3. City Code Recycling Program Options, Curbisde collection and direct billing for weekly or biweekly collection ii 3
1 4 . :',, . CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1 .
4 1
, • :,.
. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: November 15, 1989
ISUBJ: Options for Continuation of Recycling Program
On October 23 , 1989, the City Council reconsidered cancellation
I of the 1989 Curbside Recycling Contract with Waste Management and
voted to continue the contract. The condition of continuing the
contract was that the City would enter into a 1990 contract with
I Waste Management. The contract provides and early release clause
which enables the City to be released from the contract with a
penalty fee. The City Council approved the continuation of the
contract with the condition that the City would only fund the
I program through it' s General Fund through January 31, 1990
(Attachment #1) . The intent was to provide the Recycling
Committee with time to develop a program for providing recycling
I services without it solely being supported by the City' s General
Fund.
II On October 26, 1989, the Recycling Committee held a meeting which
included representatives from waste haulers who have contracts
within the City. The Recycling Committee reviewed several
options for continuation of recycling services in Chanhassen and
I received comments on each option from the waste haulers. The
options reviewed included organized collection, required collec-
tion of recyclables by solid waste haulers with contracts in
l Chanhassen, direct billing of recycling costs to the residents
and a joint bid with the City of Chaska (Attachment #2) . The
Recycling Committee narrowed the options down to two; requiring
I the collection of recyclables by the waste haulers licensed in
Chanhassen and the direct billing of residents.
The Recycling Committee met again on October 26 , 1989, to review
I the final two options of the continuation of recycling in
Chanhassen (Attachment #3 ) . After much discussion, the four com-
mittee members that were present split on which option to recom-
I mend to the City Council. Two of the Recycling Committee members
felt that the direct billing of residents would be preferred
because it would allow one company to collect the recyclables in
IIChanhassen, which would be more efficient and make it easier to
11
I
r
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
Don Ashworth
November 15, 1989
Page 2
market recyclables. The direct billing of residents would also
not impact haulers who currently collect solid waste in
Chanhassen. The other two Recycling Committee members felt that _
requiring the haulers to collect the recyclables would be pre-
ferred. They felt the haulers who are already in the "garbage
' business" should collect the recyclables rather than have the
City take on the administrative responsibilities of billing resi-
dents, collecting the billing and pursuing residents who do not
pay the recycling bills.
While the Recycling Committee was discussing the two options, it
' was believed the recycling bill to residents could be considered
a utility and if the residents did not pay the recycling bill,
the City could threaten to turn off their utilities or assess the ,
' property for the bills not paid. Since that meeting, staff has
had the City Attorney research whether or not this is true. A
city the size of Chanhassen is not of the "First Class" and does
' not have the legislative authority to include recycling costs as
a utility and therefore would not have the option of assessing
properties that have not paid their bills . The only option the
city has is to take the resident to conciliation court (small
1 claims court) which could be time consuming and costly.
Attachment #4 is a letter from the City Attorney further
explaining the ability of the city to collect unpaid bills for
recycling costs.
Two of the committee members who could not be at the October 26th
meeting, and felt strongly that the haulers should be required to
collect recyclables, organized a special meeting on November 7,
1989. Staff presented the new information on the ability of the
City to collect the bills for recycling to the Committee. The
' Committee again reviewed the pros and cons of each option and
unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the option
of requiring licensed haulers in Chanhassen to collect
recyclables.
Staff supports the recommendation of the Recycling Committee to
require licensed haulers in Chanhassen to collect recyclables.
' The attached ordinance requires, as part of receiving a license
to collect solid waste in Chanhassen, the collection of
recyclables on a weekly basis. The Recycling Committee has
recommended that under "C" of Section 2 on page 2 of the ordi-
nance where it states "that no more than 4 licenses to engage in
the business of hauling municipal solid waste may be in force at
' any one time" be removed to not limit the number of haulers
allowed in Chanhassen. The original intent of this statement was
to grandfather all haulers licensed in Chanhassen, but as haulers
leave the city to not allow new or replacements of the haulers
until the number has been reduced to four. This was to reduce
the number of trucks hauling on city streets in Chanhassen.
Should the City Council agree that the number of haulers not be
limited, then "C" should be removed from the ordinance.
I
140
Mr. Don Ashworth 11*
November 15, 1989
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION '
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the following
motion: '
"The City Council approves first reading of the ordinance
amending Chapter 16, of Chanhassen City Code, concerning solid
waste."
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated October 23 , 1989.
2. ' Options for Recycling Program.
3. Final two options.
4. Letter from City Attorney.
5 . Memo to Recycling Committee.
6. Ordinance.
Manager' s Comments
I agree with both the staff and committee recommendation.
However, such appears to be too good to believe. There is no
free lunch. To think that the City would have to pay $100,000
for City-wide collection versus having private haulers doing it
for nothing does not make sense. Although they have the ability
to pass on costs, experience in other cities has shown that they
have not. I would hope that our City also experiences that
favorable position. The proof of the system will be determined
during this next year. If total tonnage drops dramatically, we
need to be prepared for more stringent enforcement to insure that
recyclables are not going to the dump. We also need to be pre-
pared for cost increases which could exceed costs if a City-wide
collection was reinstated. Part of that preparation should
include requesting the League of Cities/our Legislators to con-
sider amending state statute to allow for City-wide collection as
a part of our utility system.
/1-1/C-
1
I
1
I
r
a - october 23,
i
Councilman Workman: Raman doesn't look happy about that.
Councilman Boyt: Roman's not happy about that?
IICouncilman Workman: I say we give each of these items 5 minutes.
Councilman Boyt: 5 minutes. It isn't going to do it.
IIMayor Chmiel: No. We won't be able to touch them. There's a meeting on
Thursday that I've got with the neighborhood group.
IICouncilman Workman: Let's set a new record for longevity.
Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to continue?
ICouncilman Boyt: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Let's go. I'm all for it. Let's keep moving.
IR32ONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CANCEL RECYCLING CONTRACT.
Mayor Chmiel: Basically everybody knows what it's about. What we're looking
at. We have had the different costs brought before us and maybe a quick
Isummarization.
Jo Ann Olsen: The quick summary is we're recommending that you continue the
II contract. Tomorrow Carver County Board will be acting on it. The staff is
recatmending that they provide us the $5,000.00, whatever the odd dollars are to
pay for the rest of this year. Again, that ties you into 1990. We still think
you should go. We should continue with the contract. We have lots of options
that we can pursue that will take the cost out of the general fund so right now
you just have to make the decision whether to continue with the contract. We're
recommending you to.
11 Mayor Chmiel: You hear recommendations. Don and I are going to be before the
County Board tanorrow morning bright and early to discuss the issue on this and
Ito see if we can acquire the additional dollars to offset our cost for carrying
it through to the end of the year. In addition to that, of course there's also,
what about the balance of the contract for 1990 Jo Ann?
IJo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as paying for that? Well they are not, as far as
Carver County staff, they are not making any recommendation on a number, dollar
figure. They are essentially saying let's wait and see.
IIMayor Chmiel: Okay. Any discussions?
Councilman Boyt: Okay. If we pass this, it should only be with the condition
that as of January 1 no money is taken out of the general fund. There is, do
you have the percent of participation for the month of October? We're not
finished with that. The month of September?
IIJo Ann Olsen: Not yet, no.
72 # I
MEW
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989 1
' s
Councilman Boyt: Well just doing a rough survey through our neighborhood
Ursula, I would guess it's 1 in 8. This is awfully expensive. I know we've got
to do it. I think that this is probably the most reasonable plan that we're
going to see. We're down from looking, before we started this discussion at
possibly $2.00 a household a month sometime during 1990, to now the guarantee
that it will not exceed, what is it a $1.60? '
Mayor Cltmmiel: Right.
Councilman Boyt: There's no question that the City's going to be involved in I
some kind of curbside recycling by the end of the year but I have equally strong
commitment to this money will not came out of the general fund, in my opinion.
It's ridiculous to fund it that way and so I think the only way we can pass this
is, the only way I feel comfortable voting on it is if the Council said yes,
agree that it's not going to come out of the general fund. Then that forces the
recycling committee to get on it and get these public hearings done and get this , II resolved in the next month and a half. Otherwise I see, this thing could
easily spread out in October, we still won't have a decision about how we want
to do this. A lot of issues here.
Mayor Qriiel: Of course my major issue, Bill you know what it is. It's an
implementation that we started back in May and I just don't want to see this die
because we're going to be forced into it. As our citizens look at us, they'll
say well they can't make up their minds one way or the other so why should
I even recycle. Throw it all in the garbage and I can understand that. I guess
from my standpoint, I want to see the recycling continue because I think it's
something that we have to do. It's something that's going to be necessary. It's
going to be mandated by us and it's a necessary function by this state through
the County's implementing that cities do this. It has to be started by October
of next year to be in place and start moving and therefore we're so fax ahead of
what we've done as a city. I don't want to see this thing die.
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, can you tell me how long it will be before the
recycling committee is ready to make a recommendation to us?
Mayor Chmiel: I think we have one of the members from the recycling committee
here.
Victor Halberg: Victor Halberg, 411 Del Rio and the commission I think is it's
fair to say really wants to move away from an approach that requires us to use
city funds for recycling. I think most of us have talked in that format and
we're really looking at here is a time frame in which to develop one of several
different options in order to move it to a feed base service. It could take one
of several different forms. Perhaps the best one is one that Jo Ann recommended
in a memo that I think have you all read that, in preparation for tonight?
Which is to pass an ordinance requiring our current haulers to add recycling to
their services. If they do that, then we don't disrupt the normal course of
business that has been occurring in Chanhassen for the last couple of years.
Well, we're going to look at that tomorrow night. I don't know, none of us are
in a position to predict how quickly we can move on it but I think we do want to
move in that direction and as quickly as possible. January February I think
would be a realistic guesstimate.
73
11 City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, u
_, I guess what I see is that We have to go to this
anyway. The question remains really can we get it done any cheaper. Have there
been any studies done? Whether the haulers will do it cheaper? The regular
haulers.
' Victor Halberg: We haven't gone out to get another...
Councilwoman Dimler: You don't know at this point?
IIMayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Hoyt: I think it's fair to say Ursula that many of regular haulers
I will not be able to do this. That when we start looking at what appears to be a
pretty reasonable idea of requiring haulers to do this, they're going to have to
contract with somebody to do it. They just don't have the trucks to do it and
' you can't recycle. The trucks aren't designed that they use everyday, aren't
designed for recycling so they're going to have to have a different truck.
II Councilwoman Dinder: Okay. Already there's somewhere too about the possibility
of doing it jointly with Chaska to reduce cost. Has this been pursued and
what's the status...
' Mayor Chmiel: That was another thing that I understand that they were going to
pursue with Chaska. Whether that has been done or not.
II Jo Ann Olsen: I spoke with somebody from Chaska and right now they have that
:I/
successful drop off center and they're not actively pursuing curbside. If they
do and when they do, they're most likely will just pursue the once per month.
IMayor C hmiel: All cities of 5,000 or above are required by next October.
Councilwoman Dimler: They have to by next October...
IIJo Ann Olsen: Right so they're not pursuing anything as ambitious as what we
have had or it sounds like we wish to continue but they would be willing to work
' with us. That is an option. It's not one that we are reconmending. It is an
option.
IIMayor Chmiel: I'd like to see us pursue that a little bit more with them.
Craig Mertz: Craig Mertz, 510 Laredo Lane. I would like to see the recycling
program continue rather than be abandoned and then we have to start up again. I
Iwould point out that in Hennepin County, Bloomington and Brooklyn Park have
taken the recycling costs off budget by declaring recycling program be a public
utility and there's a bill going out quarterly going out to each household for
this service. There are ways to get it off budget...
ICouncilman Workman: I would think if people saw it on their utility bill,
they'd dang well get their stuff out there and use the service because I don't
think there's anybody that's not using their water.
Councilwoman Dimler: That is a good way to do it. Those are the only questions
I had.
74
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
Councilman Workman: I say continue it.
Councilman Boyt: Well what about some kind of cap on how long we're going to
continue with this sort of funding?
Councilman Workman: Well where's the funding going to cane from? Finding an '
option such as utility bill or something?
Councilman Boyt: As soon as we start to say to local haulers here are ,
additional conditions on your being able to work in Chanhassen. I suspect
they're going to line up in here and tell us why they can't do that, sane of
then. I'm saying that I think for us as a City Council to fund this out of our
general fund is to spend a great deal of money to pick up newspapers and I don't
think we can do that. Especially not when we've got a neighbor just down the
road that says we're not doing it. '
Mayor Chmiel: But they're doing something Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Right and we tried to do something and we can go back to that. '
I'm not encouraging us to do that. I'm just saying let's, sure let's continue
this thing. We've got a pretty good rate for the rest of the year but let's
continue it with sane kind of a push on the committee and the Council and the
community to get this thing resolved quickly. If they need to go to February,
okay maybe February's reasonable but if we don't have it resolved by February,
then somebody doesn't think this is a priority.
Jo Ann Olsen: We do have funds until April to cover the cost with the 1990
budget.
Councilwoman Dimler: Wait, I'm getting a little confused. Are we approving
this contract to go all the way through 1990?
Jo Ann Olsen: That's part of the deal is yes, we would have to go into the 1
contract but that would have the early release clause.
Councilwoman Dimler: With penalty though.
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilman Workman: And what would that penalty be? '
Jo Ann Olsen: I've got it, it's listed. '
Councilman Boyt: It's the amount we're paying not. It's not a big penalty.
Mayor Chmiel: I can't see where that's going to be a big problem. ,
Councilman Boyt: They're reducing our price and just saying if we buy out, we
have to pay what we're paying now. It's no big deal.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would say we continue.
Councilman Boyt: Well then let's make a motion that we continue the service,
paying for it out of the general fund through the month of February and at that
75 '
City Council Meeting - October 23, 1989
I
' point, an alternate funding source must be in effect. Is there a second to
that?
Councilman Workman: Second.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to continue the curbside
I recycling contract with Waste Mangement paying for it out of the general fund
until February, 1990 at which time another funding source must be available.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
REQUEST TO AMEND BUILDING PERMIT FEES, HERITAGE PARK APARTMENTS, BRAD JOHNSON.
Mayor C oriel: Okay, Todd. Where'd Todd go?
Don Ashworth: Todd has left. You do have a request to modify the building
II permit for Heritage Park Apartments. I recognize that this is a larger amount
of money for them. However, we did ask the City Attorney what type of problem
this would create and it was his opinion that this is simply not a good idea.
You're going to be opening the doors for literally every other party that
' doesn't really care to follow the Uniform Building Code to came in and ask for a
rebate. The policy is to use the Code and to determine the valuation in
accordance. So staff recommends denial.
' Mayor Ciiel: Discussion?
IBrad Johnson: Can I say something?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Brad Johnson: Brad Johnson. I'm with Lotus Realty representing the Heritage
Park, the partnership that owns the building. I think this is mainly a point of
principle on my part at this point after reading all these letters and having a
' negative staff recommendation which we try not to do. The setting is that we
had just written out a check for $135,000.00 and then when we were taking our
permit out on this particular building then we're asked to write another check
' out for $35,000.00 so we're at $170,000.00 and we thought we were done. We had
budgeted another $11,000.00 for a building permit and we want in to pull the
building permit, and we're already $90,000.00 over budget on city fees. The
point being that there's no method of appeal. Wb went to city staff and said
I this doesn't sound reasonable. We've got documented evidence that the building
is going to cost us $2.3 million and somebody said to us that the cost has to be
$3.5 million because that's what the State said and it wasn't. It was $2.3
I million and we went down. We had the Assessor reappraise the building. It's a
2 million dollar value. The value of our building is less than our cost because
in this particular case the building happens to be a subsidized product and
therefore the rents don't bring it up to it's true value. My concern is there's
I no method of appeal of something when we're 50% higher fee and the valuation
based on the State guidelines is set at 50% higher than our actual cost of the
building. So my request was that we look at it from the point, and as the
I letter states from Roger, and it's a letter not an opinion I think right Roger?
It's technical. The fact is that there should be some method for appeal because
we're sitting here looking at something that on one side, the guidelines says it
' 76
I
44 CITY OF
,_.; .
CHANHASSEN 1
- i - it 00P-
, v, _.
v. _ •.
.$.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
1
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Recycling Commission
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Plannet 1t-, I
DATE: October 24 , 1989
I
SUBJ: Recycling Options
On October 26 , 1989, the Recycling Commission will be reviewing
options for continuing recycling services in Chanhassen. On
October 23, 1989 the City Council reconsidered cancellation of I
the 1989 Curbside Recycling Contract with Waste Management and
voted to continue the contract. A condition of continuing the
contract was that the City would enter into a 1990 contract with
I
Waste Management. The contract provides an early release clause
which enables the City to be released from the contract with a
penalty fee. The City Council approved the continuation of the
contract with the condition that the City would only fund the
I
program through January 31, 1990. The intent is to provide the
Recycling Commission with time to develop a program for providing
recycling services without it being solely supported by the II City' s general fund.
Recommendation
The Recycling Commission has until January 31, 1990 to have a new I
recycling program in place. Since time is of essence, staff is
recommending that a decision be made on which option the City I
should pursue at the October 26, 1989 meeting or no later than
November 2, 1989.
II
I
I
a_
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
_� �- rte•
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: October 17, 1989
SUBJ: Waste Management Curbside Contract
' On October 23, 1989, the City Council will be reconsidering the
cancellation of Waste Management' s Curbside Recycling Contract.
Waste Management has offered to provide services for November and
December of 1989 at 87 per household with the condition that the
' City enter into a contract with Waste Management for 1990, at
$1. 35 per household through June, 1990 and $1.60 per household
for the remainder of the year. As a condition of Waste
Management' s offer, the 1990 contract will not include a 30 day
notice of cancellation.
On October 16 , 1989 , the City Council discussed the recon-
sideration of Waste Management' s Curbside Recycling Contract. It
was discussed whether or not Waste Management would agree to a
1990 contract which would have an early release clause. The
' contract would still be for $1. 35 per household through June,
1990 and $1.60 per household for the remainder of the year but
would allow the City to cancel the contract and reimburse Waste
' Management (at an average monthly cost) for the number of months
of service which was provided. Such a clause in the contract
will allow the City to get out of the contract with a penalty
1 fee.
Waste Management and staff have been working with the proposed
early release clause for the 1990 contract. It has been deter-
, mined that the average cost using .87, $1.35 and $1.60 would be
$1. 39/household/month. Attachment #1 is a chart listing the
early release fee as compiled by Waste Management. The fourth
column provides the cumulative fee which the City would have to
pay in addition to that month' s fee if the City chooses to use
the early release clause. The fifth column provides year to date
expenditures so that after each month it can be seen how much the
City would have spent to that date. The 1990 contract will
result in a total cost of $68,040. With the money budgeted for
the 1990 recycling fund, the City would be able to pay for the
' service through April, 1990. Funding for advertising, public
education, containers, etc. would not be available without using
general funds.
II
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
II
Page 2
Carver County is currently receiving quotes from recycling com- '
panies for costs to provide once a month curbside recycling for _
the City of Chanhassen. In speaking with Mike Lein and Rick
Schneider from Carver County the low bid for once per month pick •
I
up for curbside recycling in Chanhassen will be presented to the
Carver County Board as a basis for determing the amount of money
that should be funded for Chanhassen. The cost to provide curb- I
side recycling to the City of Chanhassen on a once per month
basis should not be too much less than the cost to provide ser-
vice twice a month or once every other week. Therefore, the City
Imight receive money that would cover a portion of the costs to
maintain the existing curbside recycling service to the citizens
- of Chanhassen but that full cost is not guaranteed and may not t
be available until mid year 1990. ti I
If the City Council wishes to maintain and improve recycling ser-
vice in Chanhassen, staff feels that other options need to be
I
pursued to remove the burden of funding the recycling program
solely from the City' s general fund. Even if the 1990 contract
is accepted between Waste Management and the City of Chanhassen,
the City should have a means to pay for the contract rather than
relying on monies from Carver County and the possibility of
having to release from the contract mid-year 1990 and pay a
penalty fee.
I
The following is a review of recycling options that the Recycling
Committee and the City Council should be considering. While
Iconsidering these options, keep in mind the short term goal of
continuing recycling pick-up and long term goals of removing the
cost from the City' s general fund.
1. Organized colllection. The City would contract with one I
hauler for the entire city or several haulers with the city
divided into districts. The hauler(s) would bill the city I
and the city would then bill the residents for the cost of
the trash pick-up. As part of the solid waste contract, the
hauler( s) would be required to collect recyclables as deter-
I
mined by the City the same day as refuse collection. The
city could also still contract out for the curbside
recycling. The additional cost to provide curbside pick-up
of recyclables would be added to the solid waste bill which I
would be billed by the city to the residents.
During the past meetings with the Recycling Committee, it
I
appears that the ultimate goal for the city to pursue would
be to continue service and to reduce the number of haulers in
Chanhassen. Currently, there are 16 licensed haulers in
Chanhassen. Organized collection would reduce the number of
I
haulers in the city. This will be seen as a negative to haulers
who are displaced. By being in charge of billing the city
I
II
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 3
would also have the opportunity to provide immediate and con-
sistent benefit to residents who do recycle, such as pro-
viding a rebate or reduction in the solid waste bill for
those who do recycle.
Pros
°Reduce the number of trucks on city streets
°Remove cost of service from city budget
' °Allow incentives for recycling
°Provide same day pick-up
' °Leaves money available for containers, public education, etc.
I Cons
°Result in displacement of existing haulers
°Longer time to implement
°Political
°Require city to administer waste collection (billings,
complaints, etc. )
2 . Require Collection of Recyclables. The city would amend the
solid waste ordinance to require all haulers licensed in
Chanhassen to collect recyclables on the same day as solid
' waste collection and to collect recyclables as determined by
the city. The hauler would still be responsible for all
billing and any increase cost for provision of curbside
' recycling. Several cities have implemented such a program
(Eden Prairie and Burnsville) with success. The implemen-
tation of such a program was not objected to from the resi-
dents or the haulers since they keep their same haulers and
contracts.
This option would provide a more smooth transition for
' continuing to provide curbside pick-up and can be drafted to
reduce the number of trucks on city streets. The ordinance
can be amended to grandfather in the existing 16 haulers but
also provide for a maximum of 4 haulers to be licensed. As
existing haulers stop servicing Chanhassen, no new haulers
would be permitted until the number of haulers is below 4 and
then the maximum of haulers licensed would be 4. It will
take time to reduce the number of haulers, but it will be
done so that the hauler is giving up the business and the
city is not taking it away. The amendment will require
1 volume base rates which would benefit residents who recyle by
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 4
not having as much volume of "garbage" . The city would not
have control over additional costs being passed on to resi-
dents, but as has been seen with other cities and with
current collection costs, the cost of landfilling is
increasing so much that bills are increasing greatly and the
cost of collecting recyclables is either absorbed-or lost in
the increase. The collection of recyclables will not solely
be the cause of increased solid waste billings. '
Pros
°Easy to implement/smooth transition 1
°Result in reduction of trucks on city streets
°Remove cost of service from city budget '
°Allows incentive for recycling
°Does not displace haulers or change residential contracts
°Not as objectionable to haulers and residents
°Provide same day pick-up
°Leaves money available for containers, public education, etc. 1
°City does not take on administrative responsibility and
billing
Cons
°Does not immediately remove number of trucks using streets
°No control over additional cost, if any, to resident
3. Direct Billing of Residents. The city would draft an ordi-
nance which would allow the city to bill each resident a
determined amount for recycling services. The city would
continue to contract with one company to provide curbside
collection of recyclables and existing waste haulers would
continue with their current contracts. The city would have
to establish a billing system which would take at least two
months and have to administer the billing and recycling
contract. The city will have to establish a fee which would
cover the cost of the recycling contract and administrative
fees. Such a separate bill may be objectionable to residents
especially to those who do not participate. The city can
reduce the billing or provide rebates as incentives to those
who recycle. The city would have control over cost to the
resident but any fluctuation in the market of recyclables
resuling in higher costs would require an increase in the
bill. The city could not guarantee a set cost.
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 5
' Pros
°Remove cost of service from City budget
°Allows incentive for recycling
°Does not displace haulers or change residential contracts
°Not as objectionable to haulers
°Leaves money available for containers, public education, etc.
°City has control over cost to resident
Cons
°Does not remove number of trucks using city streets
°May take a longer time to implement
°Would not provide same day pick up
°Would require the city to take on administrative respon-
sibility in billing
°May result in the need for additional city employees or city
expenditures
4 . Joint Bid with the City of Chaska for Once a Month Curbside
Recycling. At the October 16, 1989, special City Council
meeting, the option of providing only once a month curbside
pick up of recyclables was discussed as a means to provide
recycling services at a lower cost to the city. It is
' questionable whether or not we would receive bids to provide
once a month pick up since a company that does bid for such a
service has to be able to utilize the trucks and employees
for the remaining weeks in the month. Therefore, the City
Council suggested that staff review having a joint bid with
the City of Chaska to provide each city with once per month
pick up of curbside recyclables. Staff spoke with Kevin Maus
from the City of Chaska to determine if they would be
interested in pursuing such an option. Kevin Maus stated
that their Council may be interested in a joint contract with
' Chanhassen but their current agenda is to find a new site for
their drop off center. Currently, Chaska has a very succ-
cessful drop off center which is being relocated and that is
' where most of their time and effort is going to at this time.
If the city choses to pursue a recycling contract for a once
per month curbside pick up, it would have to be provided in
I conjunction with a drop off center. Chaska has stated that
they would be willing to work with Chanhassen to possibly
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 6
provide a joint recycling drop off center located in a loca-
tion convenient to both Chaska and Chanhassen residents.
If the city chose to do so, such a program could even be
turned completely over to Carver County since they are
required to provide at least once a month pick up for curb-
side recycling to the cities of Chanhassen and Chaska by
October 1, 1990. If such a program is turned over to Carver
County, the city would lose all control and the service would
not begin until October 1, 1990. The city would still have
to pay for the drop off center.
Pros 1
°Reduces number of truck trips
Cons
°Minimal service 1
°Difficult for residents who actively participate
°A step back from what is currently provided '
°Have to coordinate with Chaska and Carver County, who have
not taken such an active stance I
5. Continue to Fund Recycling Program Solely through Chanhassen
Budget. ,
Cons
°Cannot afford without using general fund '
Summary
The decision before the City Council at the October 23, 1989 1
meeting is to determine whether or not the City should continue
with the curbside recycling contract with Waste Management. As
proposed by Waste Management, the City would continue to pay 870
per household per month for November and December with increased
rates in 1990. The contract will contain a clause that would
allow an early release from the recycling contract with a set
penalty fee. Using the average monthly rate and penalty fee pro-
posed by Waste Management, the City would be able to fund the
curbside recycling contract through April, 1990. Any additional
money for public education, containers, etc. , would not be
available without using monies from the general fund. In
speaking with other cities and reviewing the criteria as pre-
sented
by the Recycling Commission and City Council, staff is
recommending that the City Council pursue the option to require
licensed waste haulers in Chanhassen to provide curbside
recycling and that until this option is in place (Jan./Feb. , '
I/
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
' October 17, 1989
Page 7
1990) the City Council continue the contract with Waste
' Management. Reasons for pursuing this option are as follows:
1. An amendment to the Solid Waste Ordinance requiring
licensed haulers in Chanhassen to provide curbside
recycling would be fairly easy to implement and could be
in place within a few months (January/February, 1990) .
It requires approval by the City Council with a first and
second reading and staff would recommend a 60 day period
before its enforcement to allow the haulers time to prepare.
2. It would result in minimal disruption to the current
situation and provide curbside recycling to Chanhassen
residents without funding the program through the City' s
general fund.
3. The amendment would require recycling to be picked up on
' the same day as garbage, resulting in a program easier
for residents to remember and participate in. The amend-
ment to the ordinance could also require same day pickup
for solid waste throughout the City which would prevent
having garbage pick up and recycling pick up occurring
five days a week.
4. The amendment would allow the current sixteen licensed
haulers in Chanhassen to be grandfathered in but not allow
any new haulers and set a maximum of four licensed
haulers so that as existing haulers leave Chanhassen, new
' ones cannot be added until the number of grandfathered
haulers is lower than four. This would work toward the
goal of reducing the number of haulers within the City.
' 5 . The cost of the program becomes part of the present solid
waste bill from one hauler and the City does not have to
' establish a billing system which would result in addi-
tional administrative costs.
6 . The ordinance could also require the contractors to pro-
vide a volume base rate which would directly benefit
residents who do recycle.
7. This option would take the cost away from the City and
allow the City to use monies towards public education,
purchasing of containers, provision of special pick up
days such as a city-wide pick up of all materials
including white goods, batteries, oil, etc.
Staff is recommending that the contract with Waste Management be
I continued to maintain curbside pick up of recyclables and
provide lead time that is necessary to implement the recommended
alternative for providing recylcing service to the residents.
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
October 17, 1989
Page 8
*Note - Waste Management is aware of staff' s proposal to require
licensed haulers to pick up recyclables, does not object
to it and would still wish the city to continue their
contract.
Manager' s Comments: This report is literally fresh off the
press to meet the Council' s desire to determine whether
"reconsideration of cancellation" is warranted. As such, the
attorney has not reviewed this and will have to give his opinion
Monday evening. '
_ r
1
1
I
i
II
II
IIEARLY RELEASE FEE
1 Final Month Average Monthly (1.39) Cumulative Year To Date
of Service Rate Minus Paid Rate* Fee Expenditures
I1989 November $ 1,815 1,815 4,860
December 1,815 3,630 9,720
II1990 January 135 3,765 14,580
February 135 3,900 19,440
IIMarch 135 4,035 24,300
IIApril 135 4,170 29,160
May 135 4,305 34,020
IIJune 135 4,440 38,880
July (740) 3,700 43,740
IAugust (740) 2,960 48,600
' September (740) 2,220 53,460
October (740) 1,480 58,320
INovember (740) 740 63,180
December (740) 0 68,040
II
II * .87 - 3,045 per month 30 day notice
1.35 - 4,725 per month 14 month contract
1.60 - 5,600 per month Average monthly rate is
1.39 - 4,860 month $4,860 ($1.39 per home)
II
II
II
I
I
4 CITY OF
ii
i _ 4i1(
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
II
MEMORANDUM
TO: Recycling Committee
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
I
DATE: October 31, 1989
SUBJ: Options for Continuation of Recycling Programs in I
Chanhassen
On October 26, 1989, the Recycling Committee held a meeting which I
included representatives from waste haulers who have contracts
within the City of Chanhassen. The Recycling Committee reviewed
several options for continuation of recycling services in
I
Chanhassen and received comments on the options from the waste
haulers. The options reviewed included organized collection,
require collection of recyclables by the solid waste haulers, II direct billing of residents, joint bid with the City of Chaska,
and continue to fund the recycling program solely through
Chanhassen budget. The Recycling Committee narrowed the options
I
down to two - requiring of collection of recyclables by the waste
haulers and direct billing of residents.
1. Require Collection of Recyclables. The city would amend the
solid waste ordinance to require all haulers licensed in
Chanhassen to collect recyclables on the same day as solid
waste collection and to collect recyclables as determined by
the city. The hauler would still be responsible for all
II
billing and any increase cost for provision of curbside
recycling. Several cities have implemented such a program
(Eden Prairie and Burnsville) with success. The implemen- '
tation of such a program was not objected to from the resi-
dents or the haulers since they keep their same haulers and
contracts. I
This option would provide a more smooth transition for
continuing to provide curbside pick-up and can be drafted to II reduce the number of trucks on city streets. The ordinance
can be amended to grandfather in the existing 16 haulers but
also provide for a maximum of 4 haulers to be licensed. As
existing haulers stop servicing Chanhassen, no new haulers
II
would be permitted until the number of haulers is below 4 and
then the maximum of haulers licensed would be 4. It will
take time to reduce the number of haulers, but it will be 1
- -
I
Recycling Committee
October 31, 1989
Page 2
' done so that the hauler is giving up the business and the
city is not taking it away. The amendment will require
volume base rates which would benefit residents who recyle by_
not having as much volume of "garbage" . The city would not
have control over additional costs being passed on to resi-
dents, but as has been seen with other cities and with
current collection costs, the cost of landfilling is
increasing so much that bills are increasing greatly and the
cost of collecting recyclables is either absorbed or lost in
the increase. The collection of recyclables will not solely
be the cause of increased solid waste billings.
Pros
°Easy to implement/smooth transition
°Result in reduction of trucks on city streets
°Remove cost of service from city budget
°Allows incentive for recycling
°Does not displace haulers or change residential contracts
°Not as objectionable to haulers and residents
°Provide same day pick-up
°Leaves money available for containers, public education, etc.
°City does not take on administrative responsibility and billing
Cons
' °Does not immediately remove number of trucks using streets
°No control over additional cost, if any, to resident
2. Direct Billing of Residents. The city would draft an ordinance
which would allow the city to bill each resident a determined
amount for recycling services. The city would continue to
' contract with one company to provide curbside collection of
recyclables and existing waste haulers would continue with their
current contracts. The city would have to establish a billing
' system which would take at least two months and have to admi-
nister the billing and recycling contract. The city will have to
establish a fee which would cover the cost of the recycling
contract and administrative fees. Such a separate bill may be
' objectionable to residents especially to those who do not par-
ticipate. The city can reduce the billing or provide rebates as
incentives to those who recycle. The city would have control
over cost to the resident but any fluctuation in the market of
recyclables resuling in higher costs would require an increase in
the bill. The city could not guarantee a set cost.
1
11
Recycling Committee
October 31, 1989
Page 3
Pros ,
°Remove cost of service from City budget
°Allows incentive for recycling
°Does not displace haulers or change residential contracts ,
°Not as objectionable to haulers
°Leaves money available for containers, public education, etc. '
°City has control over cost to resident
Cons
°Does not remove number of trucks using city streets '
°May take a longer time to implement
°Would not provide same day pick up '
°Would require the city to take on administrative respon-
sibility in billing ,
°May result in the need for additional city employees or city
expenditures '
The majority of the haulers did not greatly object to requiring
haulers to collect recyclables as part of their license require-
ments.
A few of the smaller haulers did object to this option,
due to the fact that it would require additional employees,
purchase of additional equipment, etc. which may result in them
not being able to continue service in Chanhassen. I
Without a longer period of time to research public opinion and
actual cost to bill residents versus increasing charge by haulers
for collecting recyclables, staff must rely on past experience of
other cities and rough estimates from haulers. Other cities who
have required haulers to collect recyclables have not experienced
a great increase in cost to residents or a loss of haulers in the
city. In fact, some cities have stated that the cost of
collecting was not passed on to residents. This is not to say
the same would happen in Chanhassen. If the city directly billed
residents we would have more control over increases in costs to
the residents and keep them as low as possible. But the free
market system may also result in keeping costs passed to residents
at a minimum.
Either option will resolve the major issue facing the Recycling
Committee and City Council, in that funding of recycling services i
I
Recycling Committee
' October 31, 1989
Page 4
would be removed from the City budget. The question is which one
also meets longer term issues such as reducing number of truck
trips , providing same day service, etc. Ultimately, organized
collection could meet the long term objectives but it was
apparent at the October 26th Recycling Committee meeting that
haulers would greatly object to organized collection. Since pro-
viding organized collection may be a long battle, we are back to
the other two optins and staff feels requesting haulers to
collect recyclables is the most favorable choice. Attachment #1
is a memo from Paul Krauss, Planning Director, reviewing some
concerns with direct billing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending the Recycling Committee recommend to the
City Council to approve a zoning ordinance amendment which
requires licensed haulers in Chanhassen to collect recyclables.
Either option will have a public hearing in front of the City
Council and allow comments from the haulers and residents. The
public hearing will be scheduled for November 20th for first
reading. Second reading of the ordinance will be on December
4th, with the ordinance going into effect upon the date of
publishing, December 14th. If the zoning ordinance amendment
requiring haulers to collect recyclables is adopted, the haulers
' will have 90 days to comply (approximately the end of March,
1990) .
1
I
1
CITY OF
.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612)937-1900 * FAX(612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Recycling Committee and City Council
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director 1
DATE: October 31, 1989
SUBS: Comments on Selection of a Recycling Alternative
I believe that there are several aspects of the recycling program
format that warrants further discussion, if as we propose, the
question is one of deciding between direct billing on the part of 11 the city and requiring the haulers to pick up recyclables as a
license requirement. One factor that must be considered in the
cost equation is administrative expenses that would result if
the direct billing option is selected. Under the direct billing
option, city staff would be responsible for establishing a
billing procedure, sending out bills on a quarterly basis and for
collecting on delinquent bills. While it appears that we may be
able to use our water billing procedure as the basis for this
work, it is clear that additional staff time and involvement
would be required, both for start up and to maintain the program.
Staff would also be responsible for maintaining contact with our
contractee and ensuring contract compliance. The last and
possibly most troubling aspect of it is that we would also be
responsible for direct citizen contact relative to ensuring that
complaints, questions regarding scheduling, and other matters are
handled in a satisfactory manner. It is difficult to anticipate
how much staff time would be involved in this aspect, however, we
believe it has potential to be significant.
Planning Department Staff has willingly taken on the respon-
sibilities
of the recycling program to date and is willing to
stay involved with it. Still we must note that the demands on
staff time relative to recycling are significant and result in a
dimished ability to focus on our primary planning and community
development responsibilities. Should the direct billing alter-
native be selected, I believe it would be fair to include the
need to budget for additional staff time in to the program and to
add this into a comparison between the direct billing and
licensing haulers options.
1
-1 . 1
I
Recycling Committee and City Council
October 26, 1989
Page 2
' One additional factor that has not been given much exposure to
date in the discussion between the two options is the question of.
' long term costs and the ability to maintain a free market. There..,
are relatively few firms that are in a position to bid on a
recycling contract for the entire city. For instances such as
this where competition is limited, it is not unreasonable to
think that there is relatively little in the way of checks and
balances to ensure against cost escalation in future years. The
ability, on the other hand, to license a number of haulers to
pick up recycling does permit a free market economy to prevail.
Barring any overt collusion between the haulers, a homeowner will
have the choice to choose not only between levels and quality of
•
service, but also based on price. We believe that in the long run
that this may be the most effective way to insure that the costs
are minimized.
' Based upon the foregoing, and information contained in the staff
reports, I support the option wherein the haulers would be
required to pick up recyclables under the licensing agreements.
AOI
I
I
1
1
1
CAMPBELL KNUTSON,
ON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law '
Thomas J.Campbell
Roger N. Knutson
Thomas M. Scott {61 )456-9539
Gary G. Fuchs Facsimile(612)456-9542
James R. \V ist,n
EM-tt B. Knersch
Dennis linger November 16, 1989 ,
I
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall '
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Recycling '
Dear Jo Ann:
The City is considering a number .of recycling options. One I
option is for the City to hire a recycling contractor to collect
recyclables throughout the City. The City would pay the
contractor and bill homes and businesses. You asked me what the
City could do if the bills are not paid.
One obvious, but not very attractive option for collecting ,
the bills would be conciliation court. Another option is to
assess the cost against the land. Minn. Stat. § 443. 015
authorizes the City to assess the cost of unpaid garbage bills.
Although a good argument can be made that recyclables constitute
"garbage", this interpretation has not been tested in court.
Minn. Stat. § 443.34 allows cities of the first class, not '
Chanhassen, to treat garbage collection as a utility. The statute
further provides that the "garbage" utility may be merged and
treated as part of the city 's other utilities. The effect of the
statute is that if you don't pay your recycling bill, the city
can turn off your water. This is a real incentive to pay your
bill. Chanhassen does not, however, have the authority to use
this collection technique.
Very truly yours,
A PB L, KNUTSON, SCOTT
FUCKS, P.A.
oger . Knus'on`
RNK:srn
Yankee Square Office III • Suite 202 • 3460 Washington Drive • Eagan, MN 55122 t C ,
r
TOTAL P.02
I
1 i
CITY OF
i ,
1 . ,
V• 1 ,
.. .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Recycling Committee
1 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: November 7 , 1989
1 SUBJ: Options for Curbside Recycling ,
Since the Recycling Committee is meeting again to further discuss
11 the two options for continuing curbside recycling in Chanhassen,
staff felt that this would be a good opportunity to update the
Committee on more recent information that staff has obtained since
II the last meeting on Thursday, November 2nd. Staff has provided an
estimate of what the cost would be for the direct billing to resi-
dents. Two options were used with these estimates, the first was
every other week service as is provided today and the second option
IIwas the provision of recycling collection every week.
OPTION 1 Every Other Week
I $62,950 Waste Management
30, 000 Containers
II 91, 950
+ .10 Admin. Fee
$101,145 approximately $100, 000/3,200 households
II $31 total year bill to residents
$11 quarterly (first year divided by only 11 months)
IIOPTION 2 Weekly
II $2/household per month (estimated by Waste Management)
$84, 000 Waste Management
30, 000 Containers
II $114,000
+ .10 Admin. Fee
II $125,400 $125, 400/3, 200
$39 total year bill to residents
II $14 quarterly
* The current number of households in Chanhassen is at 3 ,132. For
calculating how many households would be billed, staff is using
II3 ,200. #
11
Recycling Committee
November 7, 1989 II
Page 2
The estimates are in the upper range and can only be considered I
estimates but do give an idea of what the residents may be
expected to pay for the city to continue provision of curbside II recycling. In speaking with haulers who have had to collect
recyclables in other cities, the additional costs to the resi-
dents have ranged from $10 to $12 on a quarterly basis.
Therefore, if the estimates are correct, the direct billing could
II
result in more cost to the resident then if the haulers are
required to collect recyclables. It should be noted that the
cost for the direct billing to the residents for the first year
I
includes the cost of containers which is estimated at $30, 000.
The second item of concern is the ability of the city to collect
II
an unpaid bill for providing curbside recycling from a resident.
If a citizen does not pay the utility bill for sewer and water,
the city has the power through state statute to special assess II the property to receive the payments. Such specific statutory
authority does not exist for a direct billing system from the
city to the residents to pay for the cost of recycling programs.
What this means is that if a resident refuses to pay for the bill II for the recycling, the only option the city has to collect the
money would be to take the resident to conciliation court (small
claims court) . Typically, if a resident does not pay their water II or sewer bill, the most effective recourse the city has is to
turn it off. If the resident refuses to pay the recycling bill,
the threat of not collecting the recyclables does not hold much
power. Again, the city does not have any other option then to
II
take the resident to conciliation court. Therefore, the city is
at a high risk of not collecting the funds needed to provide
recycling if a number of residents refuse to pay the recyclable II bill.
In summary, upon verifying that the city does not have the ability
to special assess a property if the recycling bill is not paid,
staff is again recommending that the option to require the haulers
to collect the recyclables be the recommended option. The city is
at high risk if a number of residents refuse to pay the recycling
II
bill, which if the bill is anywhere near what staff is estimating,
be objected to by residents. If this would happen, the city
would be in the same position that it is today, without having II the ability to pay for recycling and it would have to consider
another option or discontinue a recycling program.
II
II
II
N.
I .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING SOLID WASTE
' The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains:
' Section 1. Section 16-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended by adding the following definitions:
',Collection', means the aggregation of mixed municipal solid
waste from the place at which it is generated and includes
all activities up to the time the waste is delivered to a
waste facility.
',Commingled (e.g. , dumpster-type) Residential Collection',
means collection from any building consisting of more than
one dwelling unit wherein each unit has an individual
kitchen and wherein the mixed municipal solid waste of each
unit is mixed with the waste of other units prior to the
collection efforts of licensed haulers.
',Construction Debris,' means waste building materials,
packaging and rubble resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition of buildings and roads.
',Generator', means any person who produces or causes the
production of mixed municipal solid waste.
' ',Individual (e.g. , curbside) Residential Collection', means
collection from any building consisting of one or more
dwelling units wherein each unit has an individual kitchen
and wherein the mixed municipal solid waste of each unit is
separately collected by licensed haulers.
',Mixed Municipal Solid Wastes' means garbage, refuse, and
other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial,
and community activities which is generated and collected in
' aggregate, but excluding auto hulks or large auto parts,
street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste,
sludges, household hazardous waste, tree and agricultural
' wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil, yard waste,
and other materials collected, processed, and disposed of as
separate waste streams.
"Recyclables" means materials which can be separated from
the mixed municipal solid waste stream for collection and
preparation for reuse in their original form, or for other
uses in manufacturing processes that do not cause the
r11 /15/89 `�
II
destruction of the recyclable materials in a manner that I
precludes further use.
"Special Pick-up" means any collection of materials other II
than garbage, refuse, recyclables or yard waste, including
white goods (e.g. , large appliances) , furniture, oversized ":
materials, construction debris, and other materials
collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste
streams.
II
"Targeted Recyclables" means metal beverage containers,
glass containers, newsprint, or other materials that may be
designated by Resolution of the City Council. 1
"Yard Waste" means organic materials consisting of grass
clippings, leaves and other forms of organic garden waste, '
but excluding bushes, fibrous brush, woody materials, or
other materials that are not readily compostible within.,a
calendar year.
Section 2. Section 16-31 of the Chanhassen City Code is II
amended to read:
(A) No person shall haul mixed municipal solid waste or I
recyclables collected in the City without first securing a
license from the City. II(B) The license shall be valid for one calendar year and
shall expire on October 31 of each year unless revoked sooner.
(C) No more than four (4) licenses to engage in the 1
business of hauling mixed municipal solid waste may be in force
at any one time. Notwithstanding the limitation on the number of
II
licenses that may be issued, any person licensed by the City to
haul mixed municipal solid waste on October 31, 1989, may
continue to be licensed subject to the regulations in this
Article. I
(D) An applicant for a license shall make application to
the City Manager through forms and procedures prescribed by the II City Manager.
(E) The annual license fee shall be established by II Resolution of the City Council.
(F) The City Manager shall issue licenses only after
receipt and review of all required forms and fees. Upon review of
II
the documents submitted, the City Manager shall issue a license
if the documents comply with the provisions of this Article. An
applicant denied a license by the City Manager may have the II decision reviewed by the City Council. The applicant shall
request review by the City Council in writing ten (10) days after
denial of the license.
-2-
II
I
(G) The license requirements of this Article shall not
apply to persons who haul garbage, refuse, or recyclables from
their own residences or business properties, provided that the
following conditions are met:
1. Garbage is hauled in containers equipped with
tight-fitting covers and which are also watertight
on all sides and the bottom;
I 2. Refuse and recyclables are hauled in a manner that
prevents leakage or any possibility of a loss of
cargo;
' 3. Garbage and refuse is only dumped or unloaded at
designated sanitary landfills or other facilities
' authorized by Carver County;
4. Recyclables are only dumped or unloaded at a
recycling facility, an organized recycling drive,
' or through licensed collectors;
5. Yard waste is privately composted, or is only
' dumped or unloaded at a composting facility
authorized by Carver County, or through a licensed
collector.
I Section 3. Section 16-33 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
A licensed collector must comply with the following requirements.
Failure to observe these provisions may be a basis for suspension
or revocation of a license:
(A) The licensee shall operate in a manner consistent with
its application materials and shall provide notice to the City
within ten (10) days of any change in the information.
(B) No collections of mixed municipal solid waste, yard
waste and/or recyclable materials shall be made except between
I the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday.
Operations during these hours may also be conducted on Saturdays,
to accommodate recognized national holidays or a special pick-up.
Customers shall be reasonably notified of the specific day and
hours for the collection of their mixed municipal solid waste
and/or recyclables and the licensee shall collect the materials
within those time periods.
' (C) Each licensed collector shall only use vehicles and
equipment so constructed that the contents will not leak or
' spill. The vehicles and equipment shall also be kept clean and as
free from offensive odors as possible, and shall not stand in any
street, alley, or public place longer than is reasonably
necessary to collect mixed municipal solid waste, yard waste,
' -3-
I
and/or recyclables. The licensee shall also ensure that the
collection site is left tidy and free of litter.
(D) Each licensed collector shall provide its customers '
with an opportunity to recycle through the weekly curbside
collection of targeted recyclables. The curbside collection of
targeted recyclables shall be on the same day as the collection
of the customer's mixed municipal solid waste, but may occur at a
different time within that day. The targeted recyclables
collection shall be from a location at or near the customer's
mixed municipal solid waste collection site, or such other
location mutually agreeable to the hauler and the customer. The
licensee may specify how a customer is to place and prepare their
targeted recyclables for collection. The licensee is also deemed
the owner of the recyclables and upon collection, the licensee
may market them. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent a
licensee from offering curbside collection for other recyclable
materials, in addition to the targeted recyclables.
(E) Each licensed collector shall provide for a separate
collection of yard waste(s) from customers who receive individual
residential collection services. This yard waste collection shall
be offered on a weekly basis for a minimum of eight (8) weeks in
the Spring, commencing on April 1, and eight (8) weeks in the
Fall, commencing on September 15, unless by determination of the
City Manager, shorter collection periods are deemed more
appropriate. The licensed collector shall have the discretion of
setting specific dates and times for the collection, but shall
give reasonable notice and instructions to the customer. The
licensee shall also ensure that the materials are collected
within those time periods. The collected yard waste shall only be
dumped or unloaded at a composting facility authorized or
approved by Dakota County.
(F) Each licensee shall submit a quarterly report to the
City that identifies the weight, in tons, of mixed municipal
solid waste, recyclables, yard wastes, and special pick-up
materials that were collected by the licensee from Chanhassen
sources. The report shall be provided on or before the twentieth
day of the month following the close of the quarter and shall be
on a form provided by the City. The report shall also identify
the estimated weight of each type of collected recyclable. It
shall also distinguish residential collection tonnage from
commercial/
industrial tonnage. The report shall also include a brief
description of how the reported weights were calculated.
(G) Licensed mixed municipal solid waste haulers may not '
charge their customers a flat fee rate. Charges shall be based
upon the volume of mixed municipal solid waste that is collected.
Section 4. Section 16-35 of the Chanhassen City Code is
amended to read:
I
-4-
II *
Suspension or Revocation of License. Upon the recommen-
dation of the City Manager, the City Council may suspend or
1 revoke the license of any person whose conduct is found to
be in violation of the provisions of this Chapter.
Suspension or revocation may also be based on other health,
safety, and welfare concerns arising out of the performance.
of the licensee, its employees and agents, and/or its
vehicles and equipment. Revocation or suspension of a
license by the Council shall be preceded by a public hearing
conducted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes { { 14.57 to
1470. The City Council may appoint a hearing examiner or may
conduct a hearing itself. The hearing notice shall be given
at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, include notice
of the time and place of the hearing, and shall state the
nature of the charges against the licensee.
' Section 5. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
Section 16-36 to read:
I Sec. 16-36. It is unlawful for any person or business to
scavenge, collect, or otherwise remove mixed municipal solid
waste, recyclables, or yard waste that has been placed at the
curb or in recycling containers, without a license from the City
and an account relationship with the owner, lessee, or occupant
of the premises.
' Section 6. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
Section 16-37 to read:
Sec. 16-37. No collector licensed pursuant to this Chapter shall
' acquire a vested right in the license. The City may, upon finding
that public necessity requires, determine to establish other
means of refuse collection.
Section 7. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding
Section 16-38 to read:
Sec. 16-38. Additional recyclable materials may be designated as
targeted recyclables by Resolution of the City Council after the
effective date of this Chapter. The designation process will be
as follows:
(A) Each licensed collector shall be given 120 days written
notice of proposed additions to the list of targeted recyclables.
The notice will specifically describe the material (s) proposed
for addition and also described how the addition might affect the
' duties and obligations of a licensee.
(B) Each licensed collector shall also be given written
notice at least ten (10) days in advance of the time and date of
the City Council meeting that will consider the proposed addition
to the list of the targeted recyclables.
' -5-
.W
(C) Notice shall be deemed given by mail, to the address
provided on the most recent license application or renewal form.
Section 8. This ordinance shall be effective ninety (90) 1
days after its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1989.
1
ATTEST:
I
Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1989. )
1
1
1
I
1
1
r
-6-