092595 CC WS AgP
La
CI:TY COtlNCIL m:aK SESSICN
CI:TY OF SHOREl'DOD
M~Y, SEPTEMBER 25, 1995
5755 COl.lNTRY CLUB ROAD
CCJUN:::IL CHAMBERS
WORK
SESSION
1. Review 1996-2000 Capital Improvement Program
A. Initial Discussion on 1996-2000 Capital Improvement
Program with Emphasis on Parks and Equipment
B. Discussion on Organized Garbage Collection
C. Discussion on Charging for Recycling Program
2 . ADJOURN
...
".-' ~ ,.. ".1
PARK CAP IT AL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PCIP)
PROJECT SCHEDULE
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
BADGER:
Playground Equipment 22,500
Picnic, Horseshoe, Landscape 10,000
CA THCART:
Warming House/Picnic Shelter 28,000
MANOR:
SIL VERWOOD:
Warming House/Picnic Shelter 30,000
FREEMAN:
Building North (L) 50,000
lights-Softball (L)
Picnic Area 5.700
Landscaping 12,500
Entrance & Sign 6,400
Signage 5,700
Drinking Fountains (2) 12,500
Volleyball Court 5,700
Tennis courts(2)- 50,000
Asphalt Roadway 15,000
OTHER:
Contingency 30,000
TOTAL EXPENSES $ 1 31 ,000 $ 65,000 $ 28,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000
... ~ ,.~
PARK CAPITAL FUND
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Fund Balance, January 1 90,000 15,888 9,622 27,288 35,145
Park Dedication Fees 24,500 24,500 19,000 19,000 10,500
General Fund Contribution 30,000 20,000 10,000
Donations
General Fund Balance
Sports Organizations - Park Maint. 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
ParksFoundation - Park Imp. 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Parks Foundation - Building 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Projects/Expenditures (131.000) (65,OQO) (28,000 ) (30,000) (30,000)
Tfr to General Fund - Maint. (12,000) (14,000) (16,000) ( 18,000) (20,000)
Interest Income @ 5% 388 235 666 857 891
Fund Balance, December 31 $ 15,888 $ 9,622 $ 27,288 $ 35,145 $ 36,536
Designated for Freeman Park (2,000) (6,000) (12.000) (20,000) (30,000)
(Cummu/ative)
Undesig. Fund Balance, Dec. 31 $ 13,888 $ 3,622 $ 15,288 $ 15,145 $ 6,536
The Park Capital Improvement Fund is established to finance
improvements in the City's park system. Revenues are derived
from park dedication fees from land subdivisions within the
City, budgeted transfers from the General Fund, donations and
the Shorewood Parks Foundation. Expenditures shown are for
improvements fUnded from these Sources. Fund balances will be
allocated to future park improvements.
... -~ .. ",.
TRAIL PROJECT SCHEDULE
1996 1997 1998 .1999 2000
Strawberry
2,600' Asphalt 25,000
Lake Linden
1,500' Concrete 24,000
Yellowstone Trail
6,900' Concrete 108,000
Country Club
2.300 Concrete 37,000
Smithtown Rd 67,000
(Country Club to Eureka)
4,200' Concrete
Covington, Vine Hill S -
TOTAL $ $ - 194,000 $ $ 67,000 $
/
I
Fund Balance, January 1
Tfr - Cap, Reserve Fund
5% from Street Fund
Tfr-MSA
ISTEA Grant
Trail Construction
Interest Income @ 5%
Fund Balance, December 31
TRAIL FUND
1996
90,000
15,000
9,500
2.863
$ 117,363
I
~"~ <_....
1997 1998 1999 2000
117,363 49,828 78,236 86,086
15,000 15,000 10,000 10,000
10,500 11,500 12,500 13,500
45.750 50,250
54,000
(194,000) (67,000)
1.215 1,908 2.100 2.740
$ 49,828 $ 78,236 S 86,086 $ 112,325
The Trail Fund is establiShed to ffnance the implementation
of the City's Trail SYstem Plan. Revenues are deriVed from
bUdgeted transfers hom the Capital Reserve FUnd, Street FUnd,
MSA FUnd (75% of MSA Project Cost) and anticipaied ISTEA grants.
Expendftures shoWn are improvements funded hom these sources.
Fund balances wilt be al10csted to future trail impl1)vements.
, ~
'+
Transportation
Policies
8/93
; ~'I .. -':, " .."l' )1J<-t'1./
... ~-.... -,~v \..:..t'V' , ....,u.. '..E:' ' ",'-"
I
General
1.
Transportation facilities shall be planned and
improved to function in a manner compatible with
adjacent land use; in those instances where the
function of a transportation facility has changed over
time to become incompatible with adjacent land use,
a program to eliminate this incompatibility shall be
established.
2.
Land use controls shall promote combined and/or
concentrated types of activities in the high intensity
use districts to reduce travel and promote preferred
modes of transportation.
,..,
.J.
All means of transportation and related facilities shall
be considered as one system and therefore
coordinated and related comprehensively.
4.
Transportation facilities shall be planned and
designed to conserve natural resources and minimize
the total need for ongoing public investment.
5.
The transportation system shall be developed to
focus on activity centers of Shorewood and
neighboring south shore communities.
6.
Transportation planning and implementation shall be
coordinated with neighboring and affected
jurisdictions.
7.
Special consideration and attention shall be given to
persons who must rely on means other than the
automobile for transportation.
8.
Dependency upon automobile-oriented transportation
shall be reduced where feasible, and where possible
higher priorities shall be assigned to
pedestrianlbicycle and mass transit travel.
The state and county highway system shall
complement and facilitate local movements provided
by local streets, bicycle trails and pedestrian
facilities. A line of communication shall be
maintained with county and state highway officials in
order to ensure that planned improvements are
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
community.
9.
TR-7
10. Early and continuing citizen involvement shall be provided for and encouraged in
transportation planning and implementation projects.
Streets
l. A functional classification system for the street system in Shorewood shall be established
giving due consideration to the Metropolitan Council's Functional Classification System for
streets and highways, as may be amended.
2. All local or residential streets shall be designed to prevent penetration of through traffic and
shall direct traffic to collector or arterial streets.
3. Land access onto major streets shall be limited or prevented wherever possible.
4 . Vehicular access onto all types of arterials shall be minimized and limited to points of adequate
distances between intersections, with property signalization and/or merging.
5. Street parking shall be prohibited or limited on arterial streets.
6. All intersections require proper visibility, design, and control to prevent accidents and
violations.
7. Service roads paralleling major arterials shall be controlled to reduce traffic conflicts, hazards
and resulting accidents.
8. Single-loaded frontage roads shall be discouraged in the future.
9. The amount and diversity of traffic signing shall be reduced and an updated and an improved
system is to be maintained.
10. Relate and phase street improvement to area land development in order to avoid interrupted or
inadequate access.
11. New developments shall be required to have curb and gutter. Curb and gutter shall be
considered for existing streets where drainage is a problem. However, other drainage
solutions shall be considered where more economical and practical.
12. In those areas where incomplete street facilities exist, action shall be taken to plan, design and
develop a stre~t system which reflects the highest standards and relates land use to
transportation needs and policies. Action shall be taken immediately to reserve required
rights-of-way to prevent redundant additional cost and difficulties.
13. Where feasible and practical, include provisions for other transportation modes, i.e.
pedestrian, bicycles, etc. in street and highway improvement plans.
14. The amount of land devoted to streets and the number of street miles shall be minimized
through use of such techniques as planned unit development and clustering of activities.
* 15. The City shall consider organized waste collection in order to minimize damage to city streets.
8/93
TR-8
Community Park. Besides its neighborhood and plaYJzeldfimctions, Freeman Park is the onlv
community park in the Shorewood park system. Given the proximity o/various regional parks.
the need for an additional community park in Shorewood is not anticipated.
Conservancy Lands. Shorewood's wetland system. while not suitable for active recreation, is
preserved for its aesthetic value, as well as its environmental benefit.
Special Use. Crr:sce~: B~;:~h and the Christmas ~ake access on lV-ferry Lane are essentially single
purpose recreanonal Jacwnes - access to Lake Mmnetonka and Christmas Lake, respectivelv.
Crescent Beach is Llsed exclusively for swimming, while the Christmas Lake access is usedfor
fishing and boat launching. Both sites provide winter access to the lakes.
The City should continue to work with adjacent communities and the School District to maintain a
clear understanding of the toca! recreational needs of the area. The south shore area has a highly
cooperative recreational and transportation system which requires constant coordination
(playfields, parks and trails).
The Park Commission and City Council should continue to monitor the needs of area residents in
implementing its parks and recreation plan. For example, considerable interest in trails has been
generated in the last several years.
Public Safety
Provision of municioaI serviCes is one area in which South Lake .Minnetonka communities have
come ro realize that benefits are to be had by combining resources. Shorewood receives police
service from the South Lake i\tlinnetonka 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 densiry for each participating
community, to a totally demand-based formula.
The South Lake Nlinnetonka Public Safety Department is considered to be far superior to anything
that could be feasibly provided by anyone 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 joim powers agreement with the thr~e above-mentioned communities in
providing police protection to city residents.
Fire Protection for Shorewood is contracted from the Excelsior Volunteer Fire Deparrmem. vv'hile
some question exists'as to how much voice Shorewood should have in department policy as
compared to its share of operating cost, it is considered infeasible would nor 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 (excepr. 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.
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 nar.row,
circuitous access to them. To enhance protection a system of dry hydrants has been proposed
which would utilize lake water and pumper mlcks. Placement of one to three hydrants. as shown
on the following page, should eliminate the need to bad.'track to Mound to fill tank mlcks.
;j( Solid Waste
r As mentioned in the TransDortation Chapter, garbage mlcks have been identified as inflicting more
damage to city streers [h~ any other type of vehicle. Current regulations are ineffec~ve in
Leducing the weight of trucks or the number oj them. In response ro this issue the CIty has
CF-34
examined several alternatives. ranging from simply requiring the use of smaller satellite trucks. to
municipal rejiLSe collection.
It has been determined that the most cost-effective solution is to organize collection into four to Str:
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.
, 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
i bidding process. possibly resulting in some cost savings; and 3) refilse pickup can be limited to
Lone specified day of the week. eliminating the presence of curbside refiLSe 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 int1uence
development in Shorewood. The thrust of these effortS should be concentrated toward elimination
of overhead wiring. It is :-ecommended that in reviewing development requests the City should
require, where practical, ~::c underground placement of all utilities. In previously developed areas.
plans for placement of uncerground utilities should be incorporated with future roadway
improvements. The City i'!ay also want to initiate a more aggressive program for systematically
eliminating overhead wir:.'zg within the next 10 to 15 years.
Residents appear to be spiir on the issue of street lighting. Consequently, no comprehensive
program of installing stri::!!r lights is suggested. The City has adopted the following policies in
response to neighborhoo,-~' demands for street lighting:
1. Location. !he City recognizes that street lighting in certain locations is necessary to
promote sl~Te travel for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. However, it is not the intent
of the City [0 install street lights for the purpose of deterring criminal activity.
Based on :his the Ciry 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 jor 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.
i'vlunicipal 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 Cicy HalllBadger Field
site, including removal of the old public works garage. reconstruction of the parking lot. and
landscaping, is underway and is expected to be completed in 1994.
CF-36
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 6,500 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:
1
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:
I. 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.
2
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. Hurm, 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 alternatives 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 1974; the
benefits of organized collection have been bypassed for over 20 years. Shorewood's draft
3
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 $60 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 ~ivilizations 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 w.ere 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 literature 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
I
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 potentia~ 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."
6
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:
I. 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.
7
· 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.
Stakeholders
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 contr~l 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
8
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:
I. Can the smaller contractors handle city-wide collection?
2. ~ill 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 ALTERNATIVES
Retain Existing System
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
11
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
REFEREN CES
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 Analvsis and Planning. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Anon 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
'.
,
t.
! /
!
I.
I.
II.
i. III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
Existing Conditions
1
10
15
20
23
28
33
35
Alternative Collection Methods
Environmental Factors
Street Impacts
Cost Comparisons
Resident Survey
Hauler Issues
Considerations and Recommendations
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
LIST OF FIGURES
- Monday Collection Routes
- Tuesday Collection Routes
- Wednesday Collection Routes
Thursday Collection Routes
- Friday Collection Routes
- Weekly Collection
- Comparative Sound Levels
2
3
4
5
6
8
18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Open Collection Costs 24
Table 2 - Organized Collection Costs 25
Table 3 - County Comparisons 26
Table 4 - Alternative Methods Comparative Matrix 38
Appendix A - Hauler Survey
Appendix B - Resident Survey
~
~
~.
I
,
l
t
Executive-Summary
The Chanhassen City Council had a series of discussions in the
early spring, 1993, regarding the existing open system of solid
waste collection. The discussions included concerns over the
number of collection vehicles present each week in City
neighborhoods, the appare~t redundancy or overlap of existing
service provided, the potential for unnecessary street wear and the
overall efficiency of the existing collection system.
The City Council directed staff to make recommendations for a study
and evaluation of organized collection. The City Council
authorized Resource Strategies Corporation to assist the City in
conducting an organized collection study. At a public hearing on
May 24, 1993, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to
conduct a formal process for the evaluation of organized collection
in the City of Chanhassen.
The stated purpose of the study was to determine whether a change
in the City's open solid waste collection system is -appropriate and
in the best interests of the general public.
The study objectives included the evaluation of the following
~ssues:
Service Delivery Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Quality of Service
Environmental Impacts
Noise
Aesthetics
Litter
Air Quality
Energy Consumption
Infrastructure Impacts
Public Safety
Impacts on Private Enterprise
City of Chanhassen
i
Resource Strategies
I
,
J
L
L
f.
r~
~
.
There are currently six haulers licensed to collect solid waste and
recyclaples in the City. There are no restrictions on the number
of haulers that may be licensed to provide service. Five of the
six haulers cooperated fully in the organized collection study,
providing detailed information on the existing collection system.
Collection of residential mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and
recyclables occurs each week day in the community. Residential
neighborhoods are typically served Py five or six MSW vehicles and
five or six recycling vehicles each week. Under- the current open
system, collection of MSW and recyclables may occur each week day
on a single residential street, with all six haulers providing
comparable service. This duplication of service. results in vehicle
usage of City streets that is up to six times greater than is
necessary under a more efficient system of organized collection.
Organized collection eliminates system duplication impacts ~n the
community, as well as on haulers. Collection within a particular
neighborhood is limited to one day a week for all residents.
Garbage and recycling containers are visible on a single day of the
week. Residential streets are subject to usage Py one MSW vehicle
and one recycling vehicle each week. Haulers. provide consecutive
household service in each neighborhood, eliminating overlapping
service routes and system redundancies.
Organized - collection will enhance or improve environmental
conditions inherent to solid waste collection. Single day
collection reduces the visual impact of neighborhood collection
fivefoldl While an open, routed collection system may limit
neighborhood intrusions to a single day of the week, there is no
corresponding reduction in vehicle air emissions, vehicle energy
consumption, vehicle noise or total vehicle street usage and
vehicle trips. Only organized collection will ensure these impact
reductions or system enhancements.
City of Ghanhassen
ii
Resource Strategies
.
~
Wear and tear of local streets has also been identified as an
impact of concern with the current open system of collection.
Damage to pavement in a normal life d~sign is accelerated Py
repetitive usage of heavier vehicles and, particularly, overweight
vehicles. Some of the MSW vehicles currently used in Chanhassen
exceed the design weight of roadways throughout the year. Most of
the MSW vehicles exceed weight restrictions posted in the spring
each year.
According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a typical
MSW vehicle and recycling vehicle have the combined cumulative
effect on pavement as 1,650 automobiles. Six haulers operating in
the same neighborhood may create the equivalent impact on .local
pavement each week as 10,000 automobiles.
Occasional exceptions to weight limits must be anticipated for any
roadway. Repetitive or excessive exceptions, however, will have an
impact on the design life of pavement. Use restrictions and
vehicle regulations are an effective method of protecting and
maximizing pavement design life.
The cost of constructing and maintaining roadways is generally
higher in Chanhassen than in some communities, due to the clay
soils prevalent in the community. Protecting the integrity of the
local street network may, correspondingly, be a higher priority in
Chanhassen than in other communities. Organized collection will
allow the City to effectively reduce the street impacts of one of
the most frequent and repetitive heavy vehicle activities in
residential areas.
Cost comparisons of open and organized collection in the seven
county metropolitan area indicate organized collection costs eight
to fifteen per cent less than open collection. Organized
collection costs three to fifteen per cent less than open
collection ~n Carver County. Average collection rates ~n
City of Chanhassen
iii
Resource Strategies
r
1
\
i
1
\.
I
L
(
Chanhassen are currently six to seventeen per cent higher than the
average organized collection rates in Carver County.
A resident survey on solid waste collection was conducted in July,
1993. Only 10% of the residents surveyed felt the day of the week
collection occurs was very important. Less than a third of the
residents felt the particular hauler providing service was very
important. Nearly two-thirds of the residents polled felt
different volume levels of service were important, while only 22%
felt special services were important. Less than a third of the
residents felt that containers provided by haulers were important.
Residents were asked to note their level of concern about certain
aspects of the existing collection system. Nearly half of the
residents expressed concern about public safety, while 22% were
concerned about the number of vehicles in service. Over a third of
the residents were concerned about litter, while 24% expressed
concern about the number of containers present on the street.
Nearly a third of the residents expressed concern about street
wear, 27% about noise and 22% about vehicle air emissions.
Residents were also asked to rate their concerns about other larger
\1 vehicles in residential neighborhoods. None of the respondents
expressed concern about postal/delivery vehicles or .private utility
vehicles. Only 2% were concerned about public maintenance vehicles
or school buses. Concern about construction delivery vehicles and
other co~sEruction vehicles was expressed by 11% to 18% of the
respondents.
i
Four alternative methods of solid waste collection were described
in the s~rvey. Residents were asked to describe their level of
interest. in each of the alternatives. Forty-three per cent
expressedi interest in the existing open system of collection
Forty per cent expressed interest in single day collection zones,
open to different haulers. Thirty-four per cent e^"Pressed interest
City of Chanhassen
iv
Resource Strategies
.....ll
-4
.,
..
1
in single day collection zones, served by a single, designated
hauler. Only 15% expressed interest in a single hauler serving the
entire City.
&.
I
L
Ranking preferences of the four alternative collection methods were
also noted. Twenty-seven per cent preferred the existing system;
25% preferred the zoned system, open to several haulers; 22%
favored the zoned system, served by one hauler; 7% preferred the
single hauler system; and 19% had no opinion.
(
Residents were also asked how supportive they were of organized
collection, understanding they may lose their right to choose
haulers and the day of the week for collection. Twenty-five per
cent of the respondents were very supportive of organized
collection. Forty-eight per cent were neutral on the issue.
Twenty-seven per cent were not at all supportive of organized
collection.
There were no resident attitude surveys on solid waste collection
encountered in communities with organized collection in place. It
is not known what reactions residents may have about changing from
organized to open collection. It is not documented how supportive
residents would be to a change from a single day, single hauler
system of collection in a neighborhood to an open, multi--day,
multi-hauler system of collection.
\
Changes in the existing open collection system in Chanhassen will
create impacts on the haulers. The extent of the impacts will vary
depending on the types of changes that may occur. Zoned
collection, whether open or organized, will result in route
scheduling changes for the haulers. A competitive bidding process
to contract with a single hauler for the entire City will result in
the total loss of existing accounts for at least five, and
conceivably all six, of the existing licensed haulers.
City of Chanhassen
v
Resource Strategies
,
1
Organized collection may also by implemented while protecting the
number of accounts serviced by existing haulers. A consortium of
existing haulers can formally organize to negotiate levels of
service, cost of service, distribution of accounts, collection
zones and redistribution of accounts and zones as growth occurs in
the community. Account billing may also remain a hauler
responsibility.
.
Any changes to the existing system will also result in impacts on
residents, both negative and positive. Residents who have strong
feelings about free enterprise, hauler choice, day preference, and
certain service options are likely to complain about any changes in
the current system. Others may not have strong service option
preferences, but may complain about the adjustment from existing
conditions and habits.
- ,
Many residents may welcome a change in the existing collection
system and make adjustments without comment. Few residents are
likely to compliment the City for implementing any changes.
Regardless of the overall reaction of the public to system changes,
the City must anticipate that the predominant voiced opinion will
be negative.
All communities that have recently organized collection have
indicated that complaints have accompanied the period of adjustment
after serviG:e changes. Many complaints regard alleged unawareness
of system changes or criticism- of the notification, education or
promotion efforts in advance of the change. These complaints
appear ev~dent in spite of the communities' efforts to inform and
prepare residents for change.
Communities that have recently organized collection have also
indicated that administrative response to complaints and inquiries
dramatically decreases within a few weeks or months of implementing
the change. Inquiries about service options and initial complaints
about seryice delivery could still be directed to haulers. City
City of Chanhassen
vi
Resource Strategies
..
~,
!'
f
intervention may be limited to repetitive or unresolved complaints
or inquiries into overall system changes. Cities may also develop
contract performance measures as a means to ensure comparable
levels of service from haulers and remedies for contract
inconsistencies.
f
I
. .
Ongoing administrative responsibilities vary according to the" type
of system implemented. Many communities have added solid waste
colle~tion billing to existing utility account billings. Many
communities have required the haulers to maintain account billing.
Some communities negotiate contracts or competitively bid for
contracts every five years. Other communities negotiate or bid at
more frequent intervals.
Any decision in the existing system of open collection v:ill be
based upon perceived improvements resulting from change. Organized
collection can minimize service duplication, environmental impacts
and street impacts, while maximizing cost effectiveness and
efficiency of service delivery. The consortium system of organized
collection will allow a continued opportunity for e~isting licensed
haulers to provide service in the community and represents the
least impact on haulers of the alternative methods of organized
collection.
The Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee recommends that
the City Co~ncil consider the fOllowing actions:
1. Accept the City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study.
2. Initiate licensing and/or ordinance provisions to limit the
number of solid waste collection licenses issued to a maximum
of six, with a deClining limit based on turnover.
3. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to organize solid waste
collection.
4. Proceed with Phase II of the Organized Collection Study to
discuss arrangements for organized collection with existing
licensed haulers.
City of Chanhassen
vii
Resource Strategies
"
I. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The City of Chanhassen has an open solid waste collection system,
with six haulers currently licensed to provide residential mixed
municipal solid waste (MSW) collection. Licensed haulers must also
provide same day recycling collection to customers, as part of the
City's licensing requirements.
Resource Strategies Corporation (RSC) prepared a detailed survey
t. questionnaire for completion by the haulers. Five of six haulers
cooperated in the survey and provided information on <:ustomer
accounts, service levels, service fees, recycling service,service
equipment, emploYment, routes and other information. The survey
includes summary information on service to 3,862 single family
households, which is approximately 90 percent of the total number
of single family households.
The majority of households appear to utilize the "three can" or 90-
96 gallon level of weekly service. While this breakdown was not
completed by all haulers, at least 50% of the total households use
the 90-96 gallon level. This compares to 10% at the 60-65 gallon
level, 7% at the "unlimited" level and 2% at the 30-32 gallon
level.
Collection services occur Monday through Friday, with a high of '0
1,110 hous~holds served on Wednesday and a low of 529 households on
Friday. A total of 21 MSW collection vehicles are in service each
week. A total of 17 reCYCling collection vehicles service the City
each week. Figures 1-5 illustrate the daily routes, number of
stops and number of collection vehicles for each day of the week.
Based upon the routing information received, most residential
neighborhoods may be subject to service from five MSW and five
recycling vehicles each week. One portion in the mid section of
City of Chanhassen
1
Resource Strategies
I
.1
f
{
. .
I
t
Figure 1
,
I I
. ctTY OF
"': .'. CHANHASSEN
eASE MAl'
M___.. Ii
--....-. I
--.. ~
--.... 1ft .
-..
=~ =i
4
5
"""'0 IY:
C:_SEH f:HClH(PIIHG /If:I''T.
~ .... '",
.... .H#
"'Jf. fIo"
6
1
f'I
-
ucw_
. .......,
--- -----
---....--...
- ....----...
I ~. I
~=
'7" T
1
7
I I f I
I I
, ,
I I
. !
! t I
. I
MONDAY COLLECTION ROUTES (618 stops)
CD = number of haulers serving route
Vehicles in service:
3 MSWi 3 recycling
City of Chanhassen
2
Resource Strategies
,
1
.
L
I
l
..
Figure 2
A t=4!'il ~i7' C 0 :=.. E F
, I I I I I I I I I I I I L I I '_'-- t I , , , Iff f f ! '-=1 , ! 1 ,
:;;~iIf:"~ '~. r~\."" '';',~~; -~. . 'Y2 if' -',.. ..:! ..;;:
-.::;:::' '" fi' -. .
(.;~; .,). -!.:. ~.: . 'I'" -...... 1"
"_, Z ..... " , ..... ... I
--r ~.E_': un ~t>-, 4 rA'- h HI ~ ~" ''; l_
. .0- 'f'/........... !) 11 I '- 1\ _
-- -"1--:;1 _ 'f- .J--. y
-lMj~. 2 ._~ ->-\F=1 --;-- __ - ,.
:-];J~.~__~ ~:J~Y .~_ ....._ ~ ,- _
7_ fi'~ 'q j 7- r::l~....: r r- .~~iW ~
-- ~-,....<i\. ~ . ....- r
-- ..~ ~ ! I~ I A II 7 ~ r~ r""'l
- r: "---. ~ :!! I(;;;:;> I..!.... I ,~ r'A; ..
-- \.J,.'; :..! _ ~...t.
~ <3>1 \-~ y ""' ~if~1F ~ . ,.~ - 1'_
--I -. g~~.- o.:n 2'~ ry- l\.... ~ .~ ~,fj2 - I I
. 1 "J ..,~ - .~ fI~_}>.;,-. -=._'_ y\.. .. - !ft3
::L --- I ~~ . ',~ '1 "h 1 . r"'i~ -I' :.t-
1 I' '1111 1 I! I ~.::.Io;'''V';I,.. ~ ~~~i\.... . ~.: ......J....::....- -
" I r~ I,';. '. '. ,;/ r~--
! I! 1- . I I " I! -........1' 6 .-,."'" ! ' '" _ . ) I"! 1 _
.__-:::;:--;- i. \..\l '.<~tr2i ~~'Ir' ~." ,...v...:JI,., ,.~~ _
'---' I I ,..""'\ J~ I,'.~ ....:,;. .::1'" I .111l~" 'ill 4
:=:;:::.=1 r.'; (\- !,,- //;~ '4'" ::::
. a_ - I . . i /I I' ..., :.::..-.
.-- -3 i."!) /11-- ,....--
/........ 1-. ""","
- ',. ,-~ - -:- <..)- -A~'---'I ~ .~ -:.
- i ..I-H i,..,l ,~'4~liTjlll ~
- i r'.-?f-> . IN" l JlI'IIl =~~ltHl~ 1- L
= ~ ~~~ :::kU {f;j;.JT1 II llill!: -~..;-' ~ _ 5
= 7 .. "~ys &" ~.1 ...~.~'tI-=
- ~~~L r:r;:rR~. .'-r--
- \~::r*-:~~.w:..,~ a=# 1 I "'--
- :""-~:/~V,,~7 ,'v. ~I"~ ~ .
- '1~ ?'I~--'f:"'J "'J rj{L ~ r-c =
- ;k,.. , ,~. 1/__ 6
- [JctJ d' o~ ',' y.... =
=.'=~ . ~~j~~\ !\ ~, -
--_.~ A I
-- /~7"" ~. ,~
- ~.".! ~.L~fe ~ ~ ~
--= V=,..., ~ "' ..JJI 1 f-- 7
I -~ .... .' r' ~, !!!.' J I ,
, - I . I , I
ii' I I I' ' "I f . '. " ; ,
. i I Iii, I I . I .
- 72
,,~ ~
I Ef !--
12
A CtTYOF
~~trtr CHANHASSEN
~ BASE MAl'
P'IIIf:,AItCD rr:
C_SSE:H f:IIIGlHt_ 1lf:I"T.
~ ..... ...,
..... ...,
i .-_.....
I -
1
,J
-
".0.....
. --
--........-
-...- -....
~-
I. ......-
'7" T
'TUESDAY COLLECTION ROUTES (1006 stops)
(0= number of haulers serving route
Vehicles in service: 5 MSWi 4 recycling
City of Chanhassen
-.;&
Resource Strategies
3
..
Figure 3
(;
7-
-.-
I I I 1-' n n.l-' I I f
i I I I I 1 . I M ~...!__~. j I
.--...... I I
'--.. ~
. ...... __ Ct
.-.-.. .
: :=:::.. :=j
--~
4
. CITY OF
\0.. l1 CHANHASSEN
....K.....,.
,..",uc .t':
CH4IHASSOI CHGlHEO/IHG DCI'T.
.."",. -. '",
....... ...,
... ..u
6
1
rJ
-
U'Ce-NO
...
--- --......,.
.._-...".......
---
I~' I - -:- T
es=
1
7
, 11
i I I
,
WEDNESDAY COLLECTION ROUTES (1110 stops)
o = number of haulers serving route
Vehicles in service: 6 MSWj 4 recycling
City of Chanhassen
4
Resource Strategies
Figure 4
A '=;j 8=-i7' C 0 :=..E F
_ J.' 1 1 I, I · 1 I I 1 I I I I 1_' , ! 1 '1- I " 1.1 I I ~.I;:..l..!.J,..) '-''lI!'
_':'::'l~.:-~_.r.. I . 1 '!<-,", .,;- : - '. -...... -..-_
--.: :::.I""ll ,~ . -. 'Y'.#JJ~:--
s-'<#- ~/ ~ ,I. I,t... , ..-.......-
(,.--J~)t.,..... ".J.:- ,:--r- ~ rJ.' !, -
j'J"';' ,. t ,;J .~7 \. I , i). II .(t. -=- . I
_ -r ~~;. ,... 6'-, (oh 'H r I ~~ i p...:=;;..., '(.... J __._
-:""-c- ......., n. t) --l I U ~ _ --
~fil~X'~L )-~~ ~ QZ=tl=:J.--'~._'V ,: .-'--=
~, '~..;r I, Y':.J I '~ .. , _ _
'7-......: .-. v aD ~ ~.. I '" _ _ .__._ 111#: .-. .:-::'-
=- ~~~~ i t!- ~ i:E i'" r ~::...;.' 1l1l - - .
-- ~_.~__.~ I ~ Ln.. h t-I{ ~ r~-,t T ~ I .
C::, .....'\.: ~!{
-- \. "". '-:::'- ..... ...... ~'i,H 't"'-':
- I "'-'~jj'- """-..""",~ _ ... .
-- te:>l \ I[\\.l..;.;..... 1 \~ \' \ ' .::- I
- .'--r~~ ---::.- ._!n 1-; :"".~ 1f'~\~..J ~ ~~ -- 1t)
- I ~.. i=I,i, ~. ,w-o-. J:.....-" -= -L. <::s:.; 3
-- _.. I I ...... .... ! -.... ..-... ..,
:- : I ! I I' T.III. I .J [ I I ! im\ L:... \t2, ;. '~gl>/. JC~~~ =-~~
I I ,! {I I! _ '_ t!.. .;.~ I ~.':i::.::J. I~~'""""", ") L::J 1__ _
,~f'~ "- . J/.' ......~' ~. A
" -."--:::::-~ (I '-., -t' ~~\>~~;, /' ~I d ii 6.' . ---
: :::=:--- I --1 r, J .. . , , .., ~;,r.!., ~ 4
I _we _ Sf I . ..... F"" ,', -- U fI -.....t::a.
'_'W ---, i ~ '1 J ~.... ...
::=.-:.. _.. I ._~ t /1 i ~'l ~_
:=J i . /'-1 ~ = i'~1 .... 1--
~ :. . ..~ - .. :-- "y -~~ 1 ~J ". iJ:::: I~ ..... --:.
- ! ;/-1 ../ ...,Im. ~.t.1~~; .:,' i ';..
= -. j --r-':"CJ,lr"~l'IIIl=~~!LPl. 7~
~ ii.r<i'/""+- (#ill11- II!I ~~~ .~ - 5
= ;-;(~..., W&~~
-- b~--iL =~~'-7\1..
- "';/~~.~JL~ ~I 'T'7?/1
= '~~~~~ :~~. ~~J~ =-
- DljA\ \ rLJ,..y.~~ X ~i1':i:g "' _ 6
- ~-.J.t0 0lJJ}P" . \r--='" ...._
::: . -"!' ~\'J \ f.-'
~"~II b;f ~!-._' . ,
. ~ ....! ~ ........ ~ \-. t-
--=v i; ~tF' ". J 1
f ~-, '1M"; I ;,. ! I " I I , ~ j ! ! 1 ! i 1 f
, 'I" I . J I I
:.:. 72
!'~~
V -
12~.-
A. C1TYOF
'lt~'W CHANHASSEN
~ BASI: AlAI'
""rue rt:
CH4IHASSOI EHGJHE:O/IHG llD"T.
~ ::. ::::
MIf~ I....
1
rJ
-
".ceNO
.. <<M"t....
--- .........-
a_._......._
-
1'7.
c::::'''':':''
I ~ ":" T
4--
-
7
THURSDAY COLLECTION ROUTES (599 stops)
o = number of haulers serving route
Vehicles in service: 3 MSWj 2 recycling
City of Cnanhassen
5
Resource Strategies
~
~,
\
i
Figure 5
'7-
-'<
Tl'; I rTlI !
. CITY OF
'~. CHANHASSEN
'AK ....P
___....... I .
-......... I .. .'
....-.. ,~
-......... .. .
_M
=~3
4
5
I'tIUMC I'r:
C:HANi&SSOI t__ DCPT.
IIIFMStD M/I1I. ...~
..'. ...,.
.-o.,.u
6
1
,.
-
~--==-":" T
.......-
<If ...-..
----.-
......-.......-
--......
1
7
I I ,
I I
, I
! I
, !
, I
I '
FRIDAY COLLECTION ROUTES (529 stops)
@ = number of haulers serving route
Vehicles in service: 4 MSW; 4 recycling
City of Chanhassen
6
Resource Strategies
the City appears to. be served by a maximum of four MSW and four
recycling vehicles eachweek. Figure 6 illustrates q weekly r.outing
summary for the City.
The predominant capacity of the MSW vehicles is 20 cubic yards
(CY). Th~re are also five routes which utilize six (6) CY capacity
vehicles. Average weekly volume of MSW reportedly collected is
approximately 285 CY. The gross capacity of the 21 MSW vehicles in
use in Chanhassen each week is 350 CY.
The number of residential stops per vehicle varies with the
capacity of the vehicles. The range of stops per vehicle for the
20 CY vehicles is from 19 to 257. The average number of stops per
20 CY vehicle is 186 stops.
The average number of stops per cubic yard of vehicle capacity has
also been figured for all vehicles. The range of stops per cubic
yard of capacity is from 0.95 to 17.1 stops. The average number of
stops per cubic yard of vehicle capacity is 11 stops. The wide
range of stops per vehicle capacity illustrates a wide range of
vehicle efficiency operating within the City. The vehicles may end
up with additional stops, but they will include customers outside
of Chanhassen.
The total number of weekly MSW vehicle miles driven in Chanhassen
is approximately 620 miles. This mileage has been adjusted to
eliminate shop and landfill trips. Total mileage of roads in
Chanhassen is approximately 128 miles. This includes 96 miles of
local streets, 14 miles of county roads and 18 miles of state
highways. These numbers illustrate an obvious duplication of road
usage forMSW collection service. The duplication is likely to be
a factor of four.
The capacities and number of stops per recycling vehicle are
different from MSW vehicles. A particular route served by two MSW
vehicles may be served by a single recycling vehicle. The number
City of Chanhassen
7
Resource Strategies
.,
.
I
L
!
Figure 6
A s::-
_I.~ ! ! y,
--.:.:. :'..- ,;.:" . "
(;
---,
_..J
T I -, . -I I' II i I I
Illl.lll!
__ -::::- i" i I
==:-- II
-....-.. l
~~3
4
., CITY OF
i1.~'. CHANHASSEN
'ASf: MAP
5
~P'MC"":
C~SEH l'HG<N(DlJNC 0E:n.
~. MIf~ ",.,
..'. I..'
..__ 11'''
6
!
f'J
-
~ 1-":" I
uc...O
4
-...- .........,.
.....--....
---
.1
7
. , , .
~ : II
NUMBER OF HAULERS SERVING ROUTES/NEIGHBORHOODS
EACH WEEK
City of Chanhassen
8
Resource Strategies
of households served and the total road miles traveled by the
recycling fleet, however, is comparable to that of the MSW fleet.
Each of the haulers participating in the survey provide carts for
customer usage. All five haulers utilize 90-96 gallon containers
and three of the haulers utilize 60-65 gallon containers. Nearly
half of the residents in Chanhassen utilize a hauler provided
container.
The haulers employ 27 persons on the MSW vehicle routes in
Chanhassen. With 21 vehicles in use, this suggests employees
doubling up on six routes. The haulers also identified 22
employees, servicing 17 recycling routes. A detailed summary of
the hauler survey is attached as Appendix A.
City of Ch~nhassen
9
Resource Strategies
\.~
~.
.
,.
II. ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION METHODS
In the simplest sense, there are two general categories for solid
waste collection: open and organized. Within each category, there
are several subcategories of alternative collection methods. There
are also a variety of Uhybrid systems,U which combine elements from
different methods. The following alternative collection categories
are presented for evaluation:
A. Open
1. Local licensing
2. County licensing
3. Licensing with zones/routes
B. Organized
1. Municipal
2. Single hauler contract
3. Consortium contract
4. Multiple hauler contract
A. OPEN COLLECTION
There is no statutory definition of open or unorganized collection;
however, Minnesota Statutes (115A.94) define organized collection
as "a system for collecting solid waste in which a specified
collector, or member of an organization of collectors, is
authorized to collect from a defined geographic. service area or
areas some or all of the solid waste that is released by generators
for collection." Therefore, a collection system in which specified
collectors, or haulers, are D..Qt. authorized or assigned to collect
within a specific geographic area is an open system. The survey
results indicate that over 75% of the communities in the metro area
have open collection systems.
1. Local Licensing
Cities and towns are authorized by statute
haulers for the collection of solid waste.
to issue licenses to
Communities with a
City of Chanhassen
10
Resource Strategies
population in excess of 1000 are required to ensure that solid
waste collection is available to all residents and businesses.
Communities are allowed considerable discretion in establiShing
license requirements, provided the requirements are .not
inconsistent with the county's solid waste policies. Local license
requirements must also include provisions requiring haulers to
charge customers on a volume or weight based scale.
Most communities, with licensing requirements, tend to -register"
rather than "regulate" haulers. Typical or basic licensing
requirements include:
- Administrative/license fee
Annual term
Vehicle identification
Variable rate structure
Recycling provisions
Hours/days of operation
Reporting requirements
Insurance/bonding
Aside from meeting minimum licensing requirements, there are
generally no other restrictions affecting a free enterprise type of
system. Communities may restrict the number of licenses it chooses
to issue, which could limit the number of haulers serving the
community. Communities may also establish zones and days of the
week for open collection, which is discussed below.
2. County Licensing
As of January 1, 1993, counties must assume licensing of haulers in
all communi ties which do not have licensing requirements. The
extent of county licensing in lieu of local licensing is not known
at this time. Presumably, county licensing would consist of basic
requirements, similar to city licensing, and other elements which
may compJ,ement and implement county solid waste policies. A
locally unregulated system of collection would remain open under
this licensing alternative.
City of Chanhassen
11
Resource Strategies
...
3. Licensing with zones/routes
Licensing requirements may also limit collection activities in a
communi ty to certain zones or routes on a particular day of the
week. Depending on the number of households and number of licensed
haulers, communities may designate collection to one or more days
a week in one or more zones within the community. For example, a
community may limit collection for the eastern half of the
community to Tuesdays and for the western half to Thursdays.
Collection service would remain open and be provided by all of 'the
haulers licensed by the community. Approximately 15 communities
have an open, zoned collection system.
B. ORGANIZED COLLECTION
As noted above, organized collection implies that a "specified-
hauler, or member of an organization of haulers, is authorized to
collect solid waste in a defined zone or route in a community. The
specified hauler may be a public or private entity. The zone may
be a portion of the community or the entire community. Billing
procedures may be administered by either the community or. the
specified hauler. Less than 25 percent of the communities in the
metro area have organized collection.
1. Municipal collection
Municipal collection involves the use of public employees. and city-
owned/ leased equipment to collect solid waste. The service is
similar to utility, street, park and public safety provisions by
municipalities. Collection service may be included in the general
tax levy or billed as a utility or separate service. Municipal
collection is not that prevalent in Minnesota; however, the EPA
estimated that 40% of household waste nationally was collected by
municipali ties 1n 1988. Municipal collection is provided by
Minneapolis (50% of households), Farmington and Hopkins.
2. Single hauler contract
This method involves a contract with one hauler for collection
City of Chanhassen
12
Resource Strategies
service 1n the entire community -- one hauler, one zone. Minnesota
statutes allow communities to negotiate a contract for service or
go through a competitive bid process. The community also
establishes the length of the contract term. The single hauler
contract is the most common method of organized collection in the
region. Eighty per cent of the communities with organized
collection contract with a single hauler.
3. Consortium contract
An alternative to the single contract with a single hauler is a
single contract with a consortium of haulers. A community is
divided into a number of zones equal to the number of haulers in
the consortium. The number of households or accounts in a zone
may be representative of the number of accounts held by the hauler
prior to organization. The community negotiates the level of
- service, term of contract and fees for collection with the
consortium. Adjustments are made to the zones periodically to
equalize the addition of new households that may be developed in
the community. Four communities have consortiums.
4. Multiple contracts
An alternative to the consortium contract is individual contracts
with each hauler, or multiple contracts for one level of service in
the community. Zones are established, similar to. the consortium
contract, as well as the days of collection. The community must
establish ,a- common level of service, term and fee structure, in
which it contracts with each hauler. Adjustments may be made to
the zones, similar to the consortium contract, to equalize new
growth. At least two communities utilize multiple contracts.
Since 198 at least 25 cities in the metropolitan area have
evaluated organ1z1ng solid waste collection. Ten of the
com"Tlunities chose to organize collection. Ten communities remained
open but zoned the community for collection. Five communities made
no substantive changes. Of the IO cities that chose to organize,
City of Chanhassen
13
Resource Strategies
$"
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
A rev~ew of environmental issues that surround solid waste
collection is an integral element in the evaluation of alternative
collection methods. A number of factors are summarized in this
section, inCluding:
A. Aesthetics/Litter
B. Air Quality
C. Energy Consumption
D. Noise
E. Traffic/Safety
A. AESTHETICS/LITTER
The issue of aesthetics is difficult to quantify. What bothers one
person may be unnoticed by another. What is appealing to one
person may be appalling to another. The aesthetic factor of solid
waste collection includes the visual impacts of MSW and reCYCling
containers set out for collection, the passage of collection
vehicles in the neighborhood, and the litter potentially associated
with collection. The sight and smell of diesel engine emissions
may also be considered by some to be an aesthetic issue.
As discussed ~n Section I, up to five MSW and five recycling
vehicles serve most neighborhoods each week. Collection may occur
on each weekday' in some neighborhoods. MSW and recycling
containers may be visible on a particular street every weekday.
In some instances materials may be as discreetly stored as possible
in well maintained containers. In other instances materials may be
piled in poxes, plastic bags, metal drums or simply heaped at
curbside. When collection occurs every week day, visual
intrusions, odors and the potential for litter occur each weekday.
Under alternative methods of collection, this impact can be limited
to one day per week.
City of Chanhassen
15
Resource Strategies
'"'
I'
B. AIR QUALITY
All combustion vehicles emit pollutants into the air. The State of
Minnesota has implemented a vehicle emission testing program, which
is primarily geared at monitoring (and reducing) carbon monoxide
emissions. Portions of the Twin Cities do not meet federal ambient
air quality standards for levels of carbon monoxide.
Solid waste collection vehicles are almost exclusively diesel
powered vehicles. Diesel fuel undergoes combustion with much lower
levels of carbon monoxide than gasoline. Other diesel emissions
include hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
Carbon monoxide emissions data is available from models prepared by
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The level of
emissions varies with the type of vehicle, type of fuel, speed and
atmospheric conditions. Under comparable conditions, at 15 miles
per hour, an auto will emit 36.53 grams of carbon monoxide per
vehicle mile, compared to 16.90 grams of carbon monoxide per
vehicle mile of a heavy duty diesel vehicle (HDDV - over 8,500
lbs.). At 40 miles per hour, the auto emits 12.18 grams compared
to 6.55 grams for the HDDV.
Total vehicle miles for MSW and recycling vehicles per week in
Chanhassen is approximately 1,240 miles (620 x 2). This is roughly
250 vehicle miles per day. By contrast, total residential oriented
automobile '=!sage may generate 45,000 vehicle miles per day (4,500
housing units @ 10 tripS/day @ 1 mile/trip). Reducing the number
of collection vehicles in service will have little bearing on
ambient air quality, relative to total carbon monoxide emissions.
.~lternative collection methods can reduce total HDDV emissions,
however, compared to current emission levels.
C. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The size and age of collection vehicles produce a range of vehicle
fuel efficiency. Dealers indicate new diesel solid waste vehicles
City of Chanhassen
16
Resource Strategies
are capable of averaging 10 miles per gallon. Haulers have
indicated a range of 4 to 7 miles per gallon. Using 6as an
average vehicle mile per gallon and 250 miles per day, the current
collection system requires approximately 42 gallons of fuel per .day
or 10,920 gallons of fuel.
The vehicle mile duplication factor presented in Section I
indicated vehicles in the current collection system are traveling
four times the necessary mileage to provide coverage to the entire
City. Alternative methods of collection \'JQuld be capable of
reducing fuel consumption rather substantially, perhaps by as much
as 8,000 gallons per year.
D. NOISE
Noise is a form of pollution which generally requires relatively
continuous exposure, rather than cumulative periodic exposure, to
create health risks. Even periodic exposure to noise may cause
stress in some individuals. Noise pollution may appear to be less
significant to some than air pollution or water pollution; yet, it
is measurable and less subjective than visual pollution.
Noise affects people differently, because hearing varies from one
person to the next. Noise is measured in decibels on a scale of 0
to 140. Figure 7 is an illustration of cpmmon sounds and their
noise levels. Continuous exposure to sound iri excess of 70
decibels i~ the threshold for hearing damage.
The presence of solid waste vehicles represents periodic exposure
to noise. The exposure at any given household on any particular
day is not a significant threat. Solid waste collection employees
may be exposed to a health risk, like many other occupations.
Noise from collection vehicles may be considered a nuisance. Any
reduction in the number of vehicles may represent a reduction of
the nuisance.
City of Chanhassen
17
Resource Strategies
..
Sound Levels and Human Response
Noise
Level
Common Sounds (dB)
Canter deck
jet operation
Air raid siren
Jet takeoff (200 feet)
ThunderClap
OiscotneQue
Auto hom (3 feet)
Pile drivers
Garbage truck
Heavy truck (SO feet)
City traflic
Alarm clOck 12 feet)
Hair dryer
Noisy restaurant
Freeway traffic
Man's voice (3 feel)
Air COnditioning unit
(20 feet)
Light autO traffic
(100 feet)
Living room
Bedroom
Ouiet office
Library
$oft whisper (15 leet)
Broadcasting studio 20
Figure 7
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
~~~~"-a'
~~.:r.~.,~~~
~~~
>>'~~.f,l~:'~":t.~~
~.rc::.}-.~.:~T.~i~~"'._".~""_ ../i;i
t~?!~~~~~~'~~r~:~o/i1~~
~~i~~::,':::'; :::'.:;;:.p:~~;.~~~
60
50
40
30
Very quiei
10 Just audible
o Hearing begins
This decibel (dB) table compares some common sounds and
shows how they rank in potential harm to hearing. Note that
70 dB is the point at which noise begins to harm hearing. To
the ear, each 10 dB increase seems twice as lOud.
Reprinted from "Noise and Its Measurement, II U. S. EPA.
City of Chanhassen
18
Resource Strategies
";.~
City of Chanhassen
19
Resource Strategies
E. TRAFFIC/SAFETY
There have been no traffic accidents reported involving solid waste
collection vehicles in Chanhassen in recent years. Accident risk
escalates with the increase of traffic trips on local roadways .
Concern for public safety also includes the occasional backing up
of solid waste vehicles on local streets. Alternative methods of
collection will reduce trip incidence and total vehicle miles on
residential streets and may enhance public safety in neighborhoods.
IV. STREET IMPACTS
,
A lot of discussion has been held on the impacts of overweight
vehicles on roadways. This is of particular concern to the City of
Chanhassen, due to the nature of the clay soils, generally present
in the community. The soil conditions require stricter road
construction design requirements, which result in higher initial
construction costs and higher maintenance costs.
The MnDOT Road Design Manual establishes criteria and factors for
comparing relative impacts to roadways by various vehicle types.
The "Sigma N-18 value" can be utilized to determine cumulative
damage effects of vehicles during the design life of pavement.
Vehicles are classified in a scale of one to ten. Automobiles are
Type I, trucks with trailers and buses are Type 10,_ typical MSW
vehicles are Type ? and typical recycling vehicles are Type 4.
The N18 factors indicate that a single Type 5 vehicle (MSW vehicle)
has the relative cumulative effect on pavement as 1,125
automobiles. Recycling vehicles have the same damage effect as 525
automobiles. Other comparisons include large pickups (17.5 autos),
buses (850 autos) and 5-axle semi-tractor trailers (1,475 autos).
These factors are based upon an assumed distribution of the various
vehicle types on local, rural and county state aid roadways : autos
I
(75.7%), pickups and other vehicles under 1 ton (16.0%), M.SW and
other single unit vehicles (1.7%), recycling and other single unit
vehicles (2.6%), and trucks with trailers and buses (1.0%).
The combined impact of an MSW vehicle and a recycling vehicle on a
local road is equivalent to 1,650 automobiles. Residential use of
a typical cuI de sac may generate 100-200 average daily traffic
(.?.DT) . Weekly traffic equates to 7 00-1,400 vehicle trips. A
single hauler serving the cuI de sac exceeds the weekly residential
usage with an equivalent of
City of Chanhassen
20
Resource StrategieS
City of Ch~nhassen
21
Resource Strategies
f
1,650 automobile trips. Five haulers serving the cuI de sac in one
week create the impact of 8,250 automobiles.
,
. .
A minor residential through street may generate 600-1,000 ADT,. or
4,200-7,000 trips per week. A single hauler generates the
equivalent of 1,650 trips with weekly service. Five. haulers create
the impact of 8,250 trips i~ one week.
A local residential collector street may generate 1,000-3,000 ADT,
or 7,000-21,000 weekly trips. A single hauler generates the
equivalent of 1,650 trips per week; whereas, five haulers generate
8,250 trips. A City collector street (MSA 9 ton roa.dway) may
generate 3,000-10,000 ADT, or 21,000-70,000 trips per week.
The pattern is clear. With exception of the MSA streets, solid
waste collection vehicles currently serving the City- create a
significant portion of the relative impact of vehicles on local
streets. The lower the ADT of a particular street, the higher the
potential impact by solid waste collection vehicles.
There are 128 miles of roadway in the City of Chanhassen. Of
these, 96 miles are under City jurisdiction. The majority of City
streets are designed as 7 ton roadways. Twenty percent, or 19
miles, are municipal state aid (MSA) roadways, which are a 9 ton
design. A few miles of older streets are categorized as 5 ton
roadways.
During spring weight restriction (generally a 10 week period), 9
ton roads are posted 7 ton, 7 ton roads are posted 5 ton and the 5
ton roads are posted 4 ton. The tonnages relate to the gross
weight (loaded weight) of a vehicle, distributed on each axle. For
example, a 40,000 lb. gross weight (GW) triple axle vehicle has a
distributed weight of 6.7 tons per axle (40,000/2,000 = 20 tons/3
= 6.7 tons).
1
&.
The larger solid waste collection vehicles used in Chanhassen range
from 39,000 GW to 44,000 GW. A triple axle 44,000 GWvehicle would
have a weight of 7.33 tons per axle; whereas, a double axle 39,000
GW vehicle would have a weight of 9.75 tons per axle. Neither
vehicle can meet reduced weight restrictions and the latter exceeds
weight limits on all City streets throughout the entire year.
L
I
The number of exceptions to weight limits has direct bearing on the
potential f~r damage to pavement. An increase in the frequency of
overweight vehicles increases the risk of damage. Alternative
collection methods can reduce the number and frequency of vehicles
exceeding weight limits and reduce the cumulative damage effect on
local roadways.
City of Chanhassen
22
Resource Strategies
v. COST COMPARISONS
RSC completed surveys of metro area communities with organized
collection and a comparable number of communities with open
collection. The cost data for organized collection was generated.
through phone interviews with city representatives. The cost data
for open collection was generated through written surveys, phone
interviews with city representatives and phone interviews with
haulers.
The data has been adjusted to exclude sales tax and include any
other charges or credits identified. The range of costs for levels
of service in open communities have been averaged for comparative
purposes. In instances where a range of the haulers' costs was
provided, rather than all of the individual haulers' costs, a mid-
point in the range has been utilized and noted.
In spite of efforts to adjust and clarify the data for comparative
purposes, this cost data can not be considered error free. While
the data sources may all be legitimate, the detail and/or level of
confidence of data received may vary. Solid waste pricing is very
complex and constantly changing.
Cost data has been organized to compare costs of open collection by
municipality and county (Table 1), costs of organized collection by
I
municipality and county (Table 2) and to compare costs of open and
organized collection by county (Table 3).
Collection. costs in the City of Chanhassen compare fairly evenly
with the average costs of open collection in Carver County. The
30/32 gallon rate in the City is slightly lower; the 60/65 gallon
rate is slightly higher; the 90/96 gallon rate is slightly lower
and the unlimited service level is slightly higher. The City's
rates are 1!.igher than the average organized rates in the county at
City of Chanhassen
23
Resource Strategies
~
TABLE 1
UON'l'HLy msIS/HOUSEHOLD - MF:l'RO AREA CITIES WITH OPEN rou:ex::noN
1 30/32 60/65 90/96 Unlimited
CARVm muN'IY 1m. , Ha~ Iil!R Iil!R I"illIlm ~
C:ln1!r 744 2 113.25 1142s lls.75
ClWIHA.ml 11,700 6 $13.18 $15.00 llS.25 11728
Chasb 11. 800 7 $13.10 S14.43 S1623 St 15.33
Qqne 563 , S13.13 St4.25 $15.63
V"lclDria 2. BOO 6 S13.62 11527 St 5.67 $19.80
Wacooia 3.498 3 m..u. $14.33 ~ -
Counly AW!I'lIp $1324 $14.59 $15.89 S17.80
ANOrA muN'IY $21.15 tzo.50
8el.hel 416 4 $1 7.50
Oxln Rapids 52. 419 9 $14.70 $17.57 S18.50 $1 9.25
East Bethel 8.050 6 S17.50 S19.43 $19.66
FridJey 29,000 7 $1 4.70 S16.81 $17.50 tzD.88
R:umey 12. 408 6 S14.55 S17.33
Spllng lake Palic · 6.509 8 $14.25 ~ 11m tzO.o7
County A\~ $1 5.73 $17.64 118.52
DAKOTA muN'IY
Apple Valley 34. 275 6 114.o5 $15.85 S18.56 $18.93
BumsWle · 51.288 7 S13.78 S15.85 S18.38
Lak2'9iIle 28, 408 6 $13.79 $15.83 $18.00 $1 9.93
\fest Sl Paul · 8.622 6 am llW. S15.J3 S19.43
Counly A\1lft&e 113.61 $15.35 $17.52
fImNmH llXINlY $25.34
F.din:1 46.070 " $18.65 tz128 tz3.75
Medina 3, 096 3 $16.00 $17.87 W4
Mio.netmIca · 48.500 U S1S.50 $20.00 tz4.50 tz525
PI}1DOUlh · 50.889 9 $16.00 $18.00 tzO.OO $24.00
Sllnrewmd · 5.917 13 ~16.25 $19.00 $23.00 $22.75
County A~ $1 6.58 $19.23 $22.81 $24.00
RA."l'iE'I' muN'IY
Falcon Heights · 5328 7 113.50 $15.90 tt 7.S3 $2 LSD
New 81ighlon · 22125 11 $13.75 $17.00 $20.00
1bie\ille · 33, 485 14 S13.38 $t 5.93 $t 8.43
Sl Paul · 272.235 28 lWm $IS.74 l!lU! .~
WtUlly A~l"oJgI! $t3.41 $tG.14 $18.53 SZO.79
s::orr muN'IY
DcllePl3ine 3.187 2 $12.73 $14.73 $17.73 ~1.95
Jackson Twp. 1.359 4 $13.30 $1 5.66 S18.o5 $I 8.95
I.cu.iniUe Twp. 910 3 $t3.30 $15.66 S18.05 $18.95
Prior lake II, 482 6 $I 2.23 114.38 $1720 $19.00
Savage 9,906 7 tl.lli $1 .u8 n.w. ~
County A\l!r.1ge $12.83 $15.02 $17.62 $10.70
lfASlllNCTON muN'IY
ColbgeG~' 22. 935 3 $l3.7S $I 4.98 $18.09
Lake Elmo · 5.903 S tt2.78 tt 6.00 $17.11
Newport · 3. 720 4 $12.75 $14.63 $16.50
0akdaIe 18.374 8 $12.34 $14.77 $I 6.59 $21.08
Ifaxibuzy · 20.075 11 $12.25 tJ 4.66 nza
Olunty A"I!ra,.ee $I2.n $15.05 ~i.19 S2J.08
Rates do DOl ioclude lax Rates adjumd for olber ~ or eredils.
-- = not oITered in Ulis city or infmnalion DOl. a'l'lli1ab1e
. = rotes repl'CSCnl midpoint d I'3nge
~~
City of Chanhassen 24 Resource Strategies
..
TABLE 2
MON'l'HLY rosrs/HOUSEHOlD - MEmO AREA c:rlm TIlTH ORGANIZED c:ou..EX:TION
30/J2 60/G5 90/96 Unlimited
~ mUNTY em. r.: I\m GI!!;m &iI!!g G!l!l;g ~ il!in&
llamburg 495 1970 single ..33 city
M.'yer 47t t970 single $I 02.') city
New Cenn:lny 352 1970 siIlr;Ie $11.D0 $14.50 $18.00 city
Walerl.o1l11 2,306 1901 single $1 1.D0 $14.50 $10.00 bauIer
Young America 1.347 ? lingle I1L.Zl taIDl. ~ $10.25 city
County A\1mlge $11.25 $14.17 $15.00
CliANltA$EN (Open) 11, 700 $13.18 $15.00 $16.25 $1728 NA
ANOKA CDUNIY $18.50
B1aine 40,000 ahra)'S siDgIe StO.50 city
Ceotenil.le 1,819 1970 single $1 1.92 $16.12 $a1.30 cily
Cin:Ie Pines 4, 700 1950 siogIe $10.83 $1420 $18.50 city
CaImDbia Hcigbls 18. 910 1976 siogIe $13.99 $1&.06 city
Ham Lake 9.000 1991 UlDSDrtium n1J1. ~ - city
County A"ger.Ige $11.68 $15.62 $18.50 $18.62
DAKOTA CDUNlY $16.33
F3I'Ulingt.on 6.500 1945 municip:ll city
Has~ 15, 000 1955 single Sll.!!!. iI7.70 $20.70 hauler
County A \1lft&e $13.70 $17.70 St8.52
HENNEPIN COUNlY
Deepba\ll!n 3.657 1950 single $17.25 S22.25 tz7.o0 city
ED::e1sicr 2,367 1950 single $16.90 $19.62 city
napkins 17,300 a111'8)'S mUllicipa1 Sl8.04 city
Minneapolis 36G. 166 1970 mim1 $1 .tOO city
Ch:unplin 19,000 1980 UlDSDrtium $17.56 tzo.30 city
MI.b Beach 590 1973 single $21.55 city
Ossco 2. 691 ? siIlr;Ie $111.74 city
Robbinsd:lJe 14,500 1988 single $14.75 city
Sl Ibnif'acius 1.180 1970 single $13.74 $16.74 lID.74 hauler
51. louis Park 43.000 1950 single $17.31 city
TonJca &y 1.500 1985 single $15.59 city
Wayzata 3. 781 1970 single ~ m,n ~ - city
County A"ger.Ige SI5.11 $17.39 tzO.37 $19.53
RAMSEY mUNTY
UlUc Can:ld:1 8. !l4IS 1908? mulliple $12.57 $15.33 $15.75 $19.52 hauler
Nod.l1 5t. I'olul 12,332 1985 mull.iple $9.54 $11.3.( $I 3.15 hauler
Vl\dnais Heights 10.050 1991 UlDSDrtium $1 2.30 $15.65 tIS.I0 hauler
While Oc:lr Lake 24.500 1975 si.ngIe $10.50 $11.92 $tU3 city
While Oc:lr Twnshp 10,300 J970 single $14.80 ~ hauler
County A \1:r.lgC $11.94 $13.56 $15.36 tzO.o 1
9mT mUNTY
JOI'lIall 3,000 1978 sin"ll{e fS.85 $8.35 $9.85 elly
New Al3N:t 243 1989 single lIo.oo $12.00 lI4.D0 city
New Pr.lguc 3.600 1970 single $6.50 $7.50 $8.50 city
~ 12.500 1978 single $122t t!ll! city
County ^\t:r:lgC $8.89 SIO.42 $10.78
'i~UNGTON mUNTY
13a}-port. 3, 200 1987 single $9.81 $IUD $14.15 city
Din:hwaxl V'UIa:e 1.042 1960? siIlr;Ie $1 3.00 $14.30 $16.30 $23.00 city
FOI15t Lake/Twp. 13. ODD 1989 single $16.50 $a0.50 hauler
Marine/St Croix 602 1975 siIlr;Ie lI6.33 city
O:lk Park Hei&f1ls 3, 486 1962 single $I 8.00 taO.OO city
Stillwater 14. 598 1070 single $13.95 $J7.1)5 $19.05 city
lfl1lemie 587 1965 single tL.ll lIkE $I 4.52 city
County ^~ra,,"l! $10.98 $15.14 $17.57 $19.67
IQtP.o; rIn ml inr.111M lax Rates adjuslJ!d (I'll' ol.her charges ~ credits
---: = not. oll'ered in this city or inlormalion noI. al'llilable
City of Ch,anhassen 25 Resource Strategies
TABLE 3
mUN1Y mIlECTION cosrs mMP ARlSONS
, Open rate as base value; ca;t of org;mi7.en as sa~or increase.
I .
Open/ 30/32 60/65 90/96 Unlimited
OOUNlY ~ni7A'j aJ.loDs e:aIIDDs aJ.loDs lDlume
Anoka Open $15.73 $17.64 $18.62 f20.07
I OrfYlni7.P1i ~1.68 ~5.62 tt 8.50 . $I 8.62
j. ($4,05 ) -26% (S2.02) -11% ($J.12) -1% ($1.45) -7%
Carrel' Open $I 3.24 $14.59 $I 5.89 $17.80
Ore;;mi7.p{} ~ 1.25 $14.17 $15.08 Sf 0.25.
($1.99) -15% ($J.42) -3% ($J.81) -5% ($7.55) -42%
Dakota Open $13.61 $1 5.35 $1 7.52 $19.43
Org;mi.,~ $I 3.70 . St 7.70 · ~8.52
$J.09 1% S2.35 15% $1.00 6%
Hennepin Open $16.68 $19.23 S22.81 f24.00
Organi7.P1i ~ $17.39 j20,37 $19.53
($1.57) -9% ($1.84) -10% (S2.44) -11% (Uo4 7) -19%
Ramsey Open $13.41 $1 6.14 $18.53 120.79
Ore;;mi7~ $t 1.94 $13.56 $15.36 $20.01
($1.47) -11% ($2.58 ) -16% (tl.17) -17% ($J.78) -4%
&:ott Open $1 2.83 $1 5.02 $1 7.62 $19.70
Organized 18.89 $10.42 $10.78 ---r-
(tl.94) -31% ($4,60) -31% ($13.84) -39%
Washington Open $I 2.77 $15.05 $1 7.19 $21.08 .
Oreimi7..ed $1 0.98 $15.14 $17.57 $19.67
($1.79) -14% tD.09 1% $J.38 2% ($1.41 ) -7%
Hegiooal Ave~ae
Open $1 4.04 $16.15 $18.31 S2004l
Organized $11,94 $14.86 $16.60 $17.62 .
(S2.10) -15% ($1 .29) -8% ($1.71) -9% ($2.79) -14%
-- = no values in this category * = one value in this category
City of Chanhassen 26 Resource Strategies
City of Chanhassen
27
Resource Strategies
all service levels: 30/32 gallons (17%), 60/65 gallons (6%), 90/96
gallons (8%). The unlimited rate is not comparable. A single rate
structure ~n the City of Mayer is the only unlimited rate for
organized collection in the county.
Comparisons of Chanhassen rates to other metro community rates are
not meaningful, due to varying county solid waste management
policies and access to' solid waste management facilities.
Comparisons of open and organized collection systems within each
county can be made. The county averages and regional averages are
illustrated in Table 3.
".
Regionally, organized collection rates represent a savings from 8%
to 15% in the various service levels. Five of the seven counties
show savings in all service levels of organized collection, ranging
from 1% to 42%. Washington County has savings in two of the four
service levels. Organized collection in Dakota County costs more
than open collection in three out of four service levels (unlimited
service is not comparable).
. ..
VI. RESIDENT SURVEY
Members of the Recycling Committee, City Council and Planning
Department conducted a residential phone survey during the first
t1r/O weeks in July, 1993. A total of 81 questionnaire.s were
recorded. Sixty-four percent of the respondents were between ages
25-45, 19% between ages 45-65 and 10% over age 65. The detailed
summary of survey responses is attached a~ Appendix B.
Residents were asked what' factors were important in selecting
collection service (the ranking was limited to very important,
neutral, not at all important). The highest response was related
to cost: 81% felt cost was very important, while 0% felt it was
unimportant. Conversely, only 10% felt the day of the we~k
collection occurs was important, while 81% felt it was unimportant.
The varying levels of volume service were important to 64%;
however, 66% felt special services, such as garage door pickup,
were unimportant. Finally, 30% of the respondents felt the
particular hauler providing service was important.
Nearly 40% of the residents indicated they utilize the -two can- or
60-65 gallon level of service, followed by 22% at 90-96 gallon, 20%
unlimited and 15% at one can per week. This contrasts with the
hauler survey, which indicated at least 50% of" the households
utilize the 90-96 gallon level, followed by 60-65 gallon, unlimited,
and one ca~ per week.
Nearly three-fourths of the respondents said they had never changed
haulers (unless related to moving to another residence). Of those
that had changed haulers, 41% did so because of price. Three-
fourths of the respondents indicated their hauler did not bill them
for waste set out in excess of their particular volume.
Residents were asked what level of concern they may have about
City of Chanhassen
28
Resource Strategies
different aspects of the existing solid waste collection system
(very concerned, neutral, not at all concerned). By a two to one
margin, residents were not concerned about the number of collection
vehicles, number of garbage cans on the street, vehicle emissions
or noise. Forty-seven percent were unconcerned about litter,
compared to 37% concerned. Forty-eight percent were unconcerned
about iili~~cts to streets, compared to 30% concerned. Finally, 48%
expressed concern about safety compared to 40,% unconcerned.
Residents were also asked to indicate their level of concern about
other oversized vehicles in their neighborhoods. Residents were
overwhelmingly unconcerned about other vehicles. Nine out of ten
were unconcerned about postal/delivery vehicles and school buses.
Three- fourths of the residents were unconcerned about lumber,
maintenance or utility vehicles. Two-thirds were unconcerned about
sand and gravel or other construction vehicles.
Pollsters described four alternative solid waste collection systems
to residents and asked their level of interest in each option.
Below is the detailed breakdown of the options and responses:
VERY
INTERESTED
NEUTRAL
NOT
INTERESTED
A.
B.
C.
D.
CONSORTIUM
OPEN/ZONED SYSTEM
ONE HAULER FOR CITY
CURRENT OPEN SYSTEM
34%
40%
15%
43%
30%
31%
25%
37%
37%
30%
60%
20%
The most definitive response is opposition to and lack of interest
in organized collection with a single hauler. Only 15% were in
favor of the system, while 60% were not interested.
The highest expressed interest in any collection system was fortre
current open system (43%). This system drew the .least opposition,
but also had the most neutral responses. Interest in an open
system with zoned collection routes was close behind interest. in
City of Chanhassen
29
Resource Strategies
i":c
the existing system at 40%.
Interest in a consortium system of collection is less well-defined.
Roughly a third of the respondents were interested, uninterested. or
neutral about this alternative collection method.
The ranking preference of the four collection systems by the
respondents was also identified:
CONSORTIUM 22%
OPEN/ZONED SYSTEM 25%
ONE HAULER FOR CITY 7%
CURRENT OPEN SYSTEMS 27%
NO OPINION 19%
Respondents were asked to define the reasons for their preference.
The majority of respondents favoring a consortium felt the system
would mitigate some of the environmental impacts of the current
collection system. Some indicated it may address traffic issues
and contain costs. Others indicated it addressed impacts, while
keeping current haulers in the collection system.
The most common response by those favoring an open system with
zoned collection routes was that it would reduce impacts and retain
choice of haulers. Additional rationale included impact reduction
alone, traffic reduction/price control and less government
interference.
Cost of
organized
pr~ce was
serVlce was the primary.
collection with a single
also noted.
reason
hauler.
for those preferring
Better recycling and
The majority of those favoring the open system of collection,
simply noted there were no problems with the existing system.
Other respondents identified choice as their rationale for
preferring the current open system. Free enterprise and
competition were other reasons to retain the open system of
collection.
City of Chanhassen
30
Resource Strategies
t;"Q
Finally, residents were asked how supportive they were ~or
organized collection, it they understood they may lose their right
to choose haulers and/or day of the week for collection. Nearly
half of the respondents were neutral or expressed no opinion.
Twenty-five percent were very supportive of organized collection.
Twenty-seven percent were not at all supportive.
Residents were also asked to offer any othe! comments or
recommendations they may have regarding the solid waste system in
Chanhassen. Detailed responses are included in the survey summary.
The most notable commentary (19 responses) regarded recycling
opportunities. Ten additional comments regarded large item
collection and clean-up opportunities. Ten residents noted that
organized collection was acceptable if recycling, service and price
were guaranteed. Eight residents commented that the City should
stay out of the solid waste collection issue and. avoid exposure to
increased administrative expense.
Four other resident surveys were encountered during research for
the Chanhassen organized collection study. The City of Lakeville
conducted a general attitude survey, completed by Decision
Resources, Ltd. (DRI) , in May, 1993. Two questions related to
organized collection.
Regarding alternative collection methods, 66% of Lakeville
residents preferred the existing open collection system, 20%
favored a consortium, 7% preferred a single hauler and 8% didn't
know or didn't respond. Residents were also asked what savings per
month would it take to allow the City to select their hauler. Ten
per cent would allow change for nothing. Eleven per cent wouldn't
change fo.r any amount. It took a $10. DO/month savings before a
majority of residents would relinquish their choice of hauler.
Nearly 20% did not know or respond.
DRI conducted another survey for the Hennepin Recycling Group
City of Chanhassen
31
Resource Strategies
0/'
,.
(cities of Crystal, New Hope and Brooklyn Center) in October, 1992.
This survey included the same questions as "the Lakeville survey.
Residents preferred the existing open system (67%) over a
consortium (12%) or a single hauler system (10%). ~nother 11% did
not care, did not know or did not respond. Regarding monthly
savings, 10% would relinquiSh choice for no savings, while 15%
would not change for any savings. Like Lakeville, a $10.00/month
savings was necessary before a majority of residents were willing
to give up choice of haulers. Another 21% did not know.
DRI did a "quality of life" survey for the City of Roseville in
August, 1990. One question regarded organized collection: 43%of
the residents favored the existing open system of collection; 28%
preferred a consortium; 22% favored a single hauler; and 8%
indicated none/other, did not know or did not respond.
The City of Roseville conducted a written survey of residents ~n
June, 1987. In response to whether they favored or opposed
organized collection, 66% favored organized, while 30% were
opposed. The reasons cited by residents favoring organized
collection included cost/efficiency, aesthetics, reduced street
wear/traffic and reduced noise. Opponents of organized collection
cited satisfaction with the current system, choice and less
government as their rationale.
City of Chanhassen
32
Resource Strategies
< ,
.;
1
VII. HAULER ISSUES
j
~
.
Any changes to the current system of open collection will create
some degree of impact on the existing haulers. Slight impacts may
occur with modest changes in licensing requirements. Major impacts
will occur with most haulers if the City organizes collection with
a single hauler.
..
L
The haulers are obviously trying to operate their current
collection systems with as much efficiency as possible. Changes in
community regulations, competition and growth are a few of the
factors that require haulers to monitor and adjust their systems.
I
1
Collection routes ~n Chanhassen are relative to equipment and days
of collection the haulers operate in other communities. There is
considerable integration of employee equipment and route scheduling
from one community to the next. A required change in the day of
collection in Chanhassen may cause considerable reorganization and
scheduling adjustments.
Residents in Chanhassen have a variety of services available from
the haulers. One hauler may specialize in one area of service,
while others may not offer the service. Certain customers are
willing to pay extra for various services, while ~ther don't want
to pay for any frills. Nearly half of the residents currently
utilize ,carts for their service. While all of the haulers offer
carts, ~he types and sizes offered are different.
In contemplating organized collection, the City must understand
that designing a common level of service for residents requires
careful consideration. It is challenging to create a service level
that inqludes something for everyone, yet remains cost effective.
Matching existing hauler capabilities and schedules to a common
service level would be beneficial in this regard and may reduce
City of Chanhassen
33
Resource Strategies
1
i
I
"
potential impacts on the haulers.
From a general standpoint, the impacts on the haulers for any
change in the current system may be ranked in ascending order of
impact:
1. Open, zoned system (same haulers)
2. Consortium (same haulers)
3. Multiple zones (bid for each zone)
4. Single hauler (bid for one zone)
5. Municipal (no haulers)
City of Chanhassen
34
Resource Strategies
VIII.
CONSIDERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In evaluating alternative methods of collection, the Organized
Collection Study Committee raised issues regarding City liability
and general waste management policy options. Concerns about
liability related to risk of exposure to superfund claims for
landfill cleanup responsibility. Policy issues regarded the City's
roles and responsibilities in waste management.
L
Inquiries regarding the question of City liability were directed to
the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and to the City Attorney.
Neither the Attorney General's Office nor the City Attorney were
able to cite any precedents which indicated increased liability in
communities that contracted for solid waste collection. An
increased risk of liability may exist for a community that has
directed haulers to dispose waste to a specific landfill that has
become contaminated. The basic premise of superfund liability,
however, is that waste from a generator must have contributed to
the contamination. MSW generators or residents have not been
implicated as responsible parties in previous cleanup actions.
i
The J.ssue of designating waste has also been discussed by the
committee. Minnesota Statutes authorize counties to adopt
designation ordinances as part of solid waste management pOlicy
plans. Designation ordinances have been found to be invalid when
in violat~on of federal interstate commerce provisions.
It has been suggested that cities may effectively designate waste
through hauler contracts, authorized under organized collection
provisions of State Statutes. According to the Attorney General's
Office and the City Attorney, city contracts involving waste
designation are subject to the same legal challenges as the county
designation ordinances. Cities are not extended exemptions or
special protection under the law that counties do not enjoy.
City of Chanhassen
35
Resource Strategies
-,
..
"
The committee also discussed responsibilities and opportunities for
solid waste management at the local level. Minnesota Statutes
require cities to ensure that households properly contain and
dispose solid waste on a regular basis. Enforcement of this
provision in an open collection system is difficult.
It is not known how many households in Chanhassen may not have
regular collection service. Estimates from studies in other
communities range between five and fifteen per cent. Exemptions
from regular service are allowed under State law, provided
individuals demonstrate that containment and disposal are conducted
in an environmentally approved manner.
Some individuals may share a higher or unlimited volume collection
service with a neighbor. Some individuals may dispose waste
legally at their place of business. Ot~ers may illegally dump or
improperly dispose their waste. The committee expresse~ concerns
that improper disposal may be occurring in the City, which is
currently difficult to monitor and enforce.
Organized collection J.S an effective method of ensuring proper
waste management in the City. Collection would become mandatory,
unless an individual demonstrates an approved alternative waste
management method. Other communities that have organized
collection have indicated that a considerable number of the
,
complaints received after implementing the collection change have
come from residents who previously had no collection service.
The review and evaluation of alternative collection methods has
been expedited, somewhat, through a process of elimination. The
study committee has never given any consideration for a system of
municipal collection. Only three communities are involved in
municipal collection within the regJ.on. Extensive capital
investments and ongoing operating costs have eliminated this
alternative form any consideration. The committee was inherently
City of Chanhassen
36
Resource Strategies
';$
opposed to displacing existing haulers with public employees.
.
Results of the resident survey and input from haulers also
indicated that a single hauler contract was an undesirable
alternative. The committee has expressed the interest, throughout
the study, to retain existing haulers in the con~ideration of
alternative collection methods. The single contract method was not
pursued as a preferred alternative.
Remaining alternatives to the existing method of collection
included the open, routed system; the zoned, multiple contract
method and the consortium style of collection. Each of these
alternatives requires scheduling changes for haulers. The impacts
of establishing routes or zones varies with existing hauler routes
and schedules and routes/schedules that may be implemented.
A maJor difference between the open methods and the organized
methods of collection regards the reduction of existing system
impacts. Organized collection will result in a reduction of heavy
vehicle impacts on City streets. While the hauler survey revealed
details of the existing collection system with information
generated from five haulers, there are six haulers operating in the
City. The duplication of collection vehicle miles driven in the
current open system of collection may be six times pigher than that
required in organized collection.
Organized -collection will also result in the reduction of a~r
emissions, noise, energy consumption, aesthetic impacts, and
overall system redundancies. Open, routed collection may limit
exposure to noise and air emissions to a single day of the week,
but it will not reduce the number of incidents. Open, routed
collection will limit the days of the week that collection will
occur in' neighborhoods, but it will not reduce the number of
vehicles currently present in neighborhoods or the vehicle impacts
on City streets.
City of Chanhassen
37
Resource Strategies
(" J
..
, '
TABLE 4
ALTERNATIVE METHODS COMPARATIVE MATRIX
~] M
~J~N-~~~~~~M~~N-~~
o C
8
~
~
::;z
~
~
c...
:::s
8
C/')
Q
sa
E
:::s
~
c::
~
"t:l..
~t ~
a~~N-N~~~~~M~~N_~~
~= M
0:2
i~~N-_~~~~~_~~N_~~
o
1l~
's.s M
~IN___~~~~~_~~__;:
cS::i
Q~ -
&~M~~~NMMNN~NM~~~~
o~ M
Q 0
~M~~~-N___~-N~~~M
o
.!S ]~
l'! Q c::
Ci a:s
e: c;;: Q Q.,
- CJ 53 ,ss S
CJ 's C.l ~ . -' s c5 ~
.~ ]j ::8 ?J ~ .~ ~.c ~ .~
l::... .S ~ a !;> tq ~ ~ 'E. % .5:6 ~
OJ E QJ - := .~ -ji c:: 0 Q gj c:: -' C:J
~~ E r... ~cS-,c5 ~ 8:=~t5...:l~
I sa >. ~ -5.fH a:9 ~ - 'c 'E S; >. QJ ~ ~
I u a 8 ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 63 E5 ~ ~ ~
City of Chanhassen
38
.ff
.~
;:r
.QQ,.
~~
a'SS
~l
.. +
11
r=;;cf
-'-,
]~
...........,
ii
s s
...... ....
~-:::
m~
=rJ5
II \I
-~
Resource Strategies
'";"
The comparison of collection costs of open and organized collection
indicates consumer savings can be realized with organized
collection. City administrative responsibilities under organized
collection can be. minimized, particularly with haulers maintaining
account billings. The efficiencies of organized collection will
accommodate quality of service and cost effectiveness.
A comparative summary of favorable and unfavorable elements of the
alternative collection methods is illustrated in Table 4. Study
objectives and other considerations have been -ranked- within each
alternative collection category for comparison.
In view of the study objectives, review of existing conditions,
evaluation of collection system impacts, service costs and resident
opinions, the Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee
recommends that the City Council consider the following actions:
1. Accept the City of Chanhassen Organized COllection Study.
2. Initiate licensing and/or ordinance provisions to limit the
number of solid waste collection licenses issued toa maximum
of six, with a declining limit based upon turnover.
3. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to organize solid waste
collection.
4.
Proceed with Phase II of the Organized Collection Study to
discuss arrangements for organized collection with existing
licensed haulers.
~~
City of Chanhassen
39
Resource Strategies
, '
Appendix A'
l.
City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study
.:
Results of Refuse Hauler Survey*
* 5 of 6 haulers responding
* NA == No response or refused
l. 1.
How many residential customers do
you serve in the City of Chanhassen?
3862
l.a. How many seasonal customers do you
have in Chanhassen?
--3L
-L
-0-
Winter
Summer
Other
2.
In how many other cities in the
7 county metro area do you provide
MSW and recyclables collection services?
Ranae: 7-73
Ranae: 6-34
KSW.
Recyclables
1.
What percentage of your total residential
accounts are in Chanhassen?
N1,.-40 %
4. What types of recyclable materials do you collect in Chanhassen? *
..L newspaper -L cardboard -..L magazines -L office paper
-L mixed paper -L aluminum cans -..L metal cans --S..:.. glass containers
,
..L plastics .....Q.... textiles -L motor oil --L appliances
..L yard waste -L wood waste -L food waste -L ferrous metal
.....Q.... carpet -L hhld batteries --L auto batteries -L other
* Excludes referrals or special piCk-ups.
5.
Do you collect recyclables in
source separated or comingled form?
4 Source Separated
....l- Comingled
-L Both*
* 2 haulers noted both; one was primarily source separated, one was
primarily comingled.
*:J
Hauler Survey Results
Page 2
6.
7.
Where do you dispose of the MSW
you collect in the City of Chanhassen?
--L Medina
-1- Elk River
-1- Anoka
-1... Reuters
-1- Richard's Asphalt
-1-Preeway
Where do you take the recyclables
you collect in Chanhassen?
--L Carver County
-1- Dakota County
-1- Recycle America
-1- BFI Recyclery
.--L end users/markets
8. Do you provide the following special collection features to Chanhassen
residents?
....L Yes -L No a. senior/disabled rates $1.00-$2.50 off
-L Yes --L No b. doorstep/garage-side service $0-$4.00 addt'l
--L Yes ....L No c. less than weekly frequency NA-$2.00 off
-5- Yes .....Q.... No d. collection of special or " extra II materials?
Please list the materials you collect and the rates you charge for them:
(yardwaste, carpet, furniture, appliances, tires, .etc.)
type aDDli~nces S20.00/unit type camet NA-S18.0Q/cu yd
type furniture SS-30.00/unit type b:r;ush $2.00 /bundle
type yard waste 51.00/bag type aut;.o tire S4-10.00/unit
type mattresses S10,...lS.OO/unit type other tires SlS.0p+/unit
e.
Other special collection features
you provide in Chanhassen?
* provide carts
\.,\0
Hauler Survey Results
-'age 3
9. What is your collection rate structure? .
~nimum size 30/32 gallons - $12.35-14.00/month Total Chanhassen Hhlds --1..J. ..
Next size 60/64 gallons - $14.00-16.00/month Total Chanhassen Bhlds ...J.U
I
,argest size 90/96 gallons - $1~.00-17.50/month Total Chanhassen Hhlds llU.
I "nlimited service $16.35-18.20/month Total Chanhassen Hhlds -AS.i
.gi-weekly 60/64 gallons - $13.00 Imonth Total Chanhassen Bhlds ---i
.ther? 90 gallons - $5~00 Icall Total Chanhassen Bhlds --2.
· Carts furnished add $0.00-2.25/mo at various service levels.
6. Incomplete reporting on number of households at each service level.
9.a. Do you bill customers extra when
they place a bag or additional can
out with their prescribed volume
of service? If yes, at what rate?
3 Yes
$1.00-2.00/bag or can
2 No
Service level adjusted
if constant exception.
10. Maps of Chanhassen hauling routes.
11. How many separate residential stops do you make in Chanhassen in an
average week?
* Based on average participation rates given by each hauler.
12. Do you collect MSWand recyclables
on the same vehicle trips?
o
Yes
5 No
\.~
Hauler Survey Results
Page 4
*;;
7
13. How many and what type of vehicles do you operate on your MSW and
recyclables routes in Chanhassen? ·
6.20.20.20 11K,3-39K
MSW Vehicles
Day of Week # Vehicles
~
CaDacity
(cu. yds)
Gross Weiaht
(1000' s Ibs.)
llK.2-44K
l1K, 13K.40K.2-44K
11K.2-22K.2-39K.44K
39K.39K.44K
Gross weiaht
(1000's lbs.)
6K.18K.18:K
18K.l8K.26K.3~K
6K.18K.2-~6K
26K.26K
18K.24K.2-26K
.
l4. How many, employees do you have on MSW and recyclables routes in
Chanhassen each day?
Monday 3
Tuesday 5
Wednesday 6
Thursday 3
Fridav 4
86.88.93
85.88.89.92.93
85.2-86.88.92.93
86.86.92
85.86.86.93
6,20.20
6.6.3-20
6.5-20
20.20.20
Recyclables Vehicles.
Day of Week
# Vehicles
xen
CaDacity
(cu. yds)
3.23.23
2l.23.23.30
3.20.2l.32
2l.32
20.2l.27.32
Monday
3
4
83.89.90
89.89.90.90
83.89.90.91
90.9l
89.89.90.9l
Tuesday
Wednesday
4
Thursday
2
4
Fridav
· Sequences don't necessarily match between columns.
Dav of Week 1!Sli Recvclab1es
Route # -All. Mondav 5 3
Route #-AU Tuesdav 6 5
Route #-AU Wednesday 8 6
Route # -All. Thursdav 4 3
Route # -All. Fridav 4 5
..
Hauler Survey Results
'l?age 5
15. Estimate the number of miles driven on each route in Chanh~ssen per day?
Dav of Week
Route # -All MOndav
Route # -AU Tue~daY
Route #-All Wednesday
Route #-All Thursdav
Route #-All Friday
Hml Recvclab).es
53 53
131 131
2~6 226
108 108
99 99
16. What is the weight of the MSW collected on an average daily route in
Chanhassen?
Dav of Week ~
Route #-All. Monday 14.68
Route # ..All Tuesday 20.50
Route # -All. Wednesqav 22.79
Route #-All Thursdav 15.50
Route # All Friday' 13.28
17. What ~s the- weight of recyclables collected on an average daily route?
Dav Qf Week ~
Route # -All Monday 3.48
Route # All Tuesdav 4.52
Route #-All Wednesday 9.48
Route #-All Thursdav 8.18
Route # -All Friday 6.84
Hauler Survey Results
Page 6
18. In an average week, what percentage
of Chanhassen households you serve
put out recyclables for collection?
55-89%
69% average
19. Please estimate the average number of
residents you served in Chanhassen
in previous years.
1990
1991
1992
3116
325~
3593
20. Do you provide collection containers
to your customers?
What size(s)/type(s)?
-L Yes .JL.No
Type wheeled carts
Size 60-65 aa1
# in Service
wheeled carts
90-96 aal
283
1378
21. Please estimate your per mile/per household operating expenses:
MSW RECYCLING
$ NA / mile $ NA / mile
$ NA / household $ NA / household
22. Do you have any other comments about organized collection
in the City of Chanhassen?
~.
~<
'i
"
s.
6.
..
Appendix B
City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study
Results of Resident Phone Survey
What factors are important to
you in selecting a collection
service? (very important,
neutral, not at all important) IMPORTANT
1.
Survey Sample: 8l Chanhassen Residents
July 1 - July l2, 1993
2.
Age of participants
3.
DAY OF WEEK
COST
LEVELS OF SERVICE
CONTAINERS PROVIDED
SPECIAL SERVICES
HAULER
OTHER (6 responses):
...
Have you ever changed haulers
for any reason other than
because you moved? Why?
What level of service do you
currently have for garbage
collection?
Does your hauler bill you when
you put an extra bag or can out
above your current maximum?
How much?
MALE. . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . ...35%
FEMA.LE. ... . . . .. .. .. . . . . . .64%
ONREPORTED.............1%
< 25 YEARS OLD.........2%
25-45 YEARS.OLD.......69%
46-65 YEARS OLD.......19%
> 65 YEARS OLD........I0%
NEUTRAL
NOT IMPORTANT
10% 9%
83% 17%
64% 24%
32% 19%
22% 12%
30% 17%
yard waste-2
more recycling options-2
more plastics recycling-l
service-1
81%
0%
12%
49%
66% .
53%
YES.........................25%
NO. . . -. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. 72%
DON'T KNOW.............3%
WHY? (17 responses):
* price-7
* containers-2
* sloppy/litter-2
* hauler left-2
* senior discount-1
* price & day-l
* neighborhd organized-1
* service-l
32 GALLONS 2X/MO.......1%
32 GALLONS WEEKLY.....15%
60 GALLONS WEEKLY.....38%
90 GALLONS WEEKLY.....22%
UNLTD/TRADITIONAL.....20%
OTHER (3 responses}....4%
* dumpster-2 .
* 90 gallons lx/mo-l
YES. . . -. . . .e- . -.. . .--.--. -.. . . . . . .--17%
NO. . . -. . . . . . . . . -. . -. . . . . -. 7 5%
DON'T KNOW............. 8%
HOW KOCH? (15 responses)
* don't know-lO
* $1. 00 /bag.. 3
* special (large) items....2
Resident Survey Results
page 2
7.
Please rate the level
of conc~rn you have
about the following
aspects of the
existing garbage
collection system:
very concerned,
neutral, not at
all concerned)
8.
In a similar, but more
general sense, do you
have concerns about
other large vehicles
in your neighborhood?
(very concerned,
neutral, not at all
concerned)
9.
CONCERNED
# VEHICLES 22%
CANS ON STREET 24%
LITTER 37%
EMISSIONS 22%
NOISE 27%
SAFETY 48%
STREET WEAR 30%
CONCERNED
POSTAL/DELIVRY 0%
LUMBER 1l%
CONCRETE l6%
SAND/GRAVEL 16%
OTHER CONSTR. 18%
MAINTENANCE 2%
UTILITY 0%
SCHOOL BUSES 2%
Please rate how interested _
you would be in the following
options: (very interested,
neutral, not at all interested)
..
'j
NEUTRAL
NOT CONCERNED
21%
22%
16%
21%
22%
12%
22%
57%
54%
47%
57%
5l%
40%
48%
NEUTRAL
NOT CONCERNED
10%
17%
16%
20%
18%
19%
19%
9%
90%
72%
68%
64%
64%
79%
81%
89%
INTERESTED NEUTRAL NOT INTERESTED
A. CONSORTIUM/ONE HAULER/STREET
B. SINGLE DAY ZONES/MANY HAULERS
C. ONE HAULER FOR CITY
D. CURRENT OPEN SYSTEM
10. You rated option as
most attractive. Why?
WHY?
A (15 resDonses):
* addresses impacts-4
* reduces traffic-3
* traffic & price-3
* less impact & keeps
all haulerst3
* friends like.it-l
* neighborhoodhas-1
D (17 resDons~s):
* no problems now-7
* choice-4
* free enterprise-3
* like hauler-1
* competition & choice-1
* City stay out of it-1
34%
40%
15%
43%
30%
31%
25%
37%
37%
30%
60%
20%
Option A...................22%
Option B. ........ ..... ..... .25%
Option C.................... 7%
Option D...................27%
No opinion..................19%
B (17 resDonses):
* less impact, yet choice-9
* reduces impacts-2
* reduces traffic/price-2
* less government best-2
* reasonable option-l
* o.k. where lived before-1
C (5 ~esDonses):
* best price-3
* better re~c1ing
and price~2
,
I -,.
'. # Resident Survey Results
Page 3
f
1
11.
How supportive of organized
collection are you, if you
understand that you may lose your
right to choose haulers and/or
day of the week for collection?
What other changes, if any, would
you make to the current recycling
and garbage collection system in
the City of Chanhassen?
i
L
r
12.
,
L
L
f
r
l
13. Do you have any other comments
or concerns about refuse collection
in the City of Chanhassen?
~&
VERY SOl'PORTIVE............25%
NEUTRAL............. ... ....,. ....48%
NOT AT ALL SUPPORTIVE......27%
OTHER CHANGES: (46 responses)
* more recycling-11
* organized o.k. if. best
service and price-7
* City keep out of it-5
* more-large items-4
* more plastics recyc1ing-3
* more recycling education-3
* day is no issue-2
* easier brush co1lection-2
* have uniform containers-2
* day or hauler no issue-1
* ~ frequen& recycling-1
* regulate w/out organizing-l
* better recycle incentives-1
* have 2 clean~up days/year-1
* add 2x/week in summer-l
* maintain quality of service
whatever happens-l
OTHER COMMENTS: (30 responses)
* more BBW oPtions-4
* day no issue, keep choice-3-
* o.k. to organize if service/
reCYCling guaranteed-3
* cost is main concern-3
* don't create new City Admin.
expenses-2
* more big. item collections-2
* let neighborhoods have
option of organizing-2
* concerned about impacts on
environment ~ haulers-2
* works fine as is-2
* neighborhoOd already
organized due to traffic
and cans out constantly-2
* current cost too high, but
leave as i8-1
* all truck traffic should
be reduced-l
* City keep out of it-1
* concerned about hauler
impact-1
* organized collection worked
great in previouscity-1
rhe motion for
:ouncilmember
:avor thereof:
;hereupon said
the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded
, and upon vote being taken' thereon, the following voted
and the following voted against the same:
resolution was this day of 1994.
by
in
'?'
'"
introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION 94
RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE IN REFUSE AND RECYCLING BILLING.
WHEREAS, the City of Champlin has a contract for refuse and recycling
collection, and
WHEREAS, the City bills the residents for refuse and recycling services as
part of the utility bill, and
WHEREAS, hennepin County reduced the funding reimbursement for recycling from
$1.75 to 80 cents per household per month, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to operate the Recycling Fund
~ith a positive balance, and
WHEREAS, the funding becomes effective January 1, 1995,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED by the Champlin City Council that the Refuse
~nd Recycling fees effective with the February, 1995 billing which is for service
in January, 1995 shall be as follows: .
-:to-GALLON
CONTAINER:
15.34 Refuse
1.00 6-1/2% Sales Tax
1.38 9% Hennepin County Service Fee
2.26 Recycling
19.98 TOTAL
.~~~..
~.
3'~GALLON
CONTAINER
10.03 Refuse
.65 6-1/2% Sales Tax
.90 9% Hennepin County Service Fee
2.26 Recycling
13.84 TOTAL
~ESIDENTS WHO DO NOT RECYCLE:
19.55 Refuse
1.27 6-1/2% Sales Tax
1.76 9% Hennepin county Service Fee
2.26 Recycling
24.84 TOTAL
Steven E. Boynton, Mayor
~7':''''EST .
.s .
o Anne M. Brown, CMC, City Clerk
>-
...
REFUSE FUND
9/213/94
Re.fuse billed at $15. 34/household per month all
three years.
Households - 5750 1995
6000 1996
6300 1997
All operating expenses increased 3% or remained the
same.
January 1, 1994 Fund Balance
Projected 1994 Revenues
Projected 1994 Expenditures.
projected 1994 Transfers Out
Projected January 1, 1995 Fund Balance
Projected 1995 Revenues
Projected 1995 Expenditures
Projected 1995 Transfers Out
Projected January 1, 1996 Fund Balance
Projected 1996 Revenues
Projected 1996 Expenditures
Projected 1996 Transfers Out
Projected January 1, 1997 Fund Balance
Projected 1997 Revenues
Projected 1997 Expenditures
Projected 1997 Transfers Out
Projected January 1, 1998 Fund Balance
ASSUMPTIONS:
. ...f'
...
NOTE:
225,121
1,145,705
(994,489)
( 162,900)
213,437
1,092,500
(1,002,310)
(97,700)
205,927
1,139,590
(1,029,121)
(4,185)
312,211
1,196,204
(1,054,032)
(5,190)
449,193
THE AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDED FUND BALANCE FOR THE REFUSE
FUND IS ONE MONTH'S BILLING (92,600) PLUS 10-15% OF
OPERATING COST (109,000) FOR A TOTAL OF $201,600. THE
FUND BALANCE FOR EACH YEAR IS WITHIN THE RECOMMENDATION.
.~
"J
Example:
2,500 Passenger cars
143 Pickup trucks
1 Five axle tractor semitrailer
= 1.00 ! NI8
= 1.00 L NI8
= 1.00 l.: NIB
..
Traffic
Equivalent I8,OOO-lb. Axle Loads (! NI8)
~
The AASHO Road Test indicated that heavy wheel loads caused considerably more
damage to roads than light ones and related the damaging power of a wheel to approx-
imately the fourth power of its load. Equivalent axle load values, developed at the Road
Test, conven the weight on an axle of a specific type to the number of 18,000 lb. single test
loads that will do an equal amount of pavement damage. The ! N18 (equivalent 18,000-
lb. axle loads) designates an accumulated destructive effect of traffic load within the
design life (typically 20 years) of the road. The computation of !N18 is based on the
weights, volume, and type distribution of the vehicles expected to travel the roadway seg-
ment during the pavement design period. For each roadway segment, the maximum
!N18 (design lane) is used for structural design.
-
J. L. Shiely Company · Aggregate Manual · Section LA.Page 1
y
.. Average !N18
Factor by Vehicle Type*
(Values based on average of actual research data.
Chan may be used if no other data available.)
r
Local, \
Rural Rural
Vehicle T.H. Metro CSAH
Type N18 N18 N18
Number Illustrated Example Factor Factor Factor Vehicle Description
1 ~ .0004 .0004 .0004 Passenger Cars
2 .... .007 .007 .007 Panel and Pid.-ups
(Under 1 ton)
3 W ~ .01 .01 .01 Single Unit -
2 axle, 4-tire
4 W ~ .24 .22 .21 Single Unit -
2 axle, 6-tire
,;""'L. ~ C
::.:J 5 .41 .57 .45 Single Unit -
-
3 axle and 4 axle
6 I a .58 .21 .15 Tractor Semitrailer
. . Combination-3 axle
7 r il ~ .53 .41 ,30 Tractor Semitrailer
.. . . Combination-4 axle
-
8 r ..i .88 .63 .59 Tractor Semitrailer
.. Combination-5 axle
9** f___ ..i ** ** ** Tractor Semitrailer
Combination-6 axle
10 ~ .42 .42 .42 Trucks ~lith Trailers
and Buses
a. Use 0.91 for sugar beet trucks. I
. Use 0.60 for 2 axle garbage trucks. \....
Use 1.25 for MTC buses.
*Source - Road Design Manual - Minnesota Depanmem of Transponation.
UNo value at this time.
J. 1.. Shiely Company. ..\ggregate Manual- Section L-\'P-Jge 2
I
!'+
J
--...-'"
FROM:
Distribution 618
Distribution 650
Distribution 046
--
/""
/- ~.,I' '.
'--. .
.....
/
. / ..
".~..;-... .
~ -
..6 i
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL SERVICES DIVISION
Technical Memorandum No. 92-01-SA-01
January 7, 1991
TO:
County Highway Engineers
Municipal Engineers
Dis~t state Aid Engineers
~~L..eG7~
Dennis C. Carlson, Director
Office of state Aid
SUBJECT: Equivalent Single Axle Load Forecasting
.....
.' ."
.;. ....,
.' .
.. /'
.; -
..:: L:7&: / /~........-=z.-'
.- .;-
i).tJ".~-f~-
For a number of years, the "R" value method has been the preferred
procedure for flexible pavement design in Mn/DOT. Now, the "R" value
design procedure, outlined in Chapter 7 of the Road Design Manual, is
being updated by the Mn/DOT Materials Office, and will be included in
the new Geotechnical Manual. The pavement design procedures will no
longer be included in the Road Design Manual.
Some of the Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) forecasting data in
Chapter 7 is seriously out of date. Effective with the date of this
memo, and until the new manual is available, the values in Road Design
Manual Table 7-5.030, Averaqe N18 Pactors by Vehicle Type, are replaced
with the following factors for all metro, rural, and municipal state aid
routes.
...".".;:
r~
.-
\. /
~
Vehicle
Type
Description
1
2 -
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Pass.enger Car
Panels and Pickups (under 1 ton)
Single Unit - 2 axle, 4 tire
Single Unit - 2 axle, 6 tire *
Single Unit - 3 and 4 axle ****
Tractor Semitrailer Comb. - 3 axle
Tractor Semitrailer Comb. - 4 axle
Tractor Semitrailer Comb. - 5 axle
Tractor Semitrailer Comb. - 6 axle
Trucks with Trailers and Buses **
Twin Trailers
* Use 0.60 for 2 axle garbage trucks.
** Use 1.25 for MTC buses
*** Too few to establish a value
**** Use 0.91 for sugar beet trucks
-More-
Flexible
N18
Factor
0.0004
0.007
0.01
0.25
0.58
0.39
0.51
1.13
***
0.57
2.40
.:; G 9. 92
.
Technical Memorandum 92-01-SA-01
Page 2
The factors in this chart ar~ based on data from weigh-in-motion scales,
and are continuously monitored and updated.
The new manual will also emphasize the importance of good traffic volume
forecasting. The ESAL factors listed above are only as good as the
forecast and the vehicle class counts they are used with. Although
growth factors and average vehicle class distributions are listed in the
manuals, designers are encouraged to use project specific data to
enhance the accuracy of their forecasts. Assistance is available through
the Mn/DOT Traffic Forecast and Analysis Section.
The State Aid Office continues to encourage the use of the "R" value
design method to provide the most economical design possible. The new
State Aid Manual update will require the use of this method for all 10-
ton routes.
-End-
":'-..
'Co
-
.
\ \ -:.. (. '\
r
M"( , ~""~.
IV;.. _
, ?
...) -
,. I (
L.. ': '-" .",,'
City of
Champlin
L '.. .-.t... ;j
.' C\ .
:.I" - - ~
~ . ..,
~..~~- Iyr:~~' ,~:~:'~~~:.i. -(_.
TEMPORARILY LOCATED AT CHAMPLIN PLAZA SHoPPIN~ENTER, HAYOEN LAKE RD. , HWY. 1119, CHAMPLIN. MN 5531
12-22-87
The haulers, members of Champlin Refuse Inc., applauded action of the Champlin Council.
A vote taken by the Champlin City Council at their December 17 council meeting has
placed Champlin in a leadership position in the metropolitan area in solid waste manageme
Marilynn Corcoran, Recycling Coordinator, presented a negotiated contracted to the
Council that had been reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Champlin Energy
Commission. The City Council adopted a resolution authorizing Mayor Wm. G. Haas, Jr.
and City Administrator Scott Martin, on behalf of the City, to enter into a negotiated
contract with Champlin Refuse, In_., a consortium of independent haulers, to provide
multi-faceted collection of all solid waste from its residential units. This service
is to include; weekly refuse collection; weekly compost collection in. season; and
once-a-month collection of recyclables, until such time as participation warrants
,
,
expans ion. It is the Counc i I sin ten t to cons i de r adopt i on of a manda to ry recyc ling
ordinance by January, 1989 in a continuing effor"t to achieve the 15% recycl ing goal
set f~rth by the Metropolitan Council and Henaepin County in their Solid Waste Master
Plans.
The 1987 Legislature passed a law allowing local authorities to establish ORGANIZEu
COLLECTION, either by Municipal Service. Franchise, License, Negotiated Contract or
Bidded Contract, -or by using one or more collectors or organization of collectors.
The City of Champl in has been serviced for waste hauling by eight different haulers,
on a open collection system, with several haulers working any given block on any given
day. The City Council was concerned about protecting the livelihood of the small
businessma~ and was not interested in a Municipal System~or in bidding or franchising
to one haule~which could mean that most of the small hauler-companies would be forced
out of bwsiness - a business that in many cases was family owned and operated.
With complete cooperation from the affected haulers and much consultation and guidance
from Minneapol is Refuse, Inc., Champlin Recycling Coordinator, Marilynn Corcoran, City
staff and legal advisors and the Energy Commission were able to develop a contract that
will involve using six of the existing haulers, who joined together as a corporation
1612) 42'-806.
.
~ne City will be divided into six zones, with One Zone assigned to each of the
member-haulers. The ZOne size,or number of stops, Is based on the number of stops
that hauler had prior to the new program.
The "Contract" prov ides for same-serv i ce to each res Ident ia I un it wi thi n the City,
regardless of who is providing the serVice)and charges for that one-cart service
will $10.80 throughout the City. Additional or extra-service required will also be
charged On a equal basis, from one hauler to another, established in the contract.
Provisions in the contract allow for reopening and renegotiation,triggered by either
party, in the eVent that any extraordinary or unexpected changes take place in the
So lid Waste Syst~ re lat; ng to programs or cos to. :The contract wi I I be reviewed by
both parties annualy to make any adjUStments deemed necessary.
The Metro Council ,Hennepin County and Citizens League all suggest that ORGAN/ZEO
COLLECTION is the most cost effective system for cOllection of solid waste and
suggest that it plays an important part in the implementatic" c~ :"ro Sid. Colle<tion
of Recyc J a"b I es.
Champlin hasJfor five years, and will continue to operate a successful Orop'off
Recycl ing Center~'along wi th imp/ementat ion of a curbs ide program, and is expanding
into a pilot ledger paper collection program in a school. In addition, they have,
through the purchase of a small-user baler, reduced the waste-hauler fee by $40.00
per mo. at their Municipal Liquor Store by recycling the corrugated instead cf landfilling
it.
The Champlin Solid Waste Program is a result of a cooperative effort between the City and
Hennepin County Commissioners and Hennepin County Environment and Energy, and with
the cooperat ion and grants rece i ved from the Metropo I i tan Count ion for P lann i ng
Fstance and Public Education and Promotion.
ote: The attached information packet Contains further details relating to
'e Organized COllection process. Please feel free to Contact Marilynn Corcoran,
:amplin Recycling Coordinator at 421-8064 for clarification on any materials.
,.
RESOLUTION 87-
TO ENTER INTO A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT
FOR THE COLLECTION OF REFUSE, COMPOST" AND REC~LABLES
WHEREAS, The City of Champlin adopted Res. 87-150, a Resolution of Intent
To Establ ish a system of Organized Collection and,
WHEREAS, The Metropolitan Council and Hennepin County Solid Waste Master Plan
call for rapid development of recycling and other forms of resource recovery in
place of landfills, and
WHEREAS, organized collection of refuse is deemed to be a essential part of the
development of a curbside recycl ing program, and
WHEREAS, the City of Champlin currently has a open method ~f collection, duplicating
service on City streets, which cause deterioration of streets, and produced additional
traffic and redundant noise, which detracts from the safety and welfare of the
conmun i ty anCl, .
WHEREAS, organized collection would benefit both the taxpayers and the refuse
haulers by reducing the number of trucks on streets reducing road maintenance costs,
and providing mOre efficient and economical operations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Champlin City Council agrees to enter
into the negotiated contracw with CRI, Inc., a consortium of haulers, to provide
collection of all residential refuse, compost and recyclables, and authorizes the
Mayor and Deputy Clerk to execute said contract on behalf of the City.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor thereof: unanimous
and the following voted against the same: ,whereupon said
resolytion was adopted this 17 day of December, 1987.
Wm. G. Haas, Jr. Mayor
ATTEST:
Scott Martin, Administrator/Deputy Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 246
,.
CITY OF CHAMPLIN
COUNTY OF HE~"NEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE FOR REGULATION OF COLLEC"l'IOlilltND DISPOSAl
OF GARBAGE AND RUB!ISB
'!he City Council of the City of Champlin, Minnesota Does Ordain:
Sectionl. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the follo~ing
terms shall be defined as follows:
GARBAGE -- means organic waste resulting from the preparation of food and
decayed and spoiled food from any source.
RECYCLABLES -- includes newsprint, corrugated and ledger paper, plastics,
tin cans, aluminum, used motor.oil, glass and other metal goods
and other items identified as reusable or reprocessable
mater1als, to include yardwaste ie leaves/grass clippins, each
, separated and acceptable for collection or deposit.
RU!BISH
means all inorganic solid waste such as ashes and sweepings and
other non-reuseable waste.
REFUSE -- includes garbage and rubbish.
Section 2. General Regulations.
Subdivision 1. Refuse in streets, etc,. 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 or in such manner
as to cause litter or contamination of the environment.
Subdirision 2. Scattering of Refuse; Composting. No person shall bury
any refuse in the City except in an approved and licensed sanitary
landfill.
a. Compost upon private property.. :Leoves. :rass c1iDDines. and
easily bio~e~rada~le, non-poisonous garbage may be composted on
the premises, where such refuse has been accumulated. Compost
containing garbage may be composted only in a rodent-proof
structure; and in an othe~ise sanitary manner; and only after
the Council gives its approval to such composting and only after
it finds that such composting will be in accordance with these
and other health standards.
b. Compost for collection..No persons shall combine for
disposal clean grass clippings and leaves, but shall separate
from garbage, in approved containers, for separate collection
and composting.
#
Subd. 3 Disposal Required. Every household or occupant or owner of
any residence, and owner of any commercial or industrial establishment
shall. in a sanitaIj' manner, dispose of refuse that may accumulate
upon the owner or Occupant's property.
a. All residential, single - 4 unit shall be required to
participate in the residential collection system, in accordance
with the negotiated written contract or bid.
Section 4. Method of Collection.
Subd. 1. Exclusive Collection in Certain Residential Areas. The
City may, by negotiated written contract. or bid, provide exclusive
collection of refuse and recyc1ables for dwellings containing not more
than four dwelling .units.
a. !111ing..The City shall impose, bill and collect reasonable
charges for such collection services. Any amount past due for
~ollection charges may be collected by the City in a civil action,
or the City may certify to the County Auditor the amount due,
together with a legal description of. the premises served. The
County Auditor shall thereupon enter such amount as a charge
against said premises payable together with the tax levied
on said premises, to be collected in the next year. "This
assessment -shall include a penalty of 10 percent of the unpaid
charge or $5.00, whichever is the larger, and shall bear interest
at the rate of 6 percent per annum.
Subd. 2. Ccllection in Other Areas.. Except as authorized by t~e City's
contract pursuant to Subdivision 1 hereof, no ow~er or occupant of a premises
great than 4 units, or commercial, industrial or office establishment,
shall permit refuse or recyclables to be collected from said premises
by an unlicensed collector.
a. Billing for the collection by licensed collectors of
multiple residential of more than 4 units, or commercial,
industrial or office establishments shall be the responsiblity
of the, collector, and amount due shall be payable directly
to the licensed collector.
Section 5. LICENSED COLLECTOR
Subd. 1. Application. Any person des2r~ng to be licensed as a collector
shall make application to the City on a prescribed form, as set forth:
a. The name and acdress of the applicant;
b. A description of each piece of equipment proposed to be
used in the collection;
c. The proposed charges to made of those ~ho use the service;
a. A description of the kind of service proposed to be rendered
and the frequency of collection;
e. The place to ~hich the refuse is to be hauled;
f. The manner in which the refuse is to be disposed of; and
g. A description of each type of container that viII be used
to receive and contain refuse that may accumulate between
Collections.
Passed by the Cbamplin Ci~y Council
"..
I
this 8th clr of ~Cembe=
~ ! I I. j I
) rl.CLt'", ~,
j . ~~---
~ ".
. , 9:7 _
Subd. 2 Insurance. No license shall be issued until the applicant files
with the City a current policy of public liability insurance covering
vehicles to be used by the applicant in the licensed business. The
limits of coverage of such insurance shall be established by Council
resolution, and may be adjusted from time to time.
Subd. 3 License Fee. Licenses shall be issued for a period of one
year. The license fee shall be established by Council resolution, and
may be adjusted from time to time.
Section 6., OTHER SPECIFICS. Container size, description and placement
of container for collection, specific zones within the city for collection;
frequency and specific day/certain of collection ~~thin zones, and other
collection specifics , including costs to be b~led for collection, shall
be prescribed by and incorporated into the negotiated contract or bid, and
may be subject to change from time to time.
Section i. PENALTY. Any person violating any prov~s~cn of this ordinance s~all
be quilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
by fine of not more than $iOO.OO or by imprisonment Of not more than
90 days, or both, plus the costs incurred in prosecution in either case.
This Ordinance shall be in force and effect from and after its adoption and
~ublication as required by law.
Wm. G. Haas, J:., Mayo:
A':":'EST:
tufA ~ A1~
Sco~: A. Ma~~in, Depu~y Cle:k
Published in the Cha~plin-Dayton Press on
NO.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION AND RECYCLING CONTRACT
PREPARED BY:
Mari I ynn
Corcoran (\'"./
C Ii" Y 0 F C H A ~.~ P Ll N
.~ .
REQUEST FOR COUNCil ACTION
MEETING 12-17-87
C A. TE:
I, AGENCA Sf:'CTlON:
~E'W BUSINESS -
ORIGINATING DEPT:
Admi n i strat ion
I rEM:
ITEM CESCRIPTlON~
The negotiated contract, as presented, is a product of many meetings between the City and
itls representatives and the haulers and their consultants. Involved in the development
of said contract were: Dean Warden of Ace Sanitation, President of Champlin Refuse Inc.;
hauler members LeRoy Lanoue. of Peterson Bros., Tad Korfe of T & L, Curt Corrow of
Corrow Sanitation, Ed and Leroy 'Walz of Walz Bros.; Kevin Tritz and Jim Erickson of BFI;
Chuck Kutter and Cy Baker of Minneapol is Refuse Inc., advisors and administrators for CRI;
John Cairns and Dave Steingart of Curtin, Mahoney & Cairns,Attorneys for CRI; Ed Babcock,
City of Champl in's attorney; and City of Champlin Staff including Scott Martin, Administratol
Jessie Mathison, City Finance Director and Marilynn Corcoran, Recycl ing Coordinator. Also
involved was the Energy Commission, with Chairman Dominic Ehrmantraut in attendance at all
negotiation sessions.
The contract term is for a periOd of five years, to begin February 1, 1988, with the
ability to reopen, by either party, triggered by any dramatic changes either in price
or service required. The contract wil) be reviewed annually in July to determine the
need, if any to make any adjustments. The Residential Unit Price shall be subject to
revision the first day of February of each year, being incre~sed or decreased by the
corresponding change in the Consumer Price Index, and based on the evaluation made of the
costs incurred or changes made in the program.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE:
1. Champl in Refuse, Inc. (CRI) shall supply all equipment, labor and materials necessary
to make complete collection of all refuse, compost and recyclables, from all resid~tial
dwelling units, as defined, and convey to their respective, approved processing or
marketing ~r disposal facil ities.
The entire City will be divided into geographic zones, each zone representing one hauler
district. All residential dwelling units within a respective district will be serviced
by ONE hauler for all refuse, compost and recyclables, and each unit will be furnished
with a cart/container in which to put ALL el igib1e refuse for weekly cart collection.
Haulers presently not using the automated cart/container system will be required to provide
carts by June 30, 1988. Collection will take place on a specific,assigned day and all
~esidences within that area will receive collection on that day, between 6:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m,
irespective of inclement weather or hol iday schedules, as spelled out in the contract.
2. All refuse will be collected from Champl in City offices, Public Works facilities and
Old Town Li quo r .
3. There will be collection of Christmas Trees, which must be cut into lengths of 61 or
less.
4. COMPOST--Separate collection of leaves and grass cl ippings will occur weekly beginning
~pril 1 and continuing throughout the growing season until Nov. 15. Residents will be
asked to place el igible compostables . in plastic bags or other approved
Intainers, and place on curb, separate from refuse and on their designated pick-up day
.1 or before 6:00 a.m.
-2-
RCA -- OPGANIZED COLLECTION AND RECYCLING CONTRACT 12-17-87
5. RECYCLABLES -- Curbside Recycling Collection is intended to begin April 1, 1988,
and will begin with once-a-month pickup of the three major items, namely beverage cans,
newspaper and assorted glass. Other eligible recyclable items, to include but not be
limited to, used oil, batteries, plastics, scrap metal and other paper products will be
recycled through the Drop-off site or other authorized and approved depository.
Provisions were made in the 1988 Champlin Budget for the purchase of two (2) containers
per household. This was decided based on experience of other communities and the fact that
those who have special recycling containers have increase resident participation. The
rules of the Hennepin County Funding Assistance Program allow for the County contributing
$2.00 per container. The Energy Commission is in the process of reviewing various containers
and costs in preparation for recommendation to the Council.
6. ADDITIONAL SERVICES All extra items for disposal, such as appl iances, furniture,
brush etc. as I isted on Attachment B of the Collection Contract are considered as
extra or additional and are charged accordingly at the disposal facility, and hence must
be charged additional monies when collected at the residential unit. These additional
items will be collected ONLY BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT, made directly with a hauler _ any
I icensed hauler in the City of Champlin. All charges for additional collection of
materials is based on Attachment B of the Contract, is consistant with all haulers within
the City, based on current charges at the disposal facility, and subject to change and
revision as costs change.
7~ SPRING CLEAN-UP -- There will be a Spring Clean-up, curb side collection provided
~hroughout the city to all residential dwell ing units, to be carried out on a Saturday
in May. El igible items for collection will be spelled out in promotion material and the
:ost of this clean-up will be agreed upon between CRI and the City, with no additional
:harges to the resident.
3. CHARGES FOR SERVICE -- The basic ONE-CONTAINER rate of $10.80 will be consistant
:hroughout the City regardless of which hauler provides the service. Collection will be
~illed by the City of Champlin on the monthly util ity bill. If a specific residential
jwell ing unit requests or requires more than one cart/container there will be a charge
for each container as defined in the contract. Any special or additional service requested
5uch as back-door collection will be the responsibility of the resident and hauler, and
:osts relating to that special collection service request will be based on Attachment B
Jr by special agreement with that specific hauler. Payment for that extra service will be
nade directly to the hauler and not collected by the City of Champlin.
Jue to a recognized rapid change in the Solid Waste System, and anticipated rapid increase
in disposal/processing and other related costs, the contract contains language that allows
~eopening and reevaluation of service and rates by either the City or CRr, and based on
3dequate Support and documentation, the Residential Unit price may be adjusted to reflect
:hose cost increas~s.
~ OTHER REVENUES/CHARGES -- At the present time there is no charge for deposit of
:ompost collected when del ivered to the Hennepin County Compost facil ity in Maple Grove.
-he .26c charge for collection of compost covers curb-side collection ONLY, and the
:ost of transporting the material to the facility. Weigh tickets ~il1 be ~iovi~ec := t~c
ity for tonnage verification for Hennepin County.
he .51C charge for Curb Side Recycling Collection also covers the cost of collection and
~e cost of taking the collected materials to market. Monies generated by marketing the
3terials will be 100% the Cities, and tonnage of the collected materials will be
rovided to the City! for verification to the County.
....~.' ......._~.......,._:'"..:;...>..:.o.:.;,..'::..,:;.~-__......; ........,....".
<-
-3-
~CA -- ORGANIZED COLLECTION AND RECYCLING CONTRACT 12-17-87
3. cont.
if at any point there is no market, or no-charge disposal for either the compost or
collected recyclables, ~he City will be 100% responsible for the cost of disposal.
O. CUSTO;.l[~R S:::RVICE -- r.ny questions or complaints relating to the collection servicet
vr lack thereof will be directed to Champlin Refuse, Inc. through the Minneapolis Refuse, Ir
office., as part of the administration service. It is required that the complaint be
answered by the responsible hauler within 24 hours. Failure to do so will result in a fine
t.~ing levied against that hauler and record being kept of that default. Haulers found
to be in violation of the contract will be subject to sensure and possible removal from the
corporation. The City will receive monthly reports stating the hauler name, resident namet
address .and date of complaint. Verified failure to collect will result in the City
witholding the monthly charge of $10.42 plus an additional $10.00 penalty.
11. As a protection for performance or default of contract, and in lieu of a Performance
Bond, the City will withhold payment of the collection fee due to CRI for one month
after receipt of bill ing to the City the 20th Day of the Month following the month in
which collection services were rendered, guaranteeing sufficient monies to provide
collection by some other entity, if necessary.
Note: This Contract has been reviewed by the Energy Commission and by Mr. Ed Babcock and
~r. Greg Helling of Babcock, Locher, Neilsen, and Mannella, City Attorneys, and all are
_omfortable with the content and language.
Staff and the Energy Commission recommend the adoption of the attached Resolution to
Enter Into A Negotiated Contract for the Collection of Refuse, Compost and Recyclables.
;~- - "'_'_n_ ....~Pl _ _ ..~_.~. _.......=-...
~ .~':-,..;"\"'\ 1..... :,o....;!..; L;.:: " i\':,.,'.-'''r:.. ~
~ . -. ...-.. ../ "'~".- '7". .~_. .--'\.....- ~
:"'':... ... ~ - - ,- ~
.' :.... .~.. r,~I'l!,. _ _ .:
f. ................... .-.. ---_~.__
~ :'.!;'., :~:.f;d _.__.___..___.____
: ".".; ;;.:~; ~~-~--- --.-----. ~
~': ::~~:.-----_.,....J .id...t~l.~I,____. :1
i ~-'~:_::~..~J..~'fi2B]_. :
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott A. Martin, City Administrator
FROM: Jessie l. Mathison, Finance Officer
Marilynn Corcoran, Recycling Coordinator
DATE: December 7, 1987
SUBJECT: Review of Champlin Refuse Inc. Cost Projections for FY 1988
The following are the rates per-stop, per-month, as projected by Champlin Refuse, Inc.
in regards to the contract negotiations for organized refuse collection in the
City of Champlin.
General Refuse Collection $::9.65 per mo.
Compost~ Pickup .26 per mo.
Recyc ling Pickup .51 per mo.
$10.42 per mo.
This would be a total of $10.42 per-stop per-month, per-container for each residential
unit that Champlin Refuse, Inc. would charge the City of Champlin based on the
attached projections.
Champlin Refuse, Inc. would realize a projected profit of approximately 6.8% (before
taxes) on the General Refuse Collection and no profit on the Composte and
Recycling Pickups. Costs reflected for composte and recycling are for collection and
delivery to market,or to the County composte facil ity only. The contract states that
the City will receive any monies generated through the marketing of the recyclables
collected, and the County allows dumping of the compost at no charge, at this time.
Based on the above rates as proposed by Champl in Refuse, Inc., and using a 38c
administrative fee which would cover the administration, bill ing, computer costs
and supplies, the rate per-stop, per-month would be $10.80.
Using a February t, 1988 start date, with an average of 4,200 pickups per-month,
the total billings would be approximately $498,960 with a related cost of $481,404,
leaving a profit of $17,556 or 3.51%.
In the adopted budget we had used a $9.00 rate per-stop, per-month, for 12 months,
starting January 1, 1988. We had also used a total pickup count of ~,600 sto~s
per-month. This gave us a total revenue of $496,800 and a cost of $474,720
(exclusive of any transfers to the Recycl ing Center Fund). This left the City with
a profit of $22,080 or 4.4% which was to cover the administrative end of the program
as described above.
PETERSON BROS.
$10.00/mo
II
II
(increased from $9.00)
HAULER RATES WITHIN CHAMPLIN AS OF 12-1-87
ACE SANITATION
$10.20/me including container (jest increased from $9.20)
T & l
$12.00/mo II /I (increased Nov. 1 from
$10.00/mo) will take up to 10 addle bags
CORROW
$10.00/mo including container (will increase Jan. 1
but not sure how much)
WALZ BROS.
WASTE MGT. I NC .
$11.50 at curb .No container (just increased $1.00)
BF I-WOOD lAKE
$11.75/mo No Container
LANDFILL TIPPING COSTS
Waste Mgt. - Ramse~
$7.50 cu. yd + .90 tax or $8.40 yd (There are about 600#
per cu. yd. or 3.33 X $8.40 = $27.97 per ton)
Waste Mgt. adds $10.03 onto the tipping fee for Environmen:
costs reflecting a true cost to the hauler of $38.00 ton.
Waste Mgt. indicates they will increase tipping costs after
Jan. 1, 1988 by $1 to $2 dollars per cu. yd. or at a
minimum 3.33 per ton or about$42.00/ton. They wil I not
guarantee that the rate will not go up again within the
next 3-6 mos. It is their estimate that by 1990 when
the processing facil ities are complete the price per ton
will be at $60.00.
Wood lake - Medina
$7.25 cu. yd or $24.47/ton (They have no prediction
of a increase in the very near future.
Elk River landfill
$7.00 cu. yd or $23.31 ton (There is a increase to become
effective Jan. 1, 1988 to $10.00 cu. yd or $33.30 ton)
Newport RDF Plant
Current tipping fees are ~7 .57 per ton or $8.31 cu. yd
All waste brought to this facility is weighed by ton.
Note: Each facility handles their waste differently and measure it differently which
makes it difficult to make accurate comparisons. However, we do know that the cost of
tipping is projected to increase markedly and rapidly over the next very few years to
reflect the real cost of sol id waste management overall. There are already several areas
around the metro region that have anywhere from $14.00 to $17.00/mo collection rates.
H~o ~i-e d
Ue.c. ly ~ 7
ORDINANCE NO. 246
CITY OF CHAMPLIN
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
OF SOLID WASTE
The City Council of the City of Champlin, Minnesota Does Ordain:
Section 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the following
terms shall be defined as follows:
GARBAGE -- means organic waste resulting from the preparation of food
and decayed and spoiled food from any source.
RECYCLABLES -- includes newsprint, corrugated and ledger paper, plastics,
tin cans, aluminum, used motor oil, glass and other metal goods
and other items identified as reusable or reprocessable
materials, to include yardwaste ie leaves/grass clippings, each
separated and acceptable for collection or deposit.
RUBBISH -- means all inorganic solid waste such as ashes and sweepings and
other noh-reusable waste.
REFUSE -- includes garbage and rubbish
Section 2. General ReQulations.
Subdivision 1. Refuse in streets, etc. No person shall place any
refuse in any street, alley or publ ic 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 or in such manner
as to cause litter or contamination of the environment.
Subdivision 2. Scattering of Refuse; Composting. No person shall
bury any refuse in the City except in an approved and I icensed sanitary
landfi (].
a. Composte upon prtvate property..Leaves, grass clippings and
easily biodegradable, non-poisonous garbage may be composted on
the premises, where such refuse has been accumulated. Composte
containing garbage may be composted only in a rOdent-proof
structure; and in an otherwise sanitary manner, and only after
the Council gives its apDroval to such composting and only after
it finds that such composting will be in accordance with these
and other health standards.
b. Composte for collection..No persons shall combine for
disposal clean grass <.:lippings, and leaves, uut shaiJ St:!JdraLl::
from garbage, in approved containers, for separate collection
and composting.
Subdivision 3. Disposal Required. Every household or occupant or owner
of any residence, and owner of any commercial or induatrial establishment
shall, in a sanitary manner, dispose of refuse that may accumulate upon
tne owners or occupant's property.
a. All residential, single through 4 -unit shall be required
to participate in the re~dential collection system, in
accordance with the negotiated written contract or bid.
Section 3. Method of Collection.
Subdivision 1. Exclusive Collection in Certain Residential Areas. The
City may, by negotiated written contract, or bid, provide exclusive
collection of refuse and recyclables for dwellings containing not more
than four dwelling units.
a. Bi 11 ing .. The Ci ty shall impose, bi 11 and collect reasonable
charges for such collection services. Any amount past due for
collection charges may be collected by the City in a civil
action, or the City may certify to the County Auditor the amount
due, together with a legal description of the premises served.
The County Auditor shall thereupon enter such amount as a charge
against said premises payable together with the tax levied on
said premises, to be collected in the next year. This assessment
shall include a penalty of 10% (ten-percent) of the unpaid charge
or $5.00, whichever is the larger, and shall bear interest
at the rate of 6% (six-percent) per annum.
Subdivision 2. Collection in Other Areas .. Except as authorized by the
City.s contract, pursuant~o Subdivision 1 hereof,no owner or occupant
of a premises greater than 4 units, or commercial, industrial or office
establishment, shall permit refuse or recyclables to be collected from
said premises by an unl icensed collector.
a. Billing for the collection by 1 icensed collectors of
multiple residential units of more than 4-unit, or commercial
industrial or office establ ishments, shall be the responsibility
of the collector, and amount due shall be payable directly
to the licensed collector.
Section 4. Licensed Collector
Subdivision 1.
collector shall
set forth:
a.
b.
Application. Any person desiring to be 1 icensed as a
make appl ication to the City on a prescribed form, as
c.
d.
The name and address of the applicant;
A description of each piece of equipment proposed to be
used in the collection;
The proposed charges to be made of those who use the service;
A description of the kind of service proposed to be rendered
and the frequency of collection;
The place to which the refuse is to be hauled;
The manner in which the refuse is to be hauled;
A description to each type of container that will be used
to receive and contain refuse that may accumulate between
collections.
e.
f.
g.
Subdivision 2. Insurance. No license shall be issued until the
applicant files with the City a current policy of public liabil ity
insurance covering vehicles to be used by the applicant in the licensed
business. The limits of coverage of such insurance shall be established
by Council resolution, and may be adjusted from time to time.
Subdivision 3. License Fee. Licenses shall be issued for a period of
one year. The license fee shall be established by Council resolution
and may be adjusted from time to time.
Section 5. Other Specifics. Container size, description and placement
of container for collection, specific zones within the city for collection,
frequency and specific day/certain of collection within zones, and other
collection specifics, including costs to be billed for collection, shall
be prescribed by and incorporated into the negotiated contract or bod, and
may be subject to change from time to time.
Section 6. Penalty. Any person violating any provIsion of this ordinance
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine of not more than $700.00 or by imprisonment of not more
than 90 days, or both, plus the costs incurred in prosecution in either
case.
This Ordinance shall be inforce and effect from and after its adoption and
publ ication as required by law.
Passed by the Champlin Council this 8th day of December, 1987.
Wm. G. Haas, Jr., Mayor
Attest:
Scott A. Martin, Deputy Clerk
Publ ished in the Champlin-Dayton Press on
~
~
AGENDA
CHAMPLIN CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUSI 25, 1987
CHAMPLIN CITY HAIl.
7 :00 P.M.
CAlL TO ORDER
ROLL CAll
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 11, 1987
August 11, 1987
Worksession
Regular Session
APPROVAL OF BIlLS
OPEN FORlM
1. Presentation of Plaque to Mik-Lyn Electric and Video Island for Support
of BMX Program
2. Report on Porter Drive Alignment Issue
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Resolution of Intent to Establish an Organized Garbage Collection System
4. Resolution Vacating the Unimproved Portion of 117th Avenue Lying West of
Cavell Avenue: Cowles Media
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Request to Waive Street Right-of-Way Dedication Requirements for Metes and
BOtIDds Subdivision: Mrs. Elizabeth Hoskins
6. Resolution Approving Revised Contract for Brooklyn Heights Public
Improvenents
7. Change Order No. 3 for Improvenent Project Nos. 85-2.A., 3A, 4A: West River
Road
NE"w BUSINESS
8. ~inal PUD Plan and Final Plat Approval for Southpond at Elm Creek Housing
Developnent
9. Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Pizza Restaurant in a C-2 Zoning District
for Property Located at 11636 Winnetka Avenue: Mr. Duane limdeen
10. Zoning Var-ia."1ce to Encroach 14 Feet Into the 1 00 Foot Cd tical Area
Building Setback from the River for Property Located at 11548 Mississippi
Drive: Paul and Judith Dorwart
11. Site Plan Approval for High Noon Center, Located on Lot 2, Block 1,
C"'..a'n?:!.i.."1 River P.s.rk Sou::h: !-"=. George Rive::-a a..~d Mr. Cw:-tis ~ur~&ardt
12. Varia.'1ce to E.'1croach Into the 100 Foot Cri tical Area Building Setback from
the River for Property Located at 11748 Mississippi Drive: ~~. John T.
Schlanser
13. Comprehensive L:md Use Plan Amendment: Old Town Area East of Highway 169,
North of Sunset Drive, East of Colburn Street, and South of Richardson
Avenue
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
,. --
DA ':' E~
c..-' '::'_...-:-
-,., -I
" SECTION:
o RIGINA TlNG DEPT:
ir. Hearing Administration
ITEM DESCRIP TlO N:
. Resolution of Intent to Establish an Organized Collection System
PREPARED BY:
Marilynn Corcoran
In canpliance of and in accordance with legislation p:lssed during the 1987
Legislative session (Bouse File 794, Chapter 348) a Public Hearing has teen
scheduled, and a Resolution of Intent to establish a systan of organized
collection of sol id waste has been drafted.
'!he law states that Local mti. ts of governnent may organize collection as
a municip:ll service, franchise license, negotiated or bidded contract, or
other means, using one or more oollectors or organization of collectors
(Sub:livision 3a)
This prOlision is in response to the challenge of anti-trust brought forth
in 1985.
Sub:liv ision 4a states that the follailng order of eJ'ents must be observed:
1. Public Bearing must be held with two weeks prior notice.
2. ~solution of intent must be ado~ed by the City Council.
3. After the Resolution of Intent is ad:>~ed, there is a 90 day waiting
J;:eriod prior to profOsing an ordinance, franchise, license, contract
or other means of collection. During the 90-day waiting J;:eriod,
and before prop:>sing a method of organized collection, t.l-}e City shall
develop or sup:rv ise the developnent of plans or prOfOsals for
organized collection.
'!he Energy Commission researched organized collection extensively, and has
reo::mneOOed the licensing of a single garbage mllection contract and
a single recycling contractor. 'Ibis is in line with the reccmmerrlations of
both t.."1e Metrop:>l itan Council and the Hennepin County Sol id Waste M3.ster
Plan.
EIS'IOP.Y
J\.me 11, 1985 Public Hearing to mnsirer feasibility of licensing of a
single contractor for sanitation serv ices.
October 3, 1985 Energy Canmission met with haulers working in the City to
obtain input and identify and address isslEs.
Nolem1:er 14, 1985 SFecial Session of City Council to oontinlE Public
Hearing fran June 11, 1985.
,.". 7 ~2
I ~.c:"" b: Clt"J 7"'K1.~';!:vr I
~ -t""'~,,-"',~~.' r::I'~ i
~ i.o.._".. ~'."" v ~
f. :'.i:~~li~~ ~d ;
~ I
~ ~~":~."~"-i ~
6"'~-.!"."-""'"'- j
~~)::~C ~ II fJ I ~l !
~-:-'" ',' ......l.... ,:........ .t.~ r;.~,r.-.t i
f~...~. ;:~~.~~~ ~ ;rZ:;7 ~7 !
~ . I . I ;
~ . I
...-=.........--.~.-- _._-
HIS'IORY (continued)
M:1rch 3, 1986
Meeting with haulers working in the City to discuss
foonation of consortian (See RCA dated 5-27-86) .
Ci ty Council p:lssed Resol ution Supporting ProIX>sed
Legislation Regarding Organized Collection of Sol id
Waste.
April 14, 1987
May, 1987
Legislation p:lssed by both the Bouse and Senate and
signed into law which should eliminate the anti-trust
issue .
'!he Energy Cormnission continues to 5Upp:)rt the organized collection system,
and re<:armerrls that the City Council prOO!ed with inq;>lementation of the
system.
It is suggested that upon aooption of the Resol uti on of Intent, negotiations
proceed and a a:>ntra~ be d:veloped that, after 90 days, can be aoopted ~
Ordinance and implemented by January, 1988.
TENTATIVE OC~
August 25, 1987 - Pub! ic Hearing and Resol ution of Intent
~cember 8, 1987 - Ordinance hbpted
JanlBry 4, 1988 - Organized Collection System Implemented
'"'
Councilnember
aa..,ption:
introduced the follcwing resolution and moved its
RESa:.OTION 87-
RESCLOTION OF INTF.N.r '10 ESTABLISH A SYSTEM
OF OR:;~.NIZED mr,T,F.Cl'ION OF sa:.m WASTE.
WHEREAS, the l-Etropolitan Council and Hennepin County Solid Waste
Master Policy Plans call for rapid developnent of recycling and other forms
of resource recovery in place of landf ills, and
WHEREAS, orc;anized garbage collection is essential for developnent of a
curbside recycling program, and
WHEREAS, current landfill sites are at or near ca:facity and new
landfills are severely' limited in nunber, and
WHEREAs, the City of Champlin currently has multiple garbage collectors
duplicating service on City streets which cause deterioration of streets,
and produces additional traffic and redundant noise which detracts fran the
safety and welfare of the camnuni ty , and
WHEREAS, organized collection would benefit the taxpayers since
collection costs are antici:fated to l::e lcwer, and reducing the nunber of
garbage trucks on streets will reduce maintenance costs, a."ld
h'1iEREAS, organized garbage collection will l::enefit the waste haulers
~ prO'Viding more efficient and econanical operations.
NOY, 'lEEREroRE, BE IT RES<LVED by the Champlin City Council that it is
the intent of the City to eS'""...ablish a system of org=.nized collection of
solid waste.
'!be motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded I:!i
Cotmcilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following
voted in favor t.~erecf:
and the. following voted against the same: I \rr'hereL."POn said
resolution was this day of , 1987.
WID. G. F..aas, Jr. I Mayor
A!TEST:
JoAnne M. Brown, Ci ty Q erk
.. .. .
. ..."~ ... ~ ... . .
,~....... ." ~.. . ~... - -
-.. ......,. ~.... ...,....
12001 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY CHAMPLIN, MN :5316 (6'~) 421-8064
.,. ..." .~. ~
April 17. 1987
Dear Mayor:
The Minnesota Legislature is C'..Jrrently considering legislatial wmch I believe
may be of specific interest and impor:-...ance to you and your community.
Rouse File 794 (e."1closed) TNhich is a comprehensive ame."1Oment to the State
Waste Manage:ne."1t Act. includes a pro\o"ision (Section 19) that would authorize
local gove..""mle."1ts to organize solid ...-aste collection wi t.i.in their local
coamuni ties. Organized garbage collection means that the City would designate
only ooe garbage hauler to se..'l"Ve each neighborhood or district wi thin the. City.
The City of Champlin strongly supports organized garbage collection legislation
for the follow"ing reascns:
1 . Reduced traffic, noise and air pollution'. and lower long-term street
maint~'ce costs in residential areas.
2. More efficie."1t and economical garbage 'hauling service for both th.e haule:-s
~ C"~ tomers, due to manpower and e."1ergy savings.
3. Organized collection systems encom-age competition among haule:-s of all
sizes. t..lro.s insuring that local custome::-s pay a fair ptice for garbage
s e.."V"i ce .
4. 1m. organized collection system establishes a foundation for future
cm-Dside recycling programs. wmc.."l wi.ll be required to effectively reduce
our dependens:e on expensive and potentially haza=aous lCt."1dfills.
The ~~lin City Council recently adopted t."le enclosed resolution in suppo=t:
of the pendL"1g legislation. I ask that you Ct."1d your council also consider
the adoption of a simila= resolution of SUPPO::1: for o:-ganized collection. and
that you for.,.;a=d a copy of your COlDiIn.1."1ity's resolution to your local State
S~ztor ~d Represe."1cacive as soon as possible.
'M' ~ A \ .. (l J: tho , .
.1.n.a...'1.,- you ::or ffour cons~ae:-itic on oJ.. 1S 1II:porcant ~ssue.
~.I ,~, ( .
...:nce:-elJJ\ ; i
I ~ I
Y
i-.1:;H/ j j
E.."1C 10 su= e:
,.' .~. .
I
.. .:' i
" .,1
,
I
, r
,I
. ... I
"
.,,-.... -}
'.
,.... .
".
, .
. '.
. ~..
. ....
. ': ..' . .... ~: .' .' I
. , :' ...:. . , .- .:." .. .. I
..;.',:: '"
.':. !
,'., ..
.;.
, ,
. .,. ."
, ..
.,-:,,'
, ::;.,'..~~. :~;:L~,~, .:,:~::,;,::,~:,::,.)
. . ... ,~.,': . ~ ". ..: ,'" ~:.:' .....: '... :
;,. : .' : ~ ,".";
..., "
, .
,..
'1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...,
.:-
22
23
24
25
26
""
..~._.;. . ..-
.AN ACT
~ co "!-l...-;.g'
- .. . ...,;;:
CHAPTER :-10.
r' 34 8
...:-.i ..
. ! ~- .
Distributed By
Secretary, of the SENATE
R:~m 231, State Capitol
0t. Paul, 296.2343
.. .:.:~:' : .'.
: .: oJ:'.': - .
:- "'.
.;-, .....
r.l~tinq to waste management: regulating disposal of
wastes: providin~ for a solid waste =anagement policy:
providing for recycling policy and marketing: :anaging
household ha:ardous ~astes: requlating the sale and
disposal of motor oil and lead acid batteries:
providing for waste pesticide collection; ,
appropriating mocey; acendinq Minnesota Statutes 1966,
al'ectio~s 11SA.03,. s:.:bdivisions 9 and 21: 11SA.06,
~ubdivision 1': 115A.l1, subdivision 2: 11SA.15,
sundivision 6: 115':".152; 115A.154; 11SA.156.
suhdivisions 1. 2. and 5: 115':"_158, :ubdivisions 1 acd
2: 115A.42; 11SA.45; 115A.49; 115A.51: 115A.52:
115A.53: 11SA.S4, subdivision 21.: 11SA.81, subdivision
2: 115':".921; 115A.95: 116.07, subdivisioc 4b: 116.'1.
subdivision 2: 116M.07. by adding a subdivisio~:
176.011. subdivision 9: 239.09; 229.52: 32S~.11:
473.149, subdivisions 2d and 6: 473.803, by adding a
subdivision: 473.S34, subdivisicn 2; 473.842.
subdivision 2: 473.844. subdivisions 1 and 4: and
"J.846: La~s 19S4, cnapter 644, section 85: proposi~9
coding tor new la~ in Minnesota Statutes, cnapte:s
115.:..: :39: 32S~: and 473: repealin; Micneso:a Statutes
'BSE, sec,:ions 115';.13; 115A.43: llSA.H: 473.S34,
subdivision 3: and 473.844, subdivisions 2 and S.
27 !E:= ~~C~ED EY ~E~ L~~=~~TORE OF TE~ STATE OF K!~~ESO=A:
28 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1986. s~ction l1sA.OJ.
30
29 subdivision 9, is ar:ended to read:
Subc:.9. "Disposal" c:' "disoosew ceacs the discharge,
31 deposi~. injec:icr., cuc?ing, spilling, leaking. or placing c:
33
32 any ~as~e into or O~ ar.y lane or Vater so that the Vaste or acy
therec: cay enter the envi:'ol".:le::~ or beer:itted
constituen:
--...,...
...........,
3S
34 the air, or discharged into any vaters, inCluding ground vaters.
Sec. 2. Minnesota Sta~utes 1986, section 115';.03,
1.
.'.
..'
'.. . :.,
.'. '- .'.:
, ..
. .". .
- . .
. '.:' :"~~':' '/:i.::'~:":~:~\ :'.... , ... .
,". ..,
, . .
.:'>' .' !
.:. ',....
'.' . .': .:" ~ .':'::: .':; ::~~.:: ..'::~.;. '1
. .' .'... :. ,- ~... .:"
,...:. ;: :': :'.;~::,:.~ ;.:.>~;~ '::~
. " ". ~ :-,:..:,: "'/':,~' ....
".:. :"- .:-.. . .-.;.; '.. . . ~ ......
,- :~.. ,'. ~:. . .
", "::. .~>i;.I ;~ J~~'I
~',..,.
.'. " .... ,;.
}~~\- ;~>;j~~~;:j:~e
.' .... .. ..'-. ..... ", ~
. :.:;}:{~~';;~@~;l!
". ~
~o.
~~.
,:/..
1 seetion may be en!o~:ec bv t~e acer.cv O~~s~ar.: to sec~ien
2 11S.071.
3 See. 26. Minnesota S~~tutes 1986, section 11SA.921, is
4 &mendec to read:
5 llSA. 9 21 [C:':Y OR TOWN r!.t Atr:HOR:':!.}
6
A city or town may efta~ge im~ose a fee, not to exceed :5 ~
cents per cubic yard of waste. or its equivalent, o:-~c::=-.e=~e
aceep~ee-.fti-c:~posec-c: on :aftCT-tc operators of facilities for
7
8
9 the disOQsal of mixed municipal solid waste located within the
1Q city or town. The revenue from the fees ~he==-9o must be
11 c~ecited to the city or town qeneral tund and used onlv for
12 purposes of lanc!ill abatement or !or our~oses of :iti;a:in9 and
13 compensating for the local risks, COSts, and other adverse
14 effects of facilities. ,Waste residue from energy and resource
15 recovery facilities at which solid Waste is proces~ed for the
16 purpose of extrac:inS, reducing, converting to enersy, or
17 otherwise separa:inS and preparing solid waste for reuse shall
18 be exe:pt fromone-half the amount of the tee imposec by a city
19 or town under this section if there is at le~st an 85 pe~cen:
20 vol~e reduction in the solid was~e processed. Before any fee
21 i$ reduced, the verification procedures of section 473.843,
22 subcivi$ion l, paragraph (c)~ m~s,; be followed and subci::ed to
23 ~e appropriate city or tOwn.
24/ Sec. 27. [l:.SA.H] [Oi\GAN!Z::::J COr.:':::C'!!ON.}
/ ''-,
2S
Subdivisio~ 1. [O~!~:'!:ON.] .Orca~i:ed col1ec:ior," oea~s
26 a SVstec fer cellec:inc solid waste in whic~ a s~eci!iec
27 collector. cr a member ef an orcani:ation of collectors. is
28 au:hori:ec to cc:lec~ frem a defined ceocra~hic service area or
29 areas sooe or all o! the solie waste t~at is released bv
30 cenerato:s for collection.
31 Sucd. 2. (tOeA: AU'!EOR!'!!.] A city er town may orcan::e
32 collectio~. after ou:lic notification as rec~ired in subdivision
33 4. A cou~tv may crcani:e collection as crovicec in subdivision
3.; :..
S~bd. J. [C!~!RAL PROVISIONS.] lal ~he local covern~en:
unit cav o:ca~!:e cc2!ec:io~ as a mu~ici:al service crbv
.,-
.0
, , ,
." ..-..... '.'
..=. .
.:-..
1 orc:i.~ance. ~ranc:!':is~. :!.ic:~nse. necc::.a:ee c:' l:ice~ cor.:rac-:. or
~
2' ether :Ileans. \:sino on~ or mor~ ccllec::ers or an, orca:!i:ation e!
3 collectors.
4 bl The local eoverr~ent unit may no: ~s:ab:!.:.sh or
5 ac:inister orcani:ec collection in a mar.ner t~at i=~airs t~~
& reservation and develooment of r~cvclinc and ~arkets !o~
7 reevclable mate~ials. T~e local covernmen: unit shall exeeo:
8 recvclable mat~rials !rom orcar.i:ed collection u~n a showinc bv
9 the oenerator or collecto~ that the materials are or will be
11 se~a~atelv collec:ec. and celive~ee fo~ reuse in their orioinal
se~arated from mixed munic:i~al solid Waste by the cene~ator.
13
12 form or for use in a manu!acturinc orocess.
c The local oovernment unit cav invite and em~lov the
.... ".
14 assistance of interested oersor.s. incl~dinc oersons ooera:inc
.-..... .
18
17 orcani:ed collection Svstem.
15 solie waste collection se~vic:es. in develooinc clans and
. . ~. ..~
16 ro~osals fo~ o~cani%ed collection and in establishinc the
. ,
. . -".
19 cur.ic:i~al service cav inC:lude a re~:.re=ent t~at all o~ anv
d Orcani:ed collection accom:lishec bv contract or as a
20 oo~tio~ o! the solid ~as:e, exce:t (11 ~ecvcla:le caterials anc
21 (21 :ate::.als that are ~~ocessed at a reso~rc:~ recove:v !acili:v
"
22 at the ca~acitv in ooera:ion at the ti:e :~at t~e ~e~~iremen: is
13 i=oosed, be delivered to a ~as:e !ac:i.li.:v icen:i!iec bv t~e
2~ local cover~:.en: unit. !n a dis:ri:: or co\:n:v where a reso~rc:e
25 reCOve~v !acili:v has been cesic~a:e~ bv c:ci~a~ce ~~cer sec:ic~
26 11SA.!S. creani:ec c:o:lec:ion ~us: Co~~or: to the ~e~i:e=e~:s
28
27 of the cesic~a:ion orcinance.
Subd. ~.
[e:T:!S ~~D TOWNS; NOTIC!; r:Ah~:NG.I (a) A:
29 leas: 90 cavs before c~o~osino an o~dinance. ~rar.ctise. lice~se.
30 con::ac: 0: o:he~ ceans of o:cani:ine cOllection. a ci:v or
31 to~n. bv resolution cf the cove:ninc bccv. stall a~nounce its
32 in:en~ to crean::e collec:ion anc invite the :ar:ic:~a:icn c~
33 inte:es:ec oe:sc~s in :lanninc and es:a:lis~inc the crcani:ec
:;5
3~ c~!:ec::or. !VS:e~.
36 hearinc. ~he hea:inc rn~s: be held at leas: :~o ~eeks a~:e:
(~) 7::e =escll.:~ion 0: in::en:: must be aco:::ec a!:er a ol.:::1.ic
17
\......
'"'
..,:
.... .
. . .
'. '.'
.".. .. "... ..'
.'" .
'". .. .~.
.;11,.
,;; ..' ..='
. ::'~:..:.
...:. ~. 1"
. .'
.'
, . .:, , - ..
.:..:...
. . .-
.~ ' ::' :~. .
..... . , .. '00. -" . .
~ .... '';-',;...
- , ".
" :: .~:':..:~.:..'..:-:~_i.:..,"'.. ,'~7...'.'; _
...... ....... '.- ,". .:' .
.. .>\ :':'~:.~<.::~":~::,..:;...., . .
. ..
"
. ." .. .:;". ..~.~
'. . .;.
. - '..
...... "-. ..-""
1
~=lie noti:e anc :ai:ee ~otice :~ ~~rsor.s known bv the ci:v or
2 town to be e~eratinc solid Waste collection s~~vices in t~e ci:v
3 or town. The ~ailure to cive mailed notice to oersons or ce!e::
4 in the notice does not invalidate the oroceecines. erovidec a
5 bona !ide e!~o:t to comely with notice recuirements ~as been
6 ~
7
Cc) Curine the 90 day oeriod followine the resolu:ion o~
intent. and before orooosina a method of orcani:inc collection.
8
9
the city 0: town shall develoo or sunervise the develooment o!
~lans or orooosals tor oreani:ed collection.
(d) Ooon re~~est. the city or town shall orovide mailed
notice of subsecuent oroceedines on the orcani:a:ion o!
collection in the citv or town.
15 bv ordinance re~ire cities and towns within the. county to
Subd. 5. [COOh~Y ORGANI%~D COLL~C:ION.l Cal A county may
1& orcani:e collection. Orcani:ed collection ordinances o~ '
17 counties may:
':'.
18 Cl re~~ire cities and towns to re~ire the seoara:ion and
19 seoarate collec:ion o! recyclable materials:
20 (2l soecifv the caterial to be se~arated: and
21 (3) re~ire cities anc to~r.s to meet any :er!er~nce
23
22 stancards for source seoaration t~at are cor.:ainee in t~e co~~:v
solic was:e olano
24
25 town t~at does nc: co~=lv with a countv orcani:ed collection
(bl A county C4v i:sel! orcani:e collection in any citv or
26 ordinance acc~:ec uncer t~is subdivision. and the county maY
27 i=~le=ent. as :ar: o~ its crcani:ec co:lec:ior.. the .source
28 se:aration orooraz: and :ler~cr~ance stancares recuirec bv its
30
29 orcani:ed collection ordinance.
Sec. 28. Minnesota Statutes 1986. section 11SA.9S, is
31 a:endec to read:
33
32 11SA.9S (~ECYC~AE~! ~~=!~IALS.J
A reso\:rce recovery ~acili:y t~a: is c:=~cs:ir.c ~aste.
34 bur~ing ~as:e, or converting ~aste to energy cr to ~ater~als fcr
35 co==cs:icn, and is owned or operated by a p~blic agency or
36 sc~por:ed by p~blic funcs cr by cbligations issuec by a p\::lic
18
REQUEST FOri COUNCIL ACTION
M E E r I ~, G - - - t:,. ~
OAT E: :; - ../ - '" 0 -.
-'"
;.., SECTION:
UNFINISHED BUSI~ESS
ORIGINA. TlNG DE?T:
ADMINISTRATION
1
ITEI.: DESCRIPTION:
REPORT ON ORGANIZED GARBAGE COLLECTION PROJECT
PREPA.RED BY:
JO ANNE BROWN
'!he garbage haulers OJrrently worrj,ng in the City met on'Ihurseay, April '-:
24th to disOJss forming a cong,rtiun. Seven of the ei~t residential .j;;J. ;... 't...
haulers working in the City were present: . . jll{! .(;../::.,!ii~
J '. LAo.,' l' ",':/' .,1. .
~'''' . . .., -,
" ,Ace Solid Waste - Dean Wore'en >_/ ." rJ . ~I/ .
)t'" Peterg,n Brothers Sanitation - LeRoy Laroue j::/ ,J;.....
\:.' T & L Sam tation - Tad Korfe .
.:~ Corra./ Trucking and Sam tation - Curt CorrOtl
: Walz Brothers Sanitation - Ed and Le.~ Walz
'Peikert Sam tation - Orin and .Elaine Peikert
Waste l-anag='..Jnent - Jim Gencauski
BFI did not attend the meeting.
'!he majorit:! of haulers present agreed to form a c:>q::oration, and signed a
pre-subscription agreenent- and };:aid a $200.00 fee. A deadline of May 2200
was set for the renaimng haulers to sign a pre-subscriF..ion agreenent.
'Ihe corporation will l::e known as O1anplin Refuse, Inc., (CRI) and is a
seJ?arate enti t'j. 11iT'.nea;olis Refuse, Inc. (MR.I) will prOl/ic5e tlar.agement
and adninistrative services at a cost of approximately 25 cents par unit p2r
month. au can decide to prOllid: its o;...n adninistrative and management
services at ~'time with 30 days notice to MR.I.
'1he haulers held aT'. organizational meeting on 'Ihurseay 1 l'~ 22nd. BFI was
not .prese:-:': at the meeting. 'Ihe representative fran Waste Hanagement
indicated t.."lat t.~ey will not l:ec:>me a menter of the coq:oration; havever,
they will protehly attenpt to C:>rnTince t.~e Cit:! Council to p.1t the entire
City out for bias.
Each comP:!1i \>lit.~in t.i1e mq:oration will have one menl:er on the Board of
Direc::ors. 'The c:>rp:')ration ~-:-la-lS were read and aCbpted with several
revidons. (Copies of the ~-la...s will l:e available at t.i1e meeting.)
Officers were elected, and each c::>mpany will subnit a list of CJrrent
Clstcmers to z-mI ~. June 2nd for verification. Mr. 0.i Baker has started t.i1e
prelimire.ry work irrvolved in counting the m:nl:er of resia:ntial units in the
City.
I le:t t.'1e meeting at app:-oximately 9: CO p.m., ana the haulers and t.,e l-1RI
representatives CisCJssed prices for garl::age service based on ifl.forrnation
fran Olsen and T:'1eilen, 2.11 acc::>unting firm working wit.'1 J.iRI.
JNCIL ACTION: MorrON BY:
. SECOND BY;
TO:
In preli:ninary disClssions, t.~e staff recor.:ne."1ded t.'1at garbage service
incl~cie pick up of all itens plaC2d at the CJrb, including appliances,
furniture, leaves, grass clippings and branches. In C2rtain instances,
some residents m~ be given the option of back-door serv ice at a."1
additiOnal mEt. It is anticip:ited that the majori~ of t.'1e Ci~. would I:e
Clrbsicie service with barrel. containers prOl/ided ~ the haulers.
...'
It is anticip:l.ted that organized CDllec-..ion could be in place ~ August 1,
1986.
Mr. O1uck Kutter and l1r. OJ Baker of MR.I, as well as the gartage 'haulersinvolved in the CDq:oration, have been invited at attend the meeting.
"I
-.;,
LE'Z'IP. TO READERS
ctA.~LIN/DAY"ION PRESS
'Week of August 17 issues
Dear Champlin Citizen,
The City of Champlin has indicated a strong interest in an ORGANIZED COLLECTION
SYSTEM for solid waste, in response to both the Metro Council and Hennepin County
Solid Waste Master Plans. The city is currently se=ved by an open system where
each resident contract.s for their ovn service and billing is between the hauler
and household.
ORGANIZED COLLECTION can be achieved by taking one of the folloving directions;
1. The City could go out for bid and award the entire hauling
contract to one company vit.h the City billing for the services.
2. The City could purchase collection equipment, hire personnel
and get into the hauling business themselves.
3. The present companies hauling within the city (8) could form a
consortium or corporation, and together negotiate a contract vith the
city, ~th each hauler servicing their fair. percentage of the households,
but working within a specific zone or region of the city.
Both options 01 and 12 would put.:the. s_~ller, independent hauler out of
business. Option U3 would insure that we~_the inftependent companies, would be
kept in business;. and thru the contract, the resiaent would be assured of
consist.ant se=vice and rates. The collection of garbage and recyclables would
be billed taru the city as,a utility.
Several haulers in your city support. OPTION U3
Please Support our efforts to keep working and let the City Council know of your
support by calling 421-8064. or by attending the Public Hearing Aug. 25 at i:OO p.m.
Thank You -- We look forward to our continued service.
Your Garbage Haulers
b.-- (f) 4.j~
Dean Worden - Ace Sanitation
LeRoy Lanouc- Peterson Bros.
Kurt Corrow - Corrows Sanitation
and membe=s of Chacplin Refuse
Inc.
J'*- L S.4 '" ~ +c...~ ,'0...
/
\ -r. \ s. l e. -tfc -e. v L0u..~
H 000,4::,' C 1"0 00 r ~ €.:i
Q 1L6\\c.. \\ QC"v' \' ~ "
. (0 ' .., J ,,(;) ~ (n '-\ _I C," ~
~ l.l...-" "-t. '"\ '- \ -r. .... ~ tf '-':.......
~;~\ be c....0~\c\..b\e
V\',\.r., .::/"'_ ,....c_ C\2J::
\ Y '-........,.)001<', ll. 1,;;.:'
C.OIl"
~, "b '
.y \So"\ (", \.t...' q:;.....
Q). ~~
....-
-l
CFJ..l'f..PLIN REFUSE SERVICE CONTRACT
Between:
City of Champlin
and
Champlin Refuse, Inc.
G18EDJSgmw121l871
Date:
, ':A/fl/81
.
CF..A..~!.IN REFUSE SERVICE CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this
da y 0 f
,
19 _, by and between the CITY OF CE:AMP!.IN, a
municipal corporation in the county of Hennepin, herein referred
to as "City," and CHAMPLIN REFUSE, INC., a Minnesota corporation,
herein referred to as "CRI."
R E C I TAL S :
--------
WE:=:REAS, City requires the collection and disposal of
garbage and rubbish, compost, and recycleables from residences in
the city of Champlin;
WHEREAS, CRI is engaged in the business of collecting and
disposing of garbage and rubbish, compost and recycleables; and
. WHEREAS, the City desires to hire the services of CR! and
CRI desires to pro~ide the services to the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties:
1. Te=m.
Five Yea=s. . This Contract shall be in full
. effect for the period beginning Februa..ry 1,
ending January 31, 1993.
force anc.
19 6 8 and
")
(
a.
b. Renewal. At the conclusion of this period,- it is
expect.ed tha t the parties will wish to renew this
Contract icr additional five year terms. Negotiations
for said renewal shall begin July 1, 1991.
2. General Descriotion of Services. CRr shall supply all
labor, materials, and equipment necessary to ~ake a complete
collection of garbage and rubbish from all residences in the
City of Champlin at least once in each calendar week during
the term of this Contract and convey ~~e garbage and
=u~bish, QQm~~~~, and recycleables to a Mi~~esota Pollution
Control Agency approved disposal site or recycling facility.
3. Definitions. .For purposes of this Contract, the fcllc~ving
terms shall have the following meanings:
G18HDJSgmw1211878
'"
;~
-.
. (A)
All household Refuse from Residential
Dwelling Units in the City of Champlin.
\'
....
j.
Toxic and Ea:arcous Was~es. Toxic and hazardous wastes
are was~e ~a~erials including bu~ ~ot lim{ted to
poisons , pes~icides, herbicides, acids, caustics,
patbological was~es, radioactive materials, fl~mmable
or explosive materials, and similar harmful chemicals
and wastes which require special handling and must be
c.iscosed of in a manner to conserve the environment and
protect the publio health and safety.
k. Whi te Goods. Large household items including
re=rigerators, stoves, dishwashers, washers and dryers,
water heaters, carpeting and padding, mattresses,
chairs, couches, tables, and other such items of
furniture.
4. Refuse Collection Servioe.
a. Descri~tion.
(1) Refuse Collection Service shall include the
collection of:
of . ~,Jl.- / eE)
,J "")-1 (, iJ.^V~-
. "\t~ ~4 '-
d\.. ~l-
,kYV V-c;
" '<L~~'gA)
-' .J..j./'"
. L.....zA> tP1"
, '
JV~ .
All Refuse generated by the Champlin City
Hall, the Champlin Fire Station, Champlin
Publio Works, and the Champlin Municipal_./ S"
Liquor Store ("City Offices"). ~-7~~ r~- /~
011 7! ,-
Chris~"!las trees cut in~o leng:'"....'ls untie=:- six
feet (6 ') .
(C)
.(-a1'~ mt:l.-C. ~~ Recyci-eab!-es--until=:.:_the~:.-C.ate
ge ':. a_ e.:t:-e---C--eft't':)OS L CO"1~ion~rvi"C-e =aoo
---~~:e.=:a~-::~e~yc1:eaEle - Cofl:ecEl'on-Se~v-i-ce-
-::: e~-n , - -res-pec~i vei1'-;-
(2) Refuse Collection Service shall not include the
collection of:
(A) Toxic and Hazardous Wastes.
(3) Items such as batteries, tires, construction
rna ~erial, motor oils, and paint in liquid
form.
(e) White goods.
(D) Limbs, brush and such other items.
C:::) Com?cst and Recycleables ai:te::- t.h-e ~::~e..
s-epa-=-a-t.--e~ompost C-ol-l-e~...:ion S.s=.rv.ic.e_.. aDd
--------
G18EDJSgmw1211S78 -3-
(-
6.
.;. ;./,,-
r?1; .. d vU~, :
, // IV!;! .~/
Recycleable Collec-~on Service shall ~#~
collection .of all Recycle~les from I~ _
Resic.ential Dwelling Units in the City of
Recycleable Collec~ion Se=vice.
-'7
L
a.
Descr:.otion.
inc 1 uce the
~~ and
Champlin.
- po
b. Location. Residential Dwelling Units au] .~ <H'~_
shall have their Recycleables in con~ainers provided by
the City located at the boulevard adjoining the curb on
or before 6:00 a.m. on the designated day of
collection.
c.
P~ecuen=? Rceycleable Col~ection Service shall beg~n
on -&-G.a ...e aetermined by the City, which the part~~
ex?ec~ to b.e--e~-r--after Apr~l 1" 19-a8 , &t1c! .e.ac;,_
_____'l'ies.i.d.e.n.;.i-a~eJ:~~ng Unit and. City office shal~v~
its R~~~cle~blc3 collc~~ed a ~n~um ot once pc. ___4ft. ~~
fb-~~;G-V ~ '
7.
Additional Collection Service.
a.
&~
Descri~tion. Additional Collection Servi~ shall
include (i) .the collection of White Goods and/limbs and
br~sh ("Additional Items") and (ii) Collection Service
'r and collection of Additional' Items from. a location
-4Kln::-r- ~.h=.. t:.hB-~O~~ adjoining the curb
, ( It Addi ~ional Service"). :
,"1 -
~ J-".;
b. Location. Residential Dwelling Units,' unless
Ac.di tional Service has been reauested hv t.i-:te resident
owner r ..a.r-L-1:':" ty G==~ ~~~ shall - have their Additional
'Items located at the boulevard adjoining the curb.
8 .
c. Frecuencv. Adc.i tional Items shall be collec~ed from
the City Offices whenever necessary and from
Reside:ltia1 Dwelling Units upon request...:O.; t.ltQ.
- e-=::-a:<:n<t, ::\Zlc.e L'O CRI 1.Il: wle R<:l.:lc=. Additional
Service for Collection Service shall.be renc.ered by CRI
uoon recuest bv the resident owner, a..."1d at therecular
frequ.enc-y of Collection Serv.ice. . .. ,JJ.," - c.. :!.. I
- ~ w~ /' /
. ' .. ~. ......, ".c:,~(.,/ .:.~ "1'
6Dr::!.nc Clean-uo Serv~ces. f-":J. ~. U 5 v....~~ / -. - -~ _ I
(11,; '-to-..> .. : a~
ca-;~~~c=~tior:,. The Ci ~y S~-d-e,"..ign~-c';. s..a.:t.~~
~--=O-=--each year lother- than- a --Saturday-on-vhidr....
- .. - -- -
co 11 ~c t ig.1".c...-s.e..r..3J-i-c-e-s---ere-don-e1--<~ea-"}.::EP_ De y n ) when
e~cn :Resic.ential D~elling--Unit-m2.yhave --Wn-1:te GOOc.s,
garc.en was-:e -(such as vines, flowers, pla::ts, etc.),
anc. b=-...:.sh J..cu.:t...-a...~c.--.tied_in bundles with a maximum
wei-qh-r--.of ' sixty (60) poillidSJ---r-"'~~u'O Items")
_c.o.11.e.c:cec -by-CP:?;___ a-~ !'lQ~_~~:i~~C?_n_a,l:-:-5;i!arg~ t~e
reess.l.;g.e.; c~ -- ---- -.-- --., ., - ""--.. -, ,
~ '."""'-.. ~ -----::::.,
G18F.DJScmw12118i8
- ,
-5-
" ~
..
fall C~ a weekday, ~be collection for each
week after ~he holiday shall be made one
day la~~r.
cay 0 f t.~a -c.
(1) "~'~1J
d.
Ce=tified Picku:s. Only such pickups shall be made as
have been cer-c.ified by the City I and CRI shall not be
enti tled to payment for any pickups made and not
certified by the City. In the event that a Residential
Dwelling Uni t has been certified for Collection
Service, and the City wishes to ciscontinue such
service at such Residential Dwelling Unit, the Citv
shall notify CRl to that effect at least one week p=ior
to the date of discontinuance of such service.
e.
Street Imorovements. The City reserves the right to
improve any street or alley which may prevent CRI f=om
traveling its accustomed route or routes for
collection. No additional compensation will be :mace
for this interference. /. II j. /0 -f!
. _~~,v 17te,lry .
J..drninistra tion. h~3ia$~___-Ae ~~nth-t:o"l:1n~..,
~:~~r-M.i:araQJ.Fgl-rs -b.II.s~, lac. 'shall act as ~9::.t. ~1,:..,
for :CRI and shall maintain 2..'1 office equipped with' r' o:J'.,J
telephones and staffed with sufficient personnel toq...-:~
handle complaints, orders for special service, and/or
to rec~'ve FstructiOnt:...~ ~
. -R_ /
(1) ~. (,~-~...e shalllfZ stafSiji f=om/8:00 a.m. .to 4:00
. p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
~
.....
i-2i--€-?'I s1rai.1.: ma;.ntnn a wr:-i"tten--l-eg of aU
....., ...;-.....-~----..":I ..~..,..-....--=~ ----."- ~-4- ___.l...
-e.em.:-_-e_41....:: I .....<:::\'o'a...~ ~.le_eo_ ..nc. ::.ne a_..._on ...c;.....:e~
o~=sllan~--t~~e~~r--tn~--=e~s~~--fa:_ non-action.
..s.:..:.ch~-e<:c-t--c-ompJ.-nlft.~-shrt""i-be--me~-.a.i.la:b"").e :. u :'''-
. l:5' ~..L. il: - .. .
..;;.~ec-::.:.on y Lllt: ~..:.. "':1. _Ci!ll.."l:l.S~_1!....or O.J..-..-an
-- ,.....\., ,...-~ -.~ ....--ese:l....a.:tive.
~ ..-:..~ . . .M/" ~ _ "'"."+ . '- __~_
(3) CRI shall maintain ~na~~i receipts from haulers
ca=rvinc Cha.'!lolin Otefuse exclusivelv. Sucl1
... -... ...
recei?ts shall be made available for inspection by
the Ci ty. _~~~~~~ ~:~'"'~"'Ji~~.~=~'ilU~AQ"'.; ~c
-. ..-
..:- cp r,.e c C:l t z:. t-:. 'I#'C . - .
(4) CRI shall keep complete anc accurate records in
accordance with generally accepted accounting
F=actices and to have an annual audit by an
ir:depe~cent accounting fitt; and shall make
available for inspection by the City any and all
of such records upon request by the City.
(5) The City shall bill and collect conies c.ue f=oi':'i
resider.ts for Collection Service.
G18EDJSgmw1211878
-7-
(6)
?e=ce~~a~e i~crease in ~~ese cos~s; providee,
however, ~~at the Resident~~l Unit Price shall be
adjust~d only upon a f15'~ or more aqgregat~
increase in these costs.~--________./-:
The parties further agree that the prices stated
he:ein shall be automatically increased for all
increases of existing or the imposition of new
fede:al, state,' local, or other governmental
agency excise taxes, sales tax, surcharge.s, or
other charges.
~I
-'
1~7
.., "'
--
c~r
b. Additional Collection Services. Char~es for pickup of
Adc.i tional I terns and for Additional Service shall be
made directly to the resident owner by CRI or the
hauler at the prices. stated in Attachment B hereto.
Said prices shall be subject to change from time to
time by CRI based on changes in disposal costs.
c. F=ice Review. The parties aqree to review the costs of
CRl1 s Collection Service and the prices ~=Et"iB.,.....n_:c::
~t:-..~U9'u,,~ I, 19-6.S.~ ~.z...~ ~ ~ .~4z.-~~.J
. . C" r t:JaJ..J ~ ..... .~ w~~
<i-.-'-, .Landfill Fees. It is expected that the putie.s will
, ,- wis.:to have. the City pay all landfill fees re~ul ting
:"'_^:r. ,<-J . - !. ,0_1/ ~. from collection of ChamDlin Refuse: The
~- J~ Residential w~ling Unit Price c~ntem~lates that eRI
" ~'.,/ ,I/ /7. .~ ,Ar&. ~V will oav all J.'a~fill fees 'fo;:...-R€fuseCollection
~~- Se=vic~ -(it is ass~__that....JlG~andfill fees will be
i f incur:ed for Comoost Coll~ion Service and Recvcleable
.:.y' Collection Se:vice) and........at suc~e as the City shall
b.:gin paying lanc.fifi. fees cirectl:y.........to the landfill,
, '''.' , /'l"o, , , . O' ... P' .:::--.... 'b .. ..
tne Res;.c.en-Cl.a..:.,./ uwe__l.ng n.l.. rJ.ce sn~"':!....r.. e rec.ucec.
.. , 1.. /~"'l.., ... cn T ~...' C . :;:--.. .... '
accorc.;.ng y /' .l.n .....e even.. ..-...:.. an\,O. ...ne l....Y'ae...e~l.ne
that CornpGSt cannot be dispesed of without co~ then
- - .- '" .' 1 D , 1 . U .... tl' . ... : 0 .
t!1e r:tes.lc.en-cl.a we_ ;.ng n.l... _ rJ.ce sna.l._ ~
i::-rc.ia tely ac.j usted for increased landfill costs anc
hauling costs, if any,. incurred by CRI.
.,tJ
~
e. unmarketable ?ecvcleables. CRI shall pay the City
one hundrec (lOO%) percent of the gross proceeds ==om
the sale of ?ecycleables within ten (10) days of the
receipt of such proceeds by CRI. In ~he event CRr and
the City determine that Recycleab1es cannot be sold, or
that .they cannot be sold locally, the Residential
Dwelling Unit Price shall be adjusted to provic.e fer
costs to disoose of the Recvcleables (includina d~~oina
anc. increase~ hauling costs) incurred by CRI, if any. ~
~
\......
\
Clean-uo Davs. The City and eRI shall agree to a price
fer each Spring and Fall'C1ean-~'p_-Day.\ The City-'s~all /
\ 'oav CRI ..-within sev.en / (7) "-G-aYs of recti.Pt....of invo..ic.e/<___-
j fr;r!LCRI. .-----.-'
GlSEDJSgmw1211878
-9-
~,
..
'"
to ?a~ent for any day in which its t--ucks do not make
collections cue to ~~e above two circumstances.
12. Pe::-fo=mance Gua::-antee. In lieu of providinc; a performance
bond or bones with the City of Champlin, CRI shall guarantee
performance of this Contract by delaying the billing of
se=vices to the Ci ty until the 20th day of the month
followina the month in which Collection Services we::-e
renderec~by eRI. The City may withhold payment from CRI for
failure to perform pursuant to ~~is Contract.
13. Liabilitv Insurance. CRI shall perform under this Contract
in a clean, neat manner and shall ope::-ate such trucks and
motor vehicles as are reasonably necessary and suitable to
the renc.ering of such services and shall kee'C the same
insured with a minimum public liability' insurance 0:
$100,000 for anyone pe=son; $300,000 for anyone accident;
$50,000 for property camage, together with Contractor's
public liability insurance of $100,000 for anyone person,
$300,000 for anyone accident; and property damage of
$50,000. Certificates of Insurance shall be provided to the
City by CRI or haulers upon request of the City.
14. Worke::-s' Comoensation Insurance. CRI shall at all times
keep fully insured, at its own expense,'all pe:sons ~~ployed
by it in connection with the performance of this Contract as'
r.:quired by the laws of the State of }ot.innesota relating to
Workers' ComDensation Insurance and shall hold the City free
and harmless from all liability from anv cause that may
arise by reason of injuries - to any "employee. of th~
Contractor who may be injured while performing work or labor
necessarv to ca==v out the provisions of the Contract. C?~
shall su;olv to the Citv memc=andum 'Colicies.
- - - - ...
15. Pe==or~ance of Contract.
a. Suoolv Necessa=v Items. CRr shall supply all labor,
material, and equipment necessary for the carrying-out
of this Contract.
b. No C~aims. CRI a~rees to pay all persons doing work or
f\:.=:;.is~ir:g skill, tools, machine::-y I or mate:ials 0=
insurance premiums or equipment or supplies and all
just c2.aims fo= such ,york, material, equipment
ins~rance, and supplies in and about the performance of
th:.s Contract.
c. :ncerr.nification. CR! further agrees to take all
Frecautions to protect the public against injury and to
save the City harmless from all camages and clai.:ls of
caillages that may a=ise by reason of any negligence of
CR! or CRr's agents, or employees while engaged in ~ne
pe==o=:nance of this Cor-tract, and will indemnify the
GIEHDJSq,mw1211S78
-11-
17. Pe=sonr.el Recui=emer.ts.
a. Res~or.sibili~v
(1) There shall be no limitation on the size of t:he
hauler's collection crew, so long as they are
sufficient to fulfill the recuirements of ~he
specifications and contract. .
(2) Each collection crew shall adhere to all'applica-
ble Ordinances of the City of Champlin, and all of
those rules, regulations, and conditions for
Refuse collection as es~ablished by the City
Aci.'!linistra tor.
b. Driver
(1) The driver must have a valid Minnesota Chauffeur's
License.
(2) The driver must adhere to all traffic laws.
c. Collector
(1)
The c.r~ver and collector (s)
have a .courteous attitude
public. .
shall at all times
toward the general
(2)
The driver
character,
entire work
and collector (s) shall be of sound
compete.'1t, and sober throughout the
day.
(3) The driver and collector(s) shall have ~~e ability
to reznernber the order of collec~ion and location
of all containers on the assignee routes.
(4) The driver and collector(s) shall make a concertee
effort to' have at all times a presentable
appearance.
(5) The collector(s) on each crew shall be physically
able to perform their duties and at least eighteen
(18) years old.
(6) The collector (s) shall perform their work in a
nea t and a quiet manner and clean up all Refuse,
Compost 0= Recycleables spilled in collec~ion
under any circumstance.
(7) All containers shall be replaced en the boulevarc
adjoinir.g the curb.
G18HDJSgrnw121187S
-13-
..
~'-
:41
23. Eeal ~h Reaulations and Orc.inances. The Contractor shall
ac~uain~ i~self wi~h all pertinent City Ord~ances and shall
comply with all heal th r~gulations and Ordinances of the
City of Cham~lin and the State of. l'f..innesota in effect a~
thi; time or hereafter adopted.
24. J._rbi tration. In the event of any disagreement when a
solution has not been reached within thirtv (30) days
subsequent to a formal written request -for binding
arb i tra tion by ei t.'"ler party, the dispute or centroversy
shalL be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 5i2 of the ~..inneso~a Statutes. The
venue of such arbitration shall be in Eennepin' County,. and
three arbitrators shall be appointed by any Hennepin County
District Court Judge agreed upon by the parties.
In the event CRI or the City believe ~~e results of binding
arbitration are significantly unacceptable, either party may
cancel this Contract upon eighteen (18) month's written
notice to the other.
25.
Governinq Law. This Contract is aoverned in ill resoec-ts bv
the laws of the State of Minnesota, and all Obligations are
enforceable in accorc.ance therewith; and CRr, where
required, must obtai~ all licenses or pe~its to transact a
Refuse collection business .in the Ci.ty of ~hamplin.
26.
Notice. Except as otherwise herein provided, all no~~ces
required to be served by either party on the other shall be
in writing and fO~warded by certified mail to ~~e principal
office of the oartv to which notice is cive~, as follows:
. - .
To t~e City of C~a~olin:
City 0 f Cha:::p lin
C;~v ~~-;~;s._--o~
_'-_ ..~;.,,_...._ ,-_c.\,.. _
12001 Jefferson Eighway
Ch~~?lin, MN 55316
- -.......-
.....
.... .-r....-
~ 0 '- :....l.. :
..
C~ -~--'l;'" '.:... .::.. se Inc'.
...~C.~""::,. -_~I
c/o ~RI .. -.- --.
~6~9 Elocmin~~o~ Avenue Sou~~
l-lir.ne~::>-:I:.:rs;- MN 55407.
~ll suc~ notices shall be effective whe~ received.
27. Seve=a~ilitv. All parts and provisions of this Contract are
severa=~e. 7':: a~y part or provision shall be held invalid,
t~e remainder of this Co~t=act shall remain in effect.
Disoutes. ;'.ny
in~e=p=et.a'tic:l
"'I"
.<.c.
c.is?utes or controversies arising out of the
of t~e provisions of this Contrac~ shall be
G18ED.JSgmw1211878
-15-
-
"'.,.
...,