08-08-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Appendix B Solid Waste Commission Interim Report on Organized Collection Study June 23, 2004 Introduction On March 24, 2004, the City Council passed a resolution of intent to organize refuse collection under the provisions of Minnesota Statute 115A.04. The Council stated very clearly that their approval of the resolution of intent was not a fmal approval of organized collection, but a direction to the Solid Waste Commission to continue their study of all sides of the issue, with the final decision to be made later. Since March 24 the Solid Waste Commission has met six times: . Commission meetings on April 14, May 13, and June 10 . Meetings with haulers on April 20 and May 12 . Public informational meeting on May 20 In addition the Commissioners have gathered a large amount of research material and met with the City Attorney to explore options. Comments from residents (and some non-residents) have been collected in a dossier that has been copied to both the Commission and the Council. Comments from Residents It . . . . . . . Total number of residents whose comments are recorded in mail/phone log: 71 Number favoring organized collection: 22 Number opposed: 34 Number who said they had no opinion: 8 Number who only had questions: 7 Ratio of "opposed" to "in favor" at March 24 hearing: Estimated at 2 to I May 20 public meeting: All but I person were opposed. A letter was sent to all R-I residents on January 29, enclosing a copy of the Commission's goals, but by far the most comment seemed to be generated by mailings from haulers. These letters, generated from an industry template and reprinted on each company's letterhead, were nearly identical to letters sent out during the Ramsey-Washington Counties organized collection process in 2002, made unsubstantiated predictions about price rises, and encouraged a negative response to the City's efforts. - In spite of these mailings, many residents contacted Staff and Council to express their approval of the idea of organized collection. Some of their reasons are summarized here: . More wear and tear on roads caused by extra trips under current system . Extra trips mean more fuel consumed, more air pollution, more traffic congestion . More traffic is a safety concern . Organized collection is more efficient - basic logic - suggesting being able to pass savings on to residents . City has more bargaining power than an individual owner yielding potentially better price for residents