!!
Do taxpayers realize that their taxes for road repair increase because of so many garbage trucks?
The City should contract 1 hauler to decrease price, increase safety, and save the streets. Thanks for asking!!
Need better control to prevent trash from flying out of trucks.
The streets in Shorewood are really bad, so the garbage trucks don't hurt the roads anyway.
I don't want to see Waste Mgmt or BFI take over.
I think it's important that smaller companies not be driven out of business by BFI, for example.
Having the City help would be like a dry hydrant - pay for it but don't need it. Absolutely no value.
We have a problem with recycling pickup - breaking glass and leaving it on the streets where children play.
Would like system like Hopkins and Bloomington.
Use the purchasing power of the City to ngeotiate one carrier at more attractive rates.
I want to maintain my choice of haulers.
Get the haulers down to one day a week.
Your agenda is very transparent.
I would like all trash picked up on the same day.
Don't like monopolys - would rather have free enterprise. Keep rates lower with competition.
It would be nice to be charged on the basis of how much garbage you put out.
I hope this is not another phony survey (like the snowmobile survey) with an already calculated outcome.
Want hauler to come up to house as they do now.
Our agreement with our current hauler does not allow us to switch - a controlled fee agreement.
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better?
Hire one company to do it all.
Bid one hauler for the City or areas of the City.
Should have a choice of haulers.
Switching depends on service and fees
Use smaller trucks -they are safer for children also.
Use smaller "satellite" trucks so heavy trucks aren't always on the road.
Get annual or semi - annual quotes from several haulers and only use one service for the entire City.
Our road has 3 different haulers - 1 would be nice, unless it's a lot more $.
BFI is the only hauler we've had that is dependable, doesn't leave garbage in the area, is fairly quiet. We don't
want to lose that. If Shorewood were to go with just one hauler, that would be our choice. Most of us on our
block have BFI.
One uniform day would be helpful.
Keep it as competitive as possible.
Let the competition stand.
Would switch haulers if not more expensive.
Would switch if cost and service where the same.
Perhaps keep two companies to there are choices and competitive prices or if only one company, don't let the
prices skyrocket!
Keep free enterprise! Don't create a monopoly and stay away from my decision to choose who I want!
Provide by City and include in our taxes which we pay.
Keep it as is.
Reduced number of haulers would be an act of sanity (no pun intended)
Leave government out of it - let market forces operate as is. This survey is a stupid waste of taxpayer's money.
Have Shorewood contract one company renewable each year or two to keep the competition up and cost down.
I like the idea of trash & recycling on same day.
Reduce number of haulers please.
We own several rental properties in Mpls and required to use City contractors. They are surly employees, loud
trucks, careless, and have attitude because we have no choice!
Continue with choice of hauler /service, etc.
Have the companies bid for entire neighborhoods rather than a few houses and pay percentage toward road
maintenance.
Restrict garbage collection to certain day -same as recycling.
Prices should be lower if hauling is all done in same area at one time.
The noise and road damage by many haulers is horrible. Wasteful and expensive.
It is fine the way it is. It is a free country.
One service for everyone!!
Collect refuse and recycling on same day.
Have neighborhoods, not the City, work together to consolidate services if they so desire.
Would like garbage and recycling on same day.
More competition.
Have the City take it over.
Because of truck weight we place our can at top of driveway
Have 1 hauler using weight- restricted vehicle to spare the road.
I worked 8 years in refuse industry & am willing to share my expertise (Deb Osgood 470 -8027)
One hauler! Plus safety issues with all these large trucks every day.
Make the trucks smaller and one collector. How about the City doing it?
Garbage fees should be collected on a per lb. basis.Then families who recycle would be rewarded for their effort.
Same hauler for each neighborhood on same day as recycling. Would switch if price is same as current.
Am very satisfied with BFI.
One service for the street /road.
If a neighborhood all used one service which came twice a week we would not have overflowing trash flying all
over the streets.
Have one service pickup same day in entire neighborhood, all have same can, like we used to have in Hopkins.
One hauler will create lack of competition and ultimately the consumer will lose.
BFI has done our trash for 13 yrs with no problems.
Condition permits on the haulers collecting on a specific day for Shorewood, not any day they choose.
Allow us people to choose who we want to use and leave the system as is.
Prefer pickup at beginning of week.
We like who we have - we find them reasonable and customer friendly. We use Waste Tech.
How about allowing a 50% discount for pickup every other week?
Waste Tech is most reasonable of all collectors.
Expand choice but regulate service standards and performance.
Do not want rates to increase if we switched.
Stay out of the competitive market city hall.
Switching depends on no price increase.
Require haulers to use trucks suited to automatic dumpster pickup.
Do not want rates to increase if we switched.
Select the hauler on a bid system with specs and penalties for non - performance.
Have option for smaller container size.
Have Waste Tech fix their brake, the truck squeaks loudly when stopping.
One day for all garbage /recycling with one or more carriers.
On Eureka Rd garbage trucks are incidental to the traffic valume as is the case on many main arteries.
Have one winner of bidding process.
Would switch if cost and service where the same.
Switching depends on the cost. Discussion needed.
How come Excelsior has water, sewer and garbage billed quarterly at such a low rate?
You might look at construction traffice, inccreased housing density and over - development. This is suppose to be
a free economy & market place with choices.
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
5C
4C
3C
21
1(
A. How do you view the traffic and noise that is generated by the several refuse collection providers
that service your neighborhood?
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1C
C
1 2 3 4 5
NoProblem 1 .................... ............................... 5 Serious Problem
B. How satisfied are you with the fees charged by your current refuse collector?
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
2C
1C
2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied 1 .................... ............................... 5 Very Satisfied
C. How important is it that your refuse collector accept yard waste (e.g. leaves, lawn clippings,
etc.)?
108
1 2 3 4 0
Not Important 1 ....................... ............................... 5 Very Important
Pg. 1
Nw
m
78
x
58
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
1C
C
1 2 3 4 5
NoProblem 1 .................... ............................... 5 Serious Problem
B. How satisfied are you with the fees charged by your current refuse collector?
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
SO
40
30
2C
1C
2 3 4 5
Very Dissatisfied 1 .................... ............................... 5 Very Satisfied
C. How important is it that your refuse collector accept yard waste (e.g. leaves, lawn clippings,
etc.)?
108
1 2 3 4 0
Not Important 1 ....................... ............................... 5 Very Important
Pg. 1
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
D. How important is it that refuse and recycling be collected on the same day?
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
t 2 3 4 5
Not important 1 ....................... ............................... 5 Very Important
E. To what extent do you find it unsightly to have garbage cans out on the street for collection in your
neighborhood several days a week instead of only one day?
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Not Unsightly 1 ......................... ............................... 5 Very Unsightly
F. To what extent does road damage from garbage trucks concern you?
1 2 3 4 5
Not concerned 7 ...................... ..............................5 Very concerned
Pg. 1
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
G. How important are any "special" services that your current refuse collector provides that others might
not (e.g. enter driveway, take yard waste for free)?
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1 2 3 4 5
Not Important 1 ........................ ............................... 5 Very Important
H. Of the issues noted (A - G), which 2 do you consider most important to resolve or include in any future
planning? (select 2 choices)
A B C D E F G
Questions A through G
K. Would you be willing to switch services in order to have one hauler for your neighborhood?
201
104
YES NO
Pg. 1
117
As
w
42
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1 2 3 4 5
Not Important 1 ........................ ............................... 5 Very Important
H. Of the issues noted (A - G), which 2 do you consider most important to resolve or include in any future
planning? (select 2 choices)
A B C D E F G
Questions A through G
K. Would you be willing to switch services in order to have one hauler for your neighborhood?
201
104
YES NO
Pg. 1
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
Some haulers are sloppy and leave refuse in the road.
I like the idea of contracting one hauler. Why have 10 trucks rolling by, each picking up just a few?
Garbage blows out of trucks and left on side of roads.
This seems to be an artificial issue, survey seems slanted to creating an issue and perhaps regulation.
We should have our collector pickup on same day as recycling. Am also concerned about people that don't
recycle in my neighborhood.
Don't try to regulate; let competition amongst the various providers determine ultimate dominance and numbers
We are please with our service.
The Amesbury Assoc. has a big say in what affects Amesbury.
It's not the garbage trucks that are bad on the streets, it's the big gravel and Redi -mix trucks and construction
equipment.
I have very little for garbage pickup because I recycle a lot, however I am charged for pickup even if I have none.
Would switch haulers provided prices do not rise.
I like that there is unregulated competition among haulers. It keeps them fair and provides good service.
I feel we have very professional and thorough handlers. They always take the extras and never leave trash on
the ground.
Keep at least four contractors licensed at all times. Competition solves more problems than you can imagine,
enforcing regulations is expensive and ineffective.
The survey looks like a stacked deck against the small haulers.
Local government should not get involved unless they know the business and don't try to change citizen's
behavior (restricting container size; items picked up, etc.) thru regulations of refuse pickup.
Larger items such as mattresses, used appliances, etc. should be included.
I'm totally in favor of having only one collector in our neighborhood! Thanks!
It's about time the City has decided to simplify this situation. Having less noise and fewer trucks on our roads
would be great!
Please keep BFI as they give great service and are very dependable. BFI picks up the same day as recycling and
we really appreciate that.
This survey and cover letter ask some very leading questions. Obviously, you feel one hauler would be better and
you plan on using this survey to substantiate your decision.
Page 1 of 7
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
It seems to me the City want to determine who hauls - while I am willing to see the City set limits on the number of
haulers (5 is fine) I am unwilling for Shorewood to determine who we (1) use.
Need choice of container size (one size won't fit all).
I was wondering if a refuse hauler could stop by a Council meeting and load up the Mayor and Councilmembers
and haul them away.
I think if we go with one refuse collector the fee will go way up just like everything else goes up in this City.
Therefore it should be left as is. I don't like being told what to do.
Encourage recycling and composting.
The big issue not mentioned is safety for children in the streets. One garbage truck coming through instead of
many big fast trucks.
Waste Management was rude and tried to push us into switching. They were very aggressive when they came to
our door. BFI met WM offer and serve most of our neighbors.
Fewer haulers = higher prices.
Other residents garbage not property contained and blowing in our yard everytime the wind blows.
Middle of week pickup versus Friday pickup.
My neighborhood - The Seasons - has one hauler and is paid by Association.
I use Blackowiak who uses 1 large truck and several smaller ones to collect. Therefore they are quiet and road
damage minimal and are fairly priced.
We have a zillion school buses on our street all school year (Strawberry Ln). It seems petty to worry about a few
garbage trucks. Also, to make refuse hauling a monopoly seems unfair to the business.
This seems to be an effort to solve a non - problem. I'm satisfied with BFI prices and service (unlimited trash and
yard waste included with full service)
Handicapped and seniors with arthritis have to walk long private driveways to put trash out on street for
pickup.Use smaller companies with small trucks that offer valet service.
Please maintain competition - do not limit to one or two haulers.
We live in a closed area - only one service now.
Boulder Bridge already has organized one hauler - same day as recycling.
One hauler - save the roads - lower fees
It's crazy to have more than one refuse hauler per neighborhood.
The recycling service in Shorewood has impolite employees who block the road and don't yield to traffic.
Page 2 of 7
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
I would like to see City- contracted hauler and bill with utilities.
Monopolies do not allow competitive prices. The consumer loses their choice. Standardizing garbage services
will not save $. Ice, snow and salt also cause damage. This survey has a subjective bias.
Would want hauler to come to house.
There should be a choice of only 2 companies and same day pickup for all.
Many children out playing and many different trucks are more dangerous than just 1 per week.
If everyone uses same hauler collection may be later in day. I like it collected early, especially in summer.
Competition is healthy.
Getting rid of branches from storms and just ordinary chopping or shredding of branches.
The recycling contractor is a SLOB.
I live in Amesbury and we only have 2 haulers - recyclables and garbage, so this doesn't affect us.
All residences should be same day. We use smaller can and recycle more.
We would like to have a light weight truck that picks up at the house which is several 100 yards from end of street
where pickup currently occurs.
Environmental impact of emissions and fuel consumption should be considered in this study.
I would switch hauler if yard waste is included and cost is fair.
Some refuse services pickup too early (4:00 a.m.)
Am concerned about increased fees with less competition.
Keep it competitive. Going to 1 hauler will result in poor service. Keep 3 -5 haulers for same day in a given
neighborhood.
Many of them drive too fast and the recyclers just throw stuff and don't care what lands in the streets.
Cost is very important.
Even just reducing to 2 carriers would help.
Prefer pickup day early in the week.
We believe in free enterprise. How much $ are we spending on this survey?
Page 3 of 7
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
I've mentioned this issue to several people & wonder why it has taken you so long to address this. This is very
important.
I like the fact that we were able to choose which service to use. Competition is good for prices.!
Need smaller trucks to come down our driveway.
Impolite workers recycler breaking glass and not cleaning up.
Driving out competition will result in higher prices and worse service!
We find it important to be able to talk to a "person" about "special situations ".
We need a choice of dumpster size.
Switching depends on price.
Fees are somewhat excessive. City should negotiate lower fees.
Waste Tech Inc.is very courteous and a pleasure to do biz with compared to other companies.
I already pay in my garbage bill for leave and refuse. I don't like paying for the City cleanup again when I've
already had everything picked up.
It is essential that we continue to have Christmas tree pickup.
Truck speed on residential streets is too high and dangerous.
Our Homeowner Association fees include the cost of our neighborhood hauler.
4a.m. Mondays noise of diesel motor and compactor - they could pickup after kids go to school!
No choice of hauler will be like a Mediacom. Large hauler will have their way with us!!!
Do taxpayers realize that their taxes for road repair increase because of so many garbage trucks?
The City should contract 1 hauler to decrease price, increase safety, and save the streets. Thanks for asking!!
Need better control to prevent trash from flying out of trucks.
The streets in Shorewood are really bad, so the garbage trucks don't hurt the roads anyway.
I don't want to see Waste Mgmt or BFI take over.
I think it's important that smaller companies not be driven out of business by BFI, for example.
Page 4of7
1. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
Having the City help would be like a dry hydrant - pay for it but don't need it. Absolutely no value.
We have a problem with recycling pickup - breaking glass and leaving it on the streets where children play.
Would like system like Hopkins and Bloomington.
Use the purchasing power of the City to negotiate one carrier at more attractive rates.
1 want to maintain my choice of haulers.
Get the haulers down to one day a week.
Your agenda is very transparent.
I would like all trash picked up on the same day.
Don't like monopolys - would rather have free enterprise. Keep rates lower with competition.
It would be nice to be charged on the basis of how much garbage you put out.
I hope this is not another phony survey (like the snowmobile survey) with an already calculated outcome.
Want hauler to come up to house as they do now.
Our agreement with our current hauler does not allow us to switch - a controlled fee agreement.
Want "valet" service at a reasonable rate since we have a very long driveway.
Need door service.
One service provider - reviewed annually.
Need city -wide service thru one company only with no charge for extra items if their container isn't big enough.
Limiting haulers takes away competitive prices.
I like my garbage company. Don't mess it up.
Would switch service if present service can be maintained (WM).
I agree we have a lot of trucks throughout each day, but I like my present hauler (BFI).
Will switch service if the same price.
Page 5 of 7
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
We do not want the City to dictate which service we must use.
I thinks it's important to look into what happens to the trash after it leaves our homes - where it goes and how it's
handled.
Have yard waste taken to composting site.
Let's limit the number of haulers and give them two days to collect!
If the City takes over, the charges cannot exceed the least expensive hauler. Yard waste must be included.
Tell them all to drive slower - there are a lot of young children in the area.
This seems like a big waste of time and money. I am sure there are more important things to focus on!!
We currently use a smaller company. I do not like the large firms. Keep competition!
The cost must be considerably less and guaranteed that the price would not be raised for at least 3 - 5 years.
Recycle collectors are JERKS!
More then one hauler is a waste of resources (fuel), adds to air & noise pollution, should be able to do cheaper on
a bid basis.
Acceptance of yard waste is very important.
It would be nice if one hauler could do garbage and recycle. Might help road problem too.
Would only change hauler if fees do not increase.
I like Waste Technology and won't accept any other.
Will switch only at the right price and good service.
A garbage truck should never drive or backup into a residential driveway without prior approval by resident.
Curbs in our Shorewood streets would be a tremendous benefit - save City money and prevent careless driving
on the shoulders causing unsightly deep ruts!
Use 4 -5 services with separate routes (rotate as needed) then charge the average cost. Let competitive pricing
determine which haulers are used on a yearly basis.
If I pay for service I want to choose who and what kind is provided. I also want to be able to change service if I
am dissatisfied.
Making my own decision about hauler is most important issue. Competition is good. If it isn't broke - don't fix it!
The recycling service is terrible. Drops trash in yard weekly.
Page 6 of 7
I. Do you have any issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like
to share?
I must have yard waste pickup!
Don't want to lose competitive fees and service.
Same company goes past our house 2 -3 times a week. Why not have one pickup day for all customers on the
street to save trips for the hauler.
Page 7 of 7
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better?
Hire one company to do it all.
Bid one hauler for the City or areas of the City.
Should have a choice of haulers.
Switching depends on service and fees
Use smaller trucks -they are safer for children also.
Use smaller "satellite" trucks so heavy trucks aren't always on the road.
Get annual or semi - annual quotes from several haulers and only use one service for the entire City.
Our road has 3 different haulers - 1 would be nice, unless it's a lot more $.
BFI is the only hauler we've had that is dependable, doesn't leave garbage in the area, is fairly quiet. We don't
want to lose that. If Shorewood were to go with just one hauler, that would be our choice. Most of us on our
block have BFI.
One uniform day would be helpful.
Keep it as competitive as possible.
Let the competition stand.
Would switch haulers if not more expensive.
Would switch if cost and service where the same.
Perhaps keep two companies to there are choices and competitive prices or if only one company, don't let the
prices skyrocket!
Keep free enterprise! Don't create a monopoly and stay away from my decision to choose who I want!
Provide by City and include in our taxes which we pay.
Keep it as is.
Reduced number of haulers would be an act of sanity (no pun intended)
Leave government out of it - let market forces operate as is. This survey is a stupid waste of taxpayer's money.
Have Shorewood contract one company renewable each year or two to keep the competition up and cost down.
I like the idea of trash & recycling on same day.
Page 1 of 4
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better?
Reduce number of haulers please.
We own several rental properties in Mpls and required to use City contractors. They are surly employees, loud
trucks, careless, and have attitude because we have no choice!
Continue with choice of hauler /service, etc.
Have the companies bid for entire neighborhoods rather than a few houses and pay percentage toward road
maintenance.
Restrict garbage collection to certain day -same as recycling.
Prices should be lower if hauling is all done in same area at one time.
The noise and road damage by many haulers is horrible. Wasteful and expensive.
It is fine the way it is. It is a free country.
One service for everyone!!
Collect refuse and recycling on same day.
Have neighborhoods, not the City, work together to consolidate services if they so desire.
Would like garbage and recycling on same day.
More competition.
Have the City take it over.
Because of truck weight we place our can at top of driveway
Have 1 hauler using weight- restricted vehicle to spare the road.
I worked 8 years in refuse industry & am willing to share my expertise (Deb Osgood 470 -8027)
One hauler! Plus safety issues with all these large trucks every day.
Make the trucks smaller and one collector. How about the City doing it?
Garbage fees should be collected on a per lb. basis.Then families who recycle would be rewarded for their effort.
Same hauler for each neighborhood on same day as recycling. Would switch if price is same as current.
Am very satisfied with BFI.
Page 2 of 4
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better?
One service for the street /road.
If a neighborhood all used one service which came twice a week we would not have overflowing trash flying all
over the streets.
Have one service pickup same day in entire neighborhood, all have same can, like we used to have in Hopkins.
One hauler will create lack of competition and ultimately the consumer will lose.
BFI has done our trash for 13 yrs with no problems.
Condition permits on the haulers collecting on a specific day for Shorewood, not any day they choose.
Allow us people to choose who we want to use and leave the system as is.
Prefer pickup at beginning of week.
We like who we have - we find them reasonable and customer friendly. We use Waste Tech.
How about allowing a 50% discount for pickup every other week?
Waste Tech is most reasonable of all collectors.
Expand choice but regulate service standards and performance.
Do not want rates to increase if we switched.
Stay out of the competitive market city hall.
Switching depends on no price increase.
Require haulers to use trucks suited to automatic dumpster pickup.
Do not want rates to increase if we switched.
Select the hauler on a bid system with specs and penalties for non - performance.
Have option for smaller container size.
Have Waste Tech fix their brake, the truck squeaks loudly when stopping.
One day for all garbage /recycling with one or more carriers.
On Eureka Rd garbage trucks are incidental to the traffic valume as is the case on many main arteries.
Page 3 of 4
J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better?
Have one winner of bidding process.
Would switch if cost and service where the same.
Switching depends on the cost. Discussion needed.
How come Excelsior has water, sewer and garbage billed quarterly at such a low rate?
You might look at construction traffice, inccreased housing density and over - development. This is suppose to be
a free economy & market place with choices.
One day pickup for the whole neighborhood.
Let the City provide it with our taxes.
Make everyone use my guy. Waste Technology.
Need haulers who use small trucks (golf cart size) that take the trash to bigger trucks.
Be consistent in time and days of pickup.
Keep competition.
Have a place to take garbage if we don't want to need a hauler. Haul your own and charge a dump fee.
Approve only one hauler or split Shorewood into areas with 1 hauler for each.
Contract for one hauler should be much more efficient.
Keep the City out of this.
One hauler should be able to provide good service at a lower cost due to the volume of customers in a
concentrated area.
Leave as is - Shorewood residents choice of haulers makes if better.
Re -bid every three years with one company providing all services.
Reduce # of carriers available.
Half trash - half recycling - in same truck.
Best to have competing companies to keep prices reasonable.
Require haulers to set same day of pickup for all customers on each street.
Page 4of4
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 474 -3236
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 14 June 2001
RE: Organized Refuse Collection
FILE NO.: 405 (Comp Plan — Comm. Fac.)
Much conversation has taken place over the past several years regarding refuse collection
in the City of Shorewood. Most frequently the discussion has centered on the wear and
tear on city streets. The second most talked about issue is the City's current lack of
regulations that would limit the days on which garbage cans appear on the curb.
City officials have determined that it is time for a detailed study of organized refuse
collection. Minnesota statutes 115A.94 (see Exhibit A, attached) sets forth a procedure
that cities must follow in any attempt to organize refuse collection services. Exhibit B
illustrates a one -year timeline suggested by the Planning Commission for studying the
issue, developing, then implementing plans for organized refuse collection. Pursuant to
statutory requirements, the City will hold a hearing in August, announcing its intent to
consider organizing refuse collection. In July notice of the hearing will be published in
the official newspaper and sent to all known solid waste collectors operating within the
City of Shorewood. Subsequent to the public hearing, the Council will adopt a resolution
announcing its intent to organize, and inviting all interested parties to participate in
planning and establishing the collection system.
Between now and the public hearing, the Planning Commission will assemble
background information, identify issues relative to refuse collection, and formulate goals
and objectives for the study. Exhibit C is an excerpt from the Community Facilities
Chapter of the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 507 of the City Code is
attached as Exhibit D.
tF� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: Organized Refuse Collection Study
14 June 2001
There appear to be two key issues relative to refuse collection within the community: 1)
long -term damage to city streets; and 2) the presence of refuse containers at the curb on
any given day of the week. While it may be difficult to quantify the damage done to
streets, there is believed to be ample information available to support a determination that
refuse trucks are among the most damaging vehicles to roadways. In terms of
background it is recommended that the City Engineer provide the following:
• Comparisons of the weights of various vehicles
- automobiles
- pick -up trucks
- single -axle delivery trucks (e.g. UPS)
- school buses
- garbage trucks
- snowplows
• Information on the accumulative effects of heavy vehicles on roadways
• Annual budget for road repair and reconstruction
As part of the background for the study, the Planning Commission has suggested that a
survey of Shorewood residents be conducted to determine what demands or expectations
they have for refuse collection services. An initial draft of the survey is shown on
Exhibit E, attached. At the last Planning Commission meeting it was suggested that the
survey be incorporated with utility bills for maximum exposure and response. The
Finance Department has indicated that this would impractical, since the bills are sent out
in post card format. Consequently, staff intends to place the survey in the City's monthly
newsletter. It may be possible to print a short notice on the utility bill cards, requesting
that residents watch for the survey in the newsletter. Please do not hesitate to add to the
list of questions to be included in the survey. The survey will be discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting on 19 June.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Craig Dawson
Larry Brown
Bonnie Burton
-2-
915 WASTE MANAGEMENT 115A.94
(c) An administrative penalty imposed under section 116.072 for a violation of subdivi-
sion 1 by a generator of household hazardous waste, as defined in section 115A.96, may not
exceed $700.
History: 1992 c 560 s 1; 1993 c 249. s 19; 1997 c 62 s 1; 1997 c 216 s 98
115A.935 SOLID WASTE GENERATED OUTSIDE OF MINNESOTA.
No person shall transport into or deposit in this state, for the purpose of processing or
disposal, solid waste that was generated in another state, unless the waste:
(1) meets all the solid waste management regulations of the state in which it was gener-
ated; and
(2) contains none of the items specifically banned from mixed municipal solid waste in
this state, including waste tires, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, waste lead acid batteries,
yard waste, major appliances, and any other item specifically banned from the waste stream
under this chapter.
History: 1991 c 337 s 45; 1993 c 249 s 61
ORGANIZED AND MANDATORY COLLECTION
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 autho-
rized 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 notifica-
tion as required in subdivision 4; A county may organize collection as provided in subdivi-
sion 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 oth-
er 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 recycla-
ble 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, sepa-
rated 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 per-
sons, including persons licensed to operate solid waste collection services in the local gov-
ernment 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 in
-
elude a requirement that all or any portion of the 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 districi or county where a resource recovery facility has been des-
ignated by ordinance under section 115A.86, organized collection must conform to the re-
quirements'of the designation ordinance.
Subd. 4. Cities and towns ; "notice; planning. (a) At least 180 days before implement -
ing 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.
Exhibit A
MINNESOTA STATUTES GOVERNING
ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
115A.94 WASTE MANAGEMENT 916
(c) During a 90—day period following the resolution of intent, the city or town shall de-
velop 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 per-
sons licensed as of the date of the resolution of intent to operate solid waste collection ser-
vices 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 theperson the opportuni-
ty 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 col-
lectors.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 sub-
division 3.
(e) The city or town shall make specific findings that:
(1) 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:
(1) require cities and towns to require the separation and separate collection of recycla-
ble 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 subdivi-
sion, 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 author-
ity 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 regu-
lation 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
A -Z
917 WASTE MANAGEMENT 115A.951
collection under this section are authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the ex-
tent necessary to plan and implement the organized collection system, provided that the
political subdivision actively supervises the participation of each entity. An organization, en-
tity, 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
115A.941 SOLID.WASTE; REQUIRED COLLECTION.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), each city, and town described in section 368.01,
with a population of 1.,000 or more, and any other town with a population of.5,000 or more
shall ensure that every residential household and business in the city or town has solid 'waste
ollection service. To comply with this section, a city or town may organize collection; pro-
. vide collection, or require by ordinance that every household and business has a contract for
collection services. An ordinance adopted under this section must provide for enforcement.
(b) A city or town described in paragraph (a) may exempt a residential household or
business in the city or town from the requirement to have solid waste collection service if the
household or business ensures that an environmentally sound alternative is used.
(c) To the extent practicable, the costs incurred by a city or town under this section must
be incorporated into the collection system or the enforcement mechanisms adopted under
this section by the city or town.
History: 1991 c 337s 47; 1993 c 249 s 22
VISIBLE COSTS
115A.945 VISIBLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS.
Any political subdivision that provides or pays for the costs of collection or disposal of
solid waste shall, through a billing or other system, make the prorated share of those costs. for
each solid waste generator visible and obvious to the generator...
History: 1Sp1989 c I art 20 s 9
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS PROHIBITED FROM CERTAIN FACILITIES
115A.95 RECYCLABLE MATERIALS.
A disposal facility or a resource recovery facility that is composting waste, burning
waste, or converting waste to energy or to materials for combustion`may not accept source —
separated recyclable materials, and a solid waste collector or transporter may not deliver
source — separated recyclable materials to such a facility, except for recycling or transfer to a
recycler, unless the director determines that no other person is willing to accept the recycla-
ble materials.
History: 1985 c 274 s 13; 1987 c 348 s 28; 1994 c 585 s.26
TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
115A.951 TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES.
Subdivision 1. Definition. For the purposes of this section, a "telephone directory"
means a printed list of residential, governmental, or commercial telephone service subscrib-
ers or users, or a combination of subscribers or users, that contains more than 7,500 listings
and is distributed to the subscribers or users.
Subd. 2. Prohibition. A person may not place a telephone directory:
(1) in solid waste;
(2) in a disposal facility; or
(3) in a resource recovery facility, except a recycling facility.
A-1
cn
W
U
O
L
n
c
O
`W
^T`
'A )
ry
a)
N
Al
L
Q
Q
U
U
U
a
U
7
a
L
0
O
Q i�
C=
O
Cn
E
U C aa)
c o 2
'E U .�
a U a
U U 2
aUa
go-
X
W
W
U]
Lid
W
O
U U
�
a U
a�
LL
,
,
,
,
CN
,
,
i
O
'
,
C6
i
U
,
,
,
,
,
'
�
N
,
U
U
U
o
a
Z
U
,
,
'
0
,
,
,
i1
i
i
(V
,
U
,
i
U
CD
Q
a -k
'
,
T
U
a
,
'
,
'
c
,
o
,
,
,
'
,
T
co
'
i
G
'
,
,
,
O
�
� (V
U
N
'
0 ' Z
O
c
N
to
co
N
C
c: .g N0
L
U L (0
O
O
_
O
p
O
C=
N
.0 L
Y
O
'C3 <o . V
ID
oa _
O C
N —
q
cn
is
0 C:
N O O
N
Oc
eC
(o ^'
U
m12 a
az aQ
Da I
UaJ
U
U
U
a
U
7
a
L
0
O
Q i�
C=
O
Cn
E
U C aa)
c o 2
'E U .�
a U a
U U 2
aUa
go-
X
W
W
U]
Lid
W
O
Public Safety
Provision of municipal services is one area in which South Lake Minnetonka communities have
come to realize that benefits are to be had by combining resources. Shorewood receives police
service from the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department which consists of four
communities - Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Excelsior and Greenwood. Cost sharing has gone from a
formula based on assessed valuation, population, road miles and density for each participating
community, to a totally demand -based formula.
The South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department is considered to be far superior to
anything that could be feasibly provided by any one of the participating communities on an
individual basis and is considered to be a model of intergovernmental cooperation. It is
recommended that Shorewood continue its joint powers agreement with the three above -
mentioned communities in providing police protection to city residents.
Fire Protection for Shorewood is contracted from the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Department.
While some question exists as to how much voice Shorewood should have in department policy
as compared to its share of operating cost, it would not be as cost - effective for Shorewood to
attempt to provide this service on its own. The location of the Excelsior Fire Department is
considered suitable for Shorewood's needs. The entire city (except for the islands) is within a
four -mile radius from the fire department. Four miles is the suggested standard for rural homes
and low density suburban areas with densities. of less than three units per acre.
A report prepared by the Excelsior Special Fire Review Committee points out serious
deficiencies in the current department, including staffing, firefighter pay, age and capability of
equipment, apparatus, and fire station. The City should continue to work with the four other
cities served by the department to resolve the issues raised in the Committee's report.
Enchanted Island and Shady Island are provided fire protection through a contract with the City
of Mound. Fire fighting on the islands poses a problem due to lack of city water and the narrow,
circuitous access to them. To enhance protection a system of dry hydrants has been installed
which utilizes lake water and pumper trucks. Placement of three hydrants, as shown on the
following page, should eliminate the need to backtrack to Mound to fill tank trucks.
Solid Waste
As mentioned in the Transportation Chapter, garbage trucks have been identified as inflicting
more damage to city streets than any other type of vehicle. Current regulations are ineffective in
reducing the weight of trucks or the number of them. In response to this issue the City has
examined several alternatives, ranging from simply requiring the use of smaller satellite trucks,
to municipal refuse collection.
It has been determined that the most cost - effective solution is to organize collection into four to
six districts of the city. Each district would be bid competitively by private haulers. The result
of this system would be much greater efficiency, with only one truck being able to make all the
collections on any given street.
Exhibit C
8/99 CF- 29 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REFERENCES
In addition to reducing costly wear and tear on city streets, there are secondary benefits to
organized collection: 1) most communities which have instituted organized collection have
experienced better prices for refuse hauling services; 2) recycling services can be included in the
bidding process, possibly resulting in some cost savings; and 3) refuse pickup can be limited to
one specified day of the week, eliminating the presence of curbside refuse on the remaining days.
Natural Gas, Electrical Service, Cable Television and Street Lighting
All areas of the community are currently serviced by natural gas, electricity and cable television
service, or have them available. As such, provision of these services will not influence
development in Shorewood. The thrust of these efforts should be concentrated toward
elimination of overhead wiring. It is recommended that in reviewing development requests the
City should require, where practical, the underground placement of all utilities. In previously
developed areas, plans for placement of underground utilities should be incorporated with future
roadway improvements. The City may also want to initiate a more aggressive program for
systematically eliminating overhead wiring within the next 10 to 15 years.
Residents appear to be split on the issue of street lighting. Consequently, no comprehensive
program of installing street lights is suggested. The City has adopted the following policies in
response to neighborhood demands for street lighting:
1. Location. The City recognizes that street lighting in certain Iocations is necessary
to promote safe travel for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. However, it is not the
intent of the City to install street lights for the purpose of deterring criminal
activity. Based on this the City will consider the authorization of placing street
lights on city streets only at: 1) intersections; 2) the ends of cul -de -sacs; 3) sharp
turns; and 4) steep grades.
2. Requests for street lighting. While requests will be considered from any resident,
it is recommended that a petition of neighboring residents be submitted with the
request.
3. Cost of street lighting. The City agrees to pay the cost of monthly electric service
for an authorized street light. It will not pay for the installation of the light or for
extending power to the proposed location of the light, or for any light other than a
standard street light.
Municipal Buildings
In 1988 the City Administrative Offices were expanded and are now considered adequate to
serve future needs. Only the size of the Council Chambers remains an issue. Adequate room
exists to expand this meeting room to the north. A site improvement program for the City
Hall/Badger Field site, including removal of the old public works garage, reconstruction of the
parking lot, and landscaping, has been completed. Reconstruction or remodeling of the Badger
pump house building remains to be done.
The City completed construction of a new public works facility in 1992. In addition to a new
garage, a long- awaited salt/sand storage building was added. The new facility has more and
better space for outdoor storage which has been screened from view of nearby residential
8/99 CF- 31 G _ 7
507.01 507.02
CHAPTER 507
REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
SECTION:
507.01: Definitions
507.02: General Regulations
507.03: Disposal Required
507.04: Containers
507.05: Collectors, Licensing Requirements
507.06: Refuse Collection Schedule
507.07: Collection Vehicles
507.08: Violation
507.09: Spring Cleanup
507.10: Mandatory Recycling for Multiple - Family Dwellings
507.01: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Chapter, the following
words and phrases have the meanings given them in this Section:
Subd. 1. GARBAGE: Organic waste resulting from the preparation of food
and decayed and spoiled food from any source.
Subd. 2. RECYCLABLE: Includes paper, plastic, tin cans, aluminum, motor
oil, glass, and other metal goods, each separated or otherwise prepared
so as to be acceptable to the recycling center where they are to be
deposited.
Subd. 3. REFUSE: Includes garbage and rubbish.
Subd. 4. RUBBISH: Inorganic solid waste such as tin cans, glass, paper,
ashes, sweepings, etc.
507.02: GENERAL REGULATIONS:
Subd. 1. Unauthorized Accumulation: Any unauthorized accumulation of refuse
on any premises is a nuisance and prohibited.
Subd. 2. Refuse in Streets: No person shall place any refuse in any street,
alley, or public place or upon any private property except in proper
containers for collection. No person shall throw or deposit refuse in any
stream or other body of water.
Exhibit D
CITY CODE CHAPTER 507
1091
507.02
507.05
Subd. 3. Scattering of Refuse; Composting: No person shall bury any refuse in
the City except in an approved sanitary landfill, but leaves, grass clippings,
and easily biodegradable, nonpoisonous garbage may be composted on
the premises where such refuse has been accumulated. Garbage may be
composted only in a rodent -proof structure and in an otherwise sanitary
manner and after the Council gives its approval to such composting after
it finds that the composting will be done in accordance with these
standards.
507.03: DISPOSAL REQUIRED: Every person shall, in a sanitary man-
ner, dispose of refuse that may accumulate upon property owned
or occupied by him. Garbage shall be collected, or otherwise lawfully disposed
of, at least once each week during the entire year.
507.04: CONTAINERS:
Subd. 1. General Requirement: Every householder, occupant, or owner of any
residence and any restaurant, industrial establishment, or commercial
establishment shall provide on the premises one or more containers to
receive and contain all refuse which may accumulate between collections.
All normal accumulations of refuse shall be deposited in such containers.
Leaves, trimmings from shrubs, grass clippings, shavings, excelsior, and
other rubbish of similar volume and weight may be stored in closed con -
tainers not meeting the requirements of subdivision 2.
Subd. 2. Container Requirements: Each container shall be watertight,. impervious
to insects and rodents, fireproof, and shall not exceed ninety (90) gallons
in capacity, except that any commercial or business establishment having
refuse volume exceeding two (2) cubic yards per week shall provide bulk
or box -type refuse storage containers of a type approved by the City. Ex-
empted from this provision shall be construction activities which are tem-
porary in nature and do not extend over a period greater than two (2)
weeks. Containers shall be maintained in good and sanitary condition.
Any container not conforming to the requirements of this Chapter or hav-
ing ragged or sharp edges or any other defect likely to hamper or injure
the person collecting the contents shall be promptly replaced after notice
by the City.
Subd. 3. Use of Containers: Refuse shall be drained of liquid and household
garbage shall be wrapped before being deposited in a container. Highly
inflammable or explosive material shall not be placed in containers.
507.05: COLLECTORS, LICENSING REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. License Required: No person shall permit refuse to be picked up from
his premises by an unlicensed collector.
1091 , Z
507.05
,,507.07
Subd. ?. Application: Any person desiring to be licensed as a collector shall
make application to the City Clerk on a prescribed form. The application
shall set forth:
a. The name and address of the applicant.
b. A description of each piece of equipment proposed to be used in the
collection.
c. The proposed charges to be made of those who use the service.
d. A description of the kind of service proposed to be rendered.
e. The place to which the refuse is to be hauled.
f. The manner in which the refuse is to be disposed of.
Subd. 3. Insurance: No license shall be issued until the applicant files with the
Clerk a current policy of public liability insurance covering all vehicles to
be used by the applicant in the licensed business. The limits of coverage
of such insurance shall be established by Council resolution from time to
time.
Subd. 4. License Fees: Licenses shall be issued for a period of one year. The
license fee shall be established by Council resolution from time to time'.
507.06: REFUSE COLLECTION SCHEDULE: Each licensee shall col-
lect refuse from premises for which he has a collection contract
according to the following minimum schedule: daily from hotels, restaurants, and
other premises which, in the judgment of the City, require such collection: and
weekly from residences and other premises. No refuse shall be collected before
six o'clock (6:00) A.M. or after eight o'clock (8:00) P.M. of any day.
507.07: COLLECTION VEHICLES:
Subd. 1. Requirements: Every refuse collection vehicle shall be lettered on the
outside so as to identify the licensee. Every vehicle used for hauling gar-
bage shall be covered, leak- proof, durable, and of easily cleanable con-
struction. Every vehicle used for hauling refuse shall be sufficiently air
tight, and so used as to prevent unreasonable quantities of dust, paper, or
other collected materials to escape. Every vehicle shall be kept clean to
prevent nuisances, pollution, or insect - breeding, and shall' be maintained
in good repair. Enclosed refuse vehicles shall be confined to public
streets, roadways, alleys and to commercial parking lots and shall not be
driven upon residential property on driveways unless authorized by the
owner. The above provision shall not apply to three - quarter (3/,) ton (or
1 . See Section 1 101.02 of this Code.
2Q3
City of Shorewood P-5 5
507.07 507.09
less) pickup trucks used as auxiliary vehicles engaged in picking up
refuse and placing it in enclosed vehicles. Such pickup trucks shall not be
filled to such height that refuse spills therefrom; any refuse spilled or
dropped shall be immediately picked up.
Subd. 2. Weight Restrictions: All collection vehicles shall be subject to the
provisions of Section 801.09 of this City Code.
507.08: VIOLATION: Any person who shall violate any provision of this
Chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 176, 1- 27 -86)
507.09: SPRING CLEANUP: During the spring season, the City will pro-
vide a curbside pickup service for yard waste, trash and
household rubbish, and a limited drop -off site for certain larger items. The
service will be limited to Shorewood residents and the date of the cleanup will
be determined by the City Council each year.
Sub. 1. Curbside Pickup: Items must be on the curb by eight o'clock (8:00)
A.M. and will be picked up at residential sites only. The following items
will be accepted for curbside pickup:
- Brush. cut in four foot (4') lengths and bundled so as to be
manageable by one person;
- Yard waste in bags, grass clippings, and leaves; -
- General household rubbish, including small furniture items.
Brush and yard waste must be piled and separated from the trash.
The following items will not be accepted for curbside pickup:
- Construction debris, lumber, blocks, sheetrock, and other building
materials;
- Chemicals, liquid paint, weed spray, solvents, and other chemical
products. (Ord. 237, 5- 13 -91)
A fee as provided in Section 1301.02 of this Code will be charged to each
residential unit within the Citv for the pickup service. The fee will be
based upon the total cost of the service to the City, apportioned equally
among the residential units within the City and will be included in the
utility billing statement sent to each residential account for the second
quarter of the year.
Subd. 2 Limited Drop -Off Site: A drop -off site will be available between the
hours of eight o'clock (8:00) A.M. and four o'clock (4:00) P.M. at the
Public Works Garage. Items will be accepted and fees charged as provid-
ed in Section 1301.02 of this Code. (Ord. 237, 5- 13 -91; amd. Ord. 263,
12- 14 -92)
City of Shorewood
507.09
507.10
Fees will be collected at the time an item is dropped off, and the site
will be limited for use by Shorewood residents only.
Subd. 3. Delinquent Accounts: All delinquent accounts may be certified by the
Clerk who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for
assessment of the delinquent accounts against the respective property
served. This assessment roll shall be delivered to the City Council for
adoption on or before October 10 of each year and upon approval
thereof, the Clerk shall certify to the County Auditor the amount due,
plus a certification fee as established by resolution of the City Council,
and the County Auditor shall thereupon enter such amount as part of
the tax levy on such premises to be collected during the ensuing year.
Such action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to
collect delinquent accounts. (Ord. 237, 5- 13 -91)
507.10: MANDATORY RECYCLING FOR MULTIPLE- FAMILY
DWELLINGS: Owners of multiple - family dwellings containing
more than eight (8) dwelling units shall either contract directly with the
recycling hauler under contract with the City or with a private hauler licensed
under the provisions of Section 507.05 of this Chapter for the provision of a
recycling collection service to all residents of the dwelling. If the owner
contracts with a hauler other than the hauler under contract with the City, a
written description of the specific recycling collection plan must be submitted
to the City for approval and verification of the existence of said services to
the residents. The recycling services provided under this Section must comply
with the requirements of this Code and all applicable Hennepin County
ordinances for recycling. (Ord. 238, 6- 24 -91)
t)'!�
1091
801.09 801.09
801.09: SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS:
Subd. 1. The purpose of this Section is to preserve the condition of the public streets within
the City from serious damage and destruction by the excessive use of the streets by
trucks and other heavily laden vehicles, to reduce the amount of loss and expense to the
taxpayers of the City for street maintenance, and to reduce the amount of dirt, noise and
other undesirable conditions created by such traffic.
Subd. 2. It shall be unlawful for any vehicle or combination of vehicles during the period of
March 1 to May 1 of any year to operate upon the streets or highways within the City
with a gross weight of any single axle exceeding eight thousand (8,000) pounds. The
Public Works Director may prohibit the may prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any
public street or highway within the City, or impose further restrictions as to the weight
of vehicles to be operated upon said streets or highways, whenever that street or
highway may be seriously damaged or destroyed by vehicular use, including but not
limited to deterioration, usage, rain, snow or other climatic conditions.
Subd. 3. School buses are given special permission to proceed with normal operation of their
regularly established routes and at all regularly established hours. (Ord. 163, 2- 11 -85)
Subd. 4. Any other provision of this Section notwithstanding, refuse haulers, heating trucks,
City trucks or any other vehicle may be exempted by special permit as follows:
a. The owner thereof shall first secure from the Public Works Director a certificate
setting forth the route or routes and the conditions under which such vehicle or
combination of vehicles may be operated, and such vehicle or combination of vehicles
shall thereafter be so operated in accordance with the terms of such certificate.
b. The Public Works Director is hereby empowered and it is hereby made his duty to
issue or deny, or issue in modified form, such certificates upon application and to
prescribe therein the route or routes and the conditions for operations under each such
certificate, and in determining such route or routes and such conditions, the Public
Works Director shall permit maximum use of the particular highways and bridges
consistent with the maximum capacity of such highways or bridges, as determined with
highway engineering practice.
c. The Public Works Director shall have the power to revoke or modify the terms of any
existing certificate at any time in the event of operations in violation of any such
certificate or in the event of changed conditions requiring such action. The original or a
correct copy of the certificate under which operations are being conducted shall be
carried at all times in the driver's cab or in any vehicle or combination of vehicles while
the same is being operated thereunder. (Ord. 163, 2- 11 -85; amd. Ord. 179, 2- 24 -86)
1. See also Chapter 902 of this Code.
2. M.S. §171.01
3. M.S. chapter 168
0197
City of Shorewood
D- G
BMWI M
Resident Survey:
Refuse Collection Services
Purpose of this survey:
1. What day of the week does your refuse hauler pick up?
2. How many and what size
93
0
containers do you put out?
Do you put out extra containers (never), (occasionally), (frequently)? (circle
one)
Does your refuse hauler accept yard waste (i.e. leaves, lawn clippings, etc.)?
Yes /No
5. Does your refuse hauler provide special services (e.g. driving up a long
driveway, accepts construction debris, accepts large items such as carpet or
appliances)? Yes/No
If Yes, what special services are offered?
6. How often have you changed refuse haulers in the last 3 years?
What were your reasons for changing?
7. Do you place a higher priority on service or cost? (circle one)
8. Please rate the physical condition of the street in front of your house:
Poor Fair Good Excellent (circle one)
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.
Exhibit E
RESIDENT SURVEY
HAML I NE Graduate Fubiic aclmimstration Programs
UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL
Mr. James C. Hurm, Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Jim:
nth;
The team analysis of the issue of organized refuse collection for the City of
Shorewood is enclosed for your review. Team members are looking forward to your
evaluation of their analysis. If you send your comments to me (at 1375 West Idaho
Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108), 1 will forward them on to the students.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity for students in policy analysis to apply their
experiences and knowledge to real -world public administration problems and hope
that we can find other Shorewood policy issues that might lend themselves to this type
of mutually beneficial analysis in the future.
Enc.
Thank you for your enthusiastic support of this new venture.
erely,
Ellen Dickson,
Assistant Professor,
Public Policy
66 Drew Hail • 1536 Hewitt Avenue, Saint Paul, IMN 55104 -1284 • 612 - 641 -2284 • FAX 612-041.
M.nnesota ' Fir)." L'niLerr - Fownded i,. 1854
pm i?Xpoa-m . 'zue
Attachment II
�'%�sxied
May 18, 1995
Mr. James C. Hurm, Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Dear Mr. Hurm:
On March 8, 1995, you presented Shorewood's organized garbage collection dilemma as a
public policy issue requiring further analysis. Since that time, we have been exploring this
case study. The attached report and recommendation is presented in conclusion of our study.
The debate over organized versus open solid waste collection systems is wide - spread. The
presence of readily available data regarding organized collection allowed for an in -depth
analysis of this issue. Reference sources included studies completed by other municipalities,
which include cities who had successfully initiated organized collection and those who had
not. All sources of information provided valuable insight.
We are pleased to provide you with the attached report.
Sincerely,
Bret Heitkamp Shawn Koch Todd Hoffman
INITIATING ORGANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Public Policy Analysis
MAPA Course GPA 804
Hamline University
Prepared By:
Bret Heitkamp
Shawn Koch
Todd Hoffman
Prepared For.
Ellen Dickson, Ph.D.
James Hurm
May 1995
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CoverLetter .................. ..............................1
Executive Summary/Recommendation .............................
1
The Issue .................. ...............................
3
Problem Context ............. ...............................
3
Historical Context ............ ...............................
4
Information Sources ........... ...............................
5
Other Municipal Experience ..... ...............................
6
Stakeholders ................ ...............................
8
Policy Alternatives ........... ...............................
10
Conclusion................ ...............................
13
References ................ ...............................
14
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Shorewood is a developing Twin Cities suburban community located in
Hennepin County on the south shore of Lake Minnetonka. The population of Shorewood is
approximately 6,00 with approximately 2,400 residential households. Shorewood is currently
updating a Comprehensive Plan that addresses, among other topics, the subject of refuse
collection. The issue to be addressed in this analysis is: Is a change in the city's open solid
waste collection system appropriate and in the best interests of the residents of Shorewood?
Shorewood now utilizes an open refuse collection system in which eleven private
haulers are licensed to do business within the city limits. Efficiency of service delivery is
inhibited by this open system due to redundancy and overlap in service areas. Specifically,
multiple haulers may service the same neighborhoods on the same day and some regions may
experience truck traffic every day of the week.
The current refuse system has a negative impact on the city's infrastructure. A major
concern is the deterioration of roads resulting from heavy garbage truck traffic. The open
refuse system leads also to unnecessary levels of visual, noise and air pollution. Public safety
is a concern because excessive vehicle trips generated by the open system adds to traffic
congestion. This analysis demonstrates the benefits to be achieved through the establishment
of an organized refuse collection system. Several alternatives have been identified:
I . Retain existing system.
2. Retain an open collection system using smaller collection vehicles.
3. Implement an organized collection system using a consortium of haulers.
4. Institute a complete recycling program.
This analysis explores possible benefits resulting from each alternative. Organized
collection would minimize service duplication, negative environmental impacts and pavement
deterioration. An organized system would maximize cost - effectiveness and efficiency of
delivery. A consortium system of organized collection would give the existing licensed
haulers the opportunity to continue providing service in the community and would result in
the least harm to haulers.
Based on this analysis, we recommend that the city council consider the following
action:
1. Adopt a resolution of intent to organize solid waste collection.
2. Initiate licensing and/or ordinance provisions to limit the number of solid waste
collection licenses issued; with an option to further reduce the limit based on
turnover.
3. Schedule meetings with existing licensed haulers to discuss organized
collection options.
THE ISSUE
The issue of organized municipal solid waste collection was presented by Mr. Jim
Hurm, City Administrator for the City of Shorewood. In an interview, Mr. Hurm stated that
Shorewood was currently in the process of updating the city's comprehensive plan; one of the
primary issues being addressed was the possibility of establishing organized refuse collection.
According to Mr. Hutm, city staff currently believes that organized refuse collection is
justified. However, potential opposition from some residents, in addition to a variety of
administrative, political and private sector concerns, have delayed any decision. There are
also concerns about putting several small contractors out of business through the organization
of solid waste collection.
Mr. Hurm provided substantial background information for this analysis. We also
gathered available information regarding other refuse collection systems. A number of
organized collection approaches and programs are currently in place in the State of
Minnesota. We identified the best components of each of these programs while honoring the
concerns of all stakeholders. The altematives presented should provide the City of Shorewood
a viable proposal to present to all stakeholders.
Problem Context
Shorewood has existed without organized collection since it became a city in 19.74; the
benefits of organized collection have been bypassed for over 20 years. Shorewood's draft
copy of a 1995 Comprehensive Plan update identifies garbage trucks as the primary cause of
damage to city streets. The recent attention being placed on garbage collection methods
results from concern over pavement management. In October 1993 the mayor and city
council were presented with a report summarizing the issues surrounding solid waste
collection. Since that time, however, the issue has received peripheral attention. Resolution
of this issue is recommended for a number of reasons:
1. Shorewood currently licenses one hauler for every 600 residents.
2. Survey data indicates that each resident would save approximately S60 per year
through organized collection.
3. Organized collection will reduce road damage and save taxpayer dollars.
4. A variety of harmful environmental impacts of refuse collection would be
reduced, including litter, exhaust emissions, air pollution and noise pollution.
Organized garbage collection efforts are not central to the city's survival. It should be
subordinate to recycling and education focusing on reducing the overall production of waste.
However, over the long term, organized collection will reap big benefits for city residents.
Historical Context
Ancient civilizations pondered issues similar to Shorewood's: Imagine a 1,000 year
old debate among town leaders over who was going to haul the trash to the edge of town.
Cities, thousands of years ago, pondered the same issue facing Shorewood. According to
Wilcox (1988), "Trash, Sometimes Called Solid Waste, is Everything that is Thrown Away."
"Every day, the United States relies on 100,000 garbage trucks to haul its trash. If that many
4
trucks were lined up on a highway, the line would reach from Chicago to New York!"
(Wilcox, 1988).
Traditionally, garbage was disposed of in open dumps. Environmental concerns forced
dumps to be transformed into sanitary landfills. These glorified dumps are now being
replaced by solid waste incinerators. Mass burning reduces the garbage in volume by two-
thirds; but the remaining one -third must still be taken to landfills.
Information Sources
The everlasting presence of garbage has resulted in a wide range of literary works. A
variety of information sources were used in completing our analysis. They include:
1. Unpublished studies completed by other cities and counties.
2. Interviews.
3. Current Iiterature including books, magazines and newspapers.
4. Video taped information.
The major conclusion drawn from these sources is that cities will benefit from
organized collection.
All information sources emphasize that consideration must also be given to the
negative impacts of organized collection. Haulers will suffer temporary or permanent
inconvenience or loss of work. Some may weather the organizational changes, while others
will not. Additionally, consumers will lose freedom of choice. Nevertheless; organized
collection stands as a positive endeavor for local government.
5
Other.Municipal Experience
The issue of organizing refuse collection is being debated by many cities. According
to Resource Strategies Corporation, (1993), forty communities in the seven county
metropolitan area are currently operating under an organized refuse collection system.
Several others are currently analyzing the feasibility of organized collection. Although the
size of the communities researched in this report varied, a number of communities of similar
size, demographic characteristics and geographic location were identified. For example, the
Cities of Tonka Bay and Excelsior are two communities directly adjacent to Shorewood that
are currently operating under an organized refuse collection system.
Interviews with representatives of several communities now operating organized
collection revealed that many questions and concerns were raised by residents prior to
implementation of this system. A potential cost savings, even if it is fairly significant, may
not always be enough to persuade a resident to support the program.
In our initial interview, Mr. Hurm expressed concern about the option of the city
administering direct negotiations with individual haulers as part of the selection process rather
than a competitive bidding process. Mr. Hurm felt that direct negotiations could expose the
city to potential anti -trust liability. Anti -trust concerns have been raised in the past when
considering the negotiated contract versus the competitive process as part of several organized
collection proposals. According to the St. Paul Citizens Solid Waste Task Force, (February
1989), "The question is whether cities and/or participating haulers incur any anti-trust liability
when they organize collection, because organized collection does replace competition for
customers when assigned customer routes."
0
The City of Champlin began organized collection in 1985 and was threatened with a
anti -trust law suit by a hauler. The city's legislator successfully introduced a 1988
amendment to the Waste Management Act that was intended to provide local governments
with anti -trust immunity if they decided to organize collection. Dubbed the "Champlin
Amendment," (Section 115A.94), this act contains the following provisions:
1. Cities and counties are authorized to organize collection by a variety of
methods including municipal service, franchise, negotiated or bidded contract,
or other means using one or more collectors or an organization of collectors.
2. A city must follow specified procedures and requirements in organizing
collection. The procedures and requirements include:
• The municipality must announce its intention to organize collection at
least 90 days before proposing an organized collection system.
• The resolution of intent requires a public hearing that must be held two
weeks after public notice and mailed to all licensed haulers.
• Upon request, the city must provide mailed notice of all subsequent
organized collection proceedings.
• During the 90+ day period after adoption of the resolution of intent, the
city must develop or supervise development of possible organized
collection plans or proposals. The city may invite and employ
assistance of interested persons (including haulers) in developing these
plans and proposals.
ii
• Organized collection systems must not impair preservation and
development of recycling and recycling markets and may exempt
recycling materials from the organized system.
• Mixed solid waste collected materials by the organized system must
comply with the county designation ordinance.
S take ho t de rs
The citizens of Shorewood are the primary stakeholders in this issue. Other
stakeholders include city officials and the garbage haulers. The population of Shorewood can
be divided into two primary demographic groups. "Old timers" are generally resistant to
change; typically resisting additional city services in exchange for the atmosphere of country
living: Newer residents tend to be more progressive and typically do not object to changes in
service that equate with cost effectiveness and are in the best interests of the public good.
Citizens. The primary citizen concern is the loss a garbage hauler that may have been
used for several years and has earned the trust of their customers. Citizens who chose a
particular hauler for service quality may not be allowed to continue with their hauler if a
different company offers a more competitive price. Some citizens feel that government has
too much control and that citizen concerns and opinions are not given just consideration. It is
possible that doing nothing may satisfy the majority.
City. The city also has a major stake in changing refuse collection methods. The first
problem with existing systems is the road damage caused by too many haulers. The second
has to do with the quality of life in Shorewood that includes good roads, clean air, and a safe
and uncluttered environment. The city is not trying to infringe on the rights of its citizens; it
is trying to implement a better quality of life while protecting infrastructure. Questions facing
the city include: How does the city implement good public policy without risking public
alienation? How does the city establish a common level of service?
These issues are being considered as the city updates the Comprehensive Plan. The
organized refuse collection proposal was recommended by the city's planning commission.
Although the city has had lengthy discussions on these issues, it has chosen not to address
them because of their controversial nature. The planning commission spent a great deal of
time reviewing these issues and making recommendations to the city council. If the city
council chooses to ignore these recommendations, the long term effectiveness of the
organization and the working relationships between the two bodies could be harmed.
Haulers. The haulers also have a major role in this issue. Currently Shorewood is
using up to eleven different haulers to collect refuse. Depending upon the alternative
selected, one or more haulers would be retained. Even in the most inclusive alternative, some
of the current haulers could lose customers in Shorewood.
Questions to be considered when choosing an alternative include:
1. Can the smaller contractors handle city -wide collection?
2. Will organized collection exclude some contractors?
3. What will the overall impact be on the current haulers?
4. Will some contractors be excluded if the city decides to impose special
restrictions?
Clearly the haulers are going to prefer the option that creates the least amount of change for
their business. If a change is made, haulers would most likely prefer a system of organized
9
collection in which a consortium of haulers remove trash. In such a system, many of the
haulers currently servicing Shorewood would be able to continue to do so.
POLICY ALTERIVATIV ES
Retain Existine Svstem
Although the problem may appear to be minor, it is important. The question to be
addressed is not what will happen if the city does go to another form of trash collection, but
what will happen if the city takes no action. This issue underlies the dilemma of the
collective good versus the individual good. In this case, the individual desire to choose a
private hauler ultimately ends up hurting everybody because of the detrimental effects the
multitude of refuse haulers have on city streets. In the end, individual preference should be
superseded by the common good. According to preliminary research findings, the City of
Shorewood estimates that organized collection would save each resident about $60 per year in
reduced rates —that translates to a city-wide savings of $144,000 per year. Because tax
dollars and assessments pay for street repair, the reduced wear and tear on roads will save the
taxpayers additional money.
Smaller Collection Vehicles
The city could also mandate that any hauler servicing Shorewood be required to use
smaller satellite vehicles (5 tons per axle) to reduce the wear on roads. This requirement
could be year -round or seasonal and would lead to extra expense for many haulers. Some
may not be able to continue to service Shorewood. Additionally, satellite vehicles would not
completely solve the problem; larger trucks would still be travelling the streets of Shorewood
although not as extensively as before.
10
Such a plan would also require that the city also provide several safe and convenient
areas for haulers to transfer waste into larger vehicles. This alternative, although effective,
may not be practical. According to a survey conducted by the City of Shorewood, only half
of the haulers now have immediate access to smaller vehicles. This alternative would help
make the roads last a bit longer; however, the citizens would still face many of the negative
externalities of the open system.
Complete Recycling_ Program
A complete recycling program would take most garbage trucks off the streets and
probably lead to decreased truck traffic. However, the initial setup costs would be
substantial. Most communities do not have complete curbside recycling; instead most offer
standard curbside recycling services for aluminum, glass and paper products. To establish a
program that recycling plastics, cardboard, metals, compost, etc. would require extensive
resources. Although this idea may not be feasible now, the city might wish to consider this
option in the future.
Totally Organized Collection
Initial cost comparisons of open and organized collection in the seven county metro
area indicate that organized collection costs 8% to 15% less than an open system (Resource
Strategy Corporation, 1993). Organized collection can be done many different ways; by one
hauler, multiple haulers that service individual districts, or a consortium of haulers. The city
must choose which alternative best fits their needs.
Multiple Hauler Contract: Under this system, the city enters into a contract with
individual haulers. Each contract is based on a common level of service, terms and fee
structure established by the city. While multiple systems can complicate management of
complaints and the coordination of service, communication between the haulers is not
necessary with separate contracts. However, this system does little to mitigate the "turf'
issues of the garbage business.
Consortium Contract: Although similar to a multiple contract system, the consortium
option offers added benefits. Administrative overhead is greatly reduced and the community
negotiates the contract with a single entity —the consortium. In addition, a consortium
promotes cooperation among haulers. Under this option, the community is divided into zones
proportionately equal to the number of haulers in the consortium. The city must assume the
responsibility for billing and collection of payment under a consortium contract.
12
CONCLUSION
Organized collection results in less trucks on neighborhood streets, fewer
environmental pollutants and less road wear. Ultimately this will benefit the citizens of
Shorewood. The cost of organized collection is less than standard collection and tax dollars
now used for excessive road improvements can be reallocated to other areas that benefit the
community. Organized collection may infringe on the right of free choice but serves the
common good on occasion. Individual citizens must relinquish individual preferences for the
benefit of a greater public good. This method also gives haulers a choice. Haulers can
decide if they want to be part of the process or if they want to opt -out. Organized collection
promotes fair competition, is good for our communities, and is the way of the future.
13
REFERENCES
Rathje, W. (1991 May). Once & Future Landfills. National Geographic 179, pp. 116 -134.
Office of Revisor of Statutes, (1990). Minnesota Statutes.
Braun Pavement (1991). Weather and Loads: The Effect They Have on Roads, Videotape.
Humphrey, S. (1994). Report on Rubbish Hauling, Minnesota Attorney General's Office.
Sanderlin, G. H. (1995, April 3). Variable Trash Rates: Look Before You Leap. Nations
Cities Weekly 18, pp. 5 and 13.
Wilcox, C. (1988) Trash! Minneapolis: First Avenue Additions.
Patton, C., & Sawicki D. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Afton Waste Management Task Force Report. (1991). Unpublished Report.
Resource Strategies Corporation. (1993). City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study;
Final Report. Unpublished Report.
City of Champlin and Champlin Refuse, Inc., (1987). Champlin Refuse Service Contract. A
Consortium Agreement.
14
COPIES:
Council
Planning Commission 7
Planner
Plan Liaison
Rec Sec'y
Other
Park Commission
Park Liaison
Park Assist.
Administrator J
Engineer
Attorney
City Clerk
DNR
A p p I icant(s)(gccv�ci5�