Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />13 <br />F3- <br />Wr�:i �41 <br />�3,pecfflc areas a feasibility study should explore are� <br />- What service is to be pro vilded.; <br />A w the service would be monitored and complaints <br />handled; <br />-, How the system would be financed; <br />- The length of the contract; <br />L The provision for any cost adjustments on a <br />tenn contracto and <br />P <br />F'rovulians covering the assurance of the contractors" <br />perfonnance' <br />idential <br />2. St. Paul should move to a mandatory res refim <br />w1lection system with competitive bid contracting <br />within the 17 conununity planning districts. <br />If there is adequate miterest wn a. Conununity <br />PlannMig Councfl, the City should give the Plinning <br />Council. authority to be the contracting agency <br />within Welines established 'citywide as tow- the <br />gul <br />funds avaffable, per household and mm'ftnum stan- <br />dards. <br />If theTe LOS not a desire on the part of a ConunUnity <br />Plannmig Council to assume this responsibility, the <br />City -should let refuse contracts directly for the dis- <br />trict on a competitive bid basis. <br />Provide Flexlmty, In the fust. case, the Pla <br />Council would have some flexibility over what se <br />vices are provided and how they are organized. F <br />01 <br />example, the refuse collection might be merged MR] <br />a program to recycle materials separated out at thil, <br />inddual household level. I <br />Eliminate City Crews. St. '"-v! wonlir! no lonver P.P <br />and should no longer retain, its mumicipal refuse col- <br />lection crews under the new mandatory coflection <br />system proposed. <br />3. Minneapolis should now take a portion of the city <br />served by muni i al refuse collection crews and let it <br />CIP <br />out on a competitive bid contract to a private fimn, <br />N <br />The TeSUItS of Ws effort should be used to detenm1n.. <br />'i <br />the relative merits of dividing the entire city into compi <br />fitive bid districts for the conversion to that process <br />the time the city's current contract with Mnneapoh <br />Refuse, Inc., expires. 11 <br />Background. Minneapolis now has a mandatory system <br />of residential collection,, usm'g both public and pni'vate <br />haulers. Munici <br />P al crews coUect 45 per cent of the <br />1 <br />refuse, and an organization of private haulers called <br />Minneapolis Refuse, Inc., (MRI) coHect 55 per cent of <br />the refuse. <br />The Wneapolis system was set up in 1970 when the <br />City went to combined -wet garbage and <br />o refuse collec- <br />A group of 49 pnivate haulers formed MR1 to nego- <br />tiate a dlngle contract with the City. Each hauler was <br />given his same mairket share within MR1 as he had in the <br />refuse collection market in Minneapolis Mi 1968. <br />As part of the current five-year cont-ract, the city cre <br />6 <br />increased their share of the collection 1 500 househol. <br />each of the first two years and are increasing their sha <br />1,000 households per year the last three years. I <br />