The URL can be used to link to this page

1q. Organized collection for refuse haulers � I CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 W MEMORANDUM d ' — ' Defected Date— TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date Submitted to Commission 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning Q" Date Submitted to Council 1 DATE: December 8, 1993 SUBJ: Approval of Resolution to Proceed with Phase II of the Organized Collection Program, Dual Track of Continuing to Work With Haulers to Develop Alternatives to Organized Collection and Approval of the Phase II Contract with Decision Resources 1 Documentation pertinent to previous meetings of the City Council on this matter are attached for 1 your review. Your most recent action was to hold a work session devoted solely to this issue on November 30. Four Council members were present. While no minutes are available, staff was given direction to proceed to schedule Phase II of the Organized Collection program. The Council strongly supported the concept of organized collection, but indicated that the Recycling Task Force's "managed competition" approach may not be acceptable. We were told that a more 1 appropriate approach may be to limit the City's involvement to preparing a "menu" of required and optional services, divide the City into reasonable districts, hold competitive bidding on providing service to the districts, and provide some sort of facilitator role in insuring that service 1 levels are maintained. There is no desire to see the City involved in the day -to -day administration of the program. Staff also received strong direction that the bidding should be truly competitive and opened to all potential, qualified firms rather than limiting it to the six that ' currently serve the City as envisioned by the Recycling Task Force. The haulers have been kept informed throughout the process and were in attendance at the work 1 session. Several of them had prepared a proposal designed to address some of the issues raised in the Phase I study, as an alternative to organized collection, and indicated a desire to work with the City in the future. The Council felt that the haulers' proposal was not acceptable, but that it would be appropriate to continue to work with them. Staff suggested a "dual track" approach that would allow Phase II to proceed along with working with the haulers in the hope that the Council may get to review two options in the future. The Council agreed with this suggestion. 1 Based upon the foregoing discussion, staff is recommending that the Council approve a resolution authorizing proceeding with the Phase II study while continuing to work with the haulers. 1 1 ►1 Mr. Don Ashwo i> December 8, 199:' Page 2 Secondly, we are recommending that the Council approve the attached contract with Decision Resources to work with the City on the project. This firm has extensive experience in this area and provides invaluable guidance to staff and the Task Force. You should note that the original Decision Resources' contract has been completed in an acceptable manner. The firm spent additional hours on the project due to the many Council meetings that occurred as well as additional work with the haulers. We have dealt with this on an hourly basis. Similarly, the original Phase II proposal did not account for the dual.track approach. To the extent that additional time is required to handle this effort we propose to deal with it in a similar manner. plan\pkbrgcol3 • • 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM t TO: Mayor and City Council Please note date change t FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: November 22, 1993 SUBJ: Organized Collection Work Session, Tuesday, November 30, 5:30 p.m., t Courtyard Conference Room At the last council meeting, you requested that this item be brought back for further discussion at a special work session. You also voted to formally receive the report from the Recycling Commission. Backup materials from the previous two meetings are attached. You have each already received copies of the final report of the Organized Collection Study. I will be present at the work session along with Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies. I assume most of the haulers will also be present. t I don't want to take up space summarizing the recommendations of the Recycling Commission. Essentially, you are aware that the primary issues relate to the destruction of city streets by overweight, illegal vehicles; noise; child safety; visual issues; air emissions; fuel consumption; and economic inefficiencies related to multiple routings of up to six haulers down local streets. The commission was also very concerned about wanting to maintain customer service, reasonable cost, and allowing each of the city's current six haulers to remain in business in the community. They believed that each of these issues could be responded to positively. At the last meeting there were suggestions that if the haulers had a way to positively respond to 111 these issues, then they should spend their time putting together a proposal presumably rather than spending their time sending out mailings trying to get the public fired up. The haulers have already met once with staff present and are scheduled to meet again on November 23. We will report back on their progress, if any. At the first meeting with staff they asked us what the Council's "bottom line" was. We indicated that all the issues were on the table and we were unsure if the Council had any desire to focus in on or eliminate some of them. I posed the hypothetical question of, "What if the Council said their most important issue was protecting city Mayor and City Council November 22, 1993 Page 2 streets from overweight vehicles ?" Would they agree to abide by legal load limits or lose their license to operate in Chanhassen if caught breaking the law? The answer was a very qualified maybe. Hopefully they will be in a position to be more forthcoming at the work session. Staff is proposing that the following items be visited at the work session: 1. Gain a full understanding of the issues and recommendations contained in the Commission's report. 2. Provide direction as to what is important to the Council in terms of objectives for the Phase II part of the study, or to be incorporated in some sort of binding agreement short of Phase II. We must stress that a legal contract is important. Several of the haulers suggested we simply ask them for compliance and hope for the best. I told them we don't do this with developers or suppliers and neither do they in their business arrangements, so why would an agreement with them be any different. 3. Discuss options for resolving the matter. Staff continues to support going to the Phase II study. Essentially, you will not know what can be negotiated until you let us try. You can always decline to enact it if it fails to meet your needs. If some sort of a binding agreement short of the full organized collection route is selected, give staff as much guidance as possible. You may also wish to involve the Recycling Commission. They spent a large amount of time preparing the study and making their recommendation to proceed with Phase II. It is certainly the Council's prerogative to modify the program, but you may want their input. 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION OF SOLID WASTE IN THE CITY. Public Present: Name Address Dale Lewis 1020 Lake Susan Hills Drive Gary Lano 731 Victoria Drive, Chaska Paul Smith Metro Council, St. Paul Mike Berkopec Waste Management Uli Sacchet 8071 Hidden Circle Dean Johnson Resource Strategies Steve Midthun 6510 Fox Path Ed Battani 6547 Gray Fox Curve Chris Boatwright Aagard West Nancy Lee Admiral Waste Mgmt Patrick Blood Admiral Waste Mgmt Kate Aanenson: ...needs to be is clear is why the study was initiated by the city. It came out of a discussion when we looked at road restrictions in the spring. The weight. At that time the Council decided to...the Recycling Committee to look at that issue. What's been done so far is look at Phase 1 and what they're asking... look at the needing for Phase 2. I did pass out to you a letter...There was a lot of discussion about it at the last meeting... Mayor Chmiel: Prior to that I would just like to address something that was sent out by, I believe Aagard West and I'd like to just read it. It says last chance for Chanhassen residents. In a packed public hearing on October 25th, Chanhassen residents voiced overwhelming opposition to the proposed organized hauling plan. I don't know if he was sitting at the same meeting that I was. I believe we had the haulers do the discussion. We had about 4 or 5 citizens do the discussion. Of it being packed wasn't for this particular reason. It entailed other items on the agenda that were public hearings as well. So I'd just like to just make a clarification here. The City Council ignored their concerns and tried to approve the second phase of the process and another $15,000.00 of your money spent on something you said you don't want. The one that we have here is one that was sent back from one of the residents that have Aagard West as their hauler. He doesn't feel that that's the particular case. This says don't let the organized garbage lobby bully you. He said what's here is not right. I tabled this item because I thought there were some other reasoning that we could come up with in regard to this. Some of the concerns that we had were of course the heavy trucks and there are a lot of concerns by the Sheriff's Department as well as the city in trying to determine where these people are at. All we'd have to do is increase next spring and have the Sheriff all over the city, and we'd have to hire that done but I think we could probably pick up those fees with the overloads as what they had. The main concern the city had was the fact that if in the event we were to have to replace those streets within the city, and as I mentioned before. We have roughly about 106 miles of streets and 93 miles that being also city streets but the other balance of that is State Aid. The cost to replace those streets would run roughly $10 million. That bothers me because of the fact that we will have to go back to the constituents within the city and have them pay for that additional amount. Another thing, if you take one of the garbage trucks and in talking with the Sheriff's Department, unloaded they're over weight and when they start filling they are way over weight. And that's what really breaks up the streets. There's no question in my mind. Some this past spring had taken the position of taking smaller trucks within 24 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 the city streets and alleviated that problem. And I'd almost like to go back to the haulers right now and say, you take the problem. You come back to us and give us a solution then if you don't think -we're going in the right 1 direction. Michael...agree or disagree. That's your position...but that's at least where I'm coming from. Councilman Mason: I'd also like to comment on this notice from Aagard. I believe the sense is the Mayor I tabled the decision until the November 8th Council meeting, not a public hearing. The public hearing, if I'm not mistaken, was never closed on this. Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. . I Councilman Mason: And I'm, you know we have other haulers like Mr. Loma and Mr. Berkopec that are talking -. ;,out, they certainly have their very strong opinions and I don't blame them for that but I'm also hearing I from some of the haulers a willingness to work and see if we can come up with a solution as opposed to some of this rhetoric that's been discussed from other haulers. And I quite honestly, those are the people I want to work with and, this notice that came out quite honestly, well 1 was very disappointed. There's so much misinformation in here, it's almost to laugh. Unfortunately when residents read something like this, they take it I for face value. So my comment to that is, I think the other haulers that I've already mentioned are showing the willingness to work with the city on this and I guess if Aagard West doesn't want to work with the city, they don't have to and maybe we should just concern ourselves with the haulers that are trying to stay open minded about this, like I'm assuming all the Council members are staying open minded about it. Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right. I don't think we've come to any conclusions. Its still a discussionary I thing and I'm not sure myself where this is going to go. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right, and I don't want to say we don't like this hauler and we only want to deal with the other ones. This is a very important issue to the haulers obviously, it's their business. But let's be II cooperative with one another and that's what I found on the Recycling committee is that the majority of the . haulers are very cooperative. Very helpful with their information and I'd like to keep it along that tone if we choose to continue with the study. I Councilman Senn: I got. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Just one other thing Mark, I was just going to mention. There is a video that we have here on the affects of streets with hauling of garbage and I'd like to have us show that as soon as Mark has a comment to make. When he gets done with that, maybe we can show it at that time. I Councilman Senn: I had about 20 calls...not because of the Aagard letter but because of the BFI letter. It also arrived I guess at numerous households today and all the calls were that they wanted to keep an open system and there's no way they wanted one trash hauler for the city, which is the BFI letter stated is what we were going to II do. To me there's a lot of rumor going around and an awful lot of misinformation. I tried to call back every one of these people and maybe got a little over halfway there in the short time to come before tonight but when you simply explain to them what the city is considering. Underline considering. In some form. Underline some form of collection or organized collections of the city, and we're doing that for what I think, and I think most of I the Council shares in that feeling, several good reasons and those good reasons are safety on our neighborhood streets, because if you only have trucks coming in one day a week, that's a lot better than neighborhoods, especially with a lot of these young children, than trucks coming in 6 days or 5 days a week and multiple 1 haulers on some days even. And as Don mentioned earlier, the savings in terms of road maintenance and this 1 25 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 has been an issue every spring with road and road restrictions, etc. As soon as you bring those issues up, they say well geez, those sounds like real valid issues. And we haven't defined the level that we're talking about in terms of organized collection. Then we're going to have collection level maybe by neighborhood for all we know. Or it may be by full city. I kind of doubt that but you know. Everybody just kind of turns around says you know, yeah. We should really look at that. We should really do that. And so I'm getting real tired of, you know whether it's BFI's letter or Aagard's letter or I think last week it was I think a couple of other letters. The haulers just seem to, or I should say, some of the haulers seem to just realty be bent on putting out the misinformation in some kind of an effort to even kill discussion on it or looking at the issue. I would like to, I guess I'd back up a sec because I do agree with one thing. I guess the people that called and said they thought it was ridiculous that we're spending $30,000.00 to study this, I guess I kind of have to half agree with them on that and I'd really like to see Council at this point, you know we've taken a fair amount of input on this. I mean we had a public hearing last week. We're kind of at a half stage right now of kind of deciding where we're going to go and how we're going to go and to me it really makes sense to me at this point for Council to really sit back. Look at this in a work session and establish some direction rather than go out and ask a consultant to establish direction for us. Or rather than ask haulers to go out and establish direction for us. They seem to be willing to do that in letters anyway and stuff and I think a majority of the haulers would welcome at least some specifics and a little bit out of fairness to the haulers and I don't want to chit too long on this but you know, you look at the report that's come out of the committee and I mean there's a lot of conclusions you can jump to as a result of that. But at the same time most of the conclusions that are being jumped to are a little far fetched or ridiculous and that's why I think it really would help at this point if Council really looked at this and provided some more definitive direction on it before it went anywhere forward or even into, you know maybe there isn't a Phase 2 study that's needed. Maybe what there is is some direction needed and then some direction to implement something. I don't know but I mean I think we should really take a hard look at that and go forward. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, could I speak before you get to your film as well? I don't want...and I find myself in the unique position of defending haulers tonight, that they spread all the misinformation. Unfortunately the way the last meeting worked, we took public comment and we didn't have a chance to respond to those issues and the article in the newspaper came out and it did seem, only because that was the only side of the issue addressed that evening, that's what the newspaper article presented and that formed opinions in a lot of people's mind so I won't say it's just the haulers that spread misinformation. The second thing you said about the Council providing direction. I'm not sure if we need a work session. I guess that was my intention tonight was to give some parameters for what the Recycling Committee should look at next. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and that's why I was trying to hold off until once we saw what the film was and then proceed with that particular direction. Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know. Mayor Chmiel: But Richard, go ahead. 1 Councilman Wing: I've just got to make a mundane comment here because, as I've listened to all these comments and the people with all their anger, we're not unusual. We're not up here sitting here as little penguins that are going to cram it down their throat again. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I have the same problems, the same questions, the same concerns. I like my hauler. I'm worried about this. I'm worried about that. I want my choice. The only difference between me and everybody else that's been putting the pressure on is I've got the vote but I'm trying with my vote to be very cautious. Look very long term and be visionary way 26 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 down the road for the city and if in that process my opinion doesn't agree with some others, like Mike often says, we've got to do our job. But we're here as residents and that's what I want to remind everybody is we're dealing with the same issues and we're just trying to do what's best long term. Short term is going to be 1 painful. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. And now the movie. 1 Don Ashworth: I would agree with all the comments that have been made. We really don't know the solution. Under State law we have to go through this process to come back with a solution but one thing we do know, there is a problem and I think that this video really does show what that problem is. I (A short video was shown at this point on the affects of track traffic on roadways.) I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'm sure everyone was paying real good attention to the sound. Anyway, Colleen we'll get back now to you for additional discussion that you have. Or that you'd like •to have. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I just thought, I mean the purpose tonight is to say let's look at it. We agree that they have some problems and let's go ahead and look at some possible solutions and those will run the - gammet from well I think we're going to exclude having one hauler do the city or have it city organized. But it can run the gammet from just facilitating neighborhoods to organized all the way to splitting up the city into I zones and I think what Mark said was correct in that we need to provide some direction tonight as opposed to • just saying, okay let's go ahead and look at some other issues. Let's say okay, let's go ahead and look at some solutions and these are the criteria for those solutions. I'm prepared to do that tonight. I don't know if the rest of the Council wants to do that tonight or in a work session. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other council have any comments? To that suggestion. ' Councilman Mason: Can we stop the, if we go the work session route, we could just stop the process now if we wanted to? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. No reason why we couldn't. There's no final decision being made. Is that correct? Roger Knutson: Correct. I Councilman Mason: Whatever we choose tonight, I am in strong support of anything we do for the haulers to be able to remain competitive in this city. And that's, I see that as a paramount issue. I personally thing some changes need to occur but I would really look long and hard at changes if the Council determined that the 1 competitive edge would be lost. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that's the kind of parameters I'm looking for. I mean issue number one, let's l make sure that there's some form of customer feedback and that there is competition maintained. If I could just suggest a few others. From the surveys, 64% of the people felt that the service level was very important so we'd have to determine a schedule where people can still have their 30 gallon can. They can still get garage I pick up. Things like that. One of my issues is to have minimal city involvement. That is that the city will not be doing the billing. The city will not be handling customer complaints. That'd still be handled through the haulers. Issues like that that we can kind of set the parameters so the Recycling committee can go back and know what we're looking for in specific recommendations. 27 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. 1 Councilman Wing: I think all the phone calls I have received have all, well even I think most the public comment dealt with choice. Everybody wants choice. I think that's all I really, the feedback I really had was we want choice. The only humorous element that one fellow today was adamant that the city doesn't get involved. He doesn't want a bunch of city paid G -men running around. He kept referring to the word G -men. I think he's got some validity there. He's worried about the bureaucracy and of course I think we all are. But the only issue that I guess I'm really concerned about is choice. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I think that's an interesting issue because when you ask people if they've ever switched haulers, the vast majority, they've never switched a hauler unless they've moved. So people want that option and yet they never exercise that option. Or very rarely exercise that option. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's true. I had...on Saturday and had a few people in to talk about that. But one of 1 the reasons this individual indicated that he wanted to keep his hauler was for the mere fact that he does go to the garage and take it out for them. As he's not able to do that because of his back and a back problem. There's a lot of pros and cons to the issues and people wanting and then you get some people who say, maybe this is the best way to go as well. I'm not sure this is the best way to go and trying to eliminate the major problem that we have is back to the roads you know. Who's going to pay for this? The constituency in the city. How can we eliminate it? Maybe smaller trucks like was implemented before could be one of the things. Whatever. There's a whole host of different things that can be done. Mark? Councilman Senn: ...the place we got out of the gates here on a bad footing 1 think is, I think was referred to in the last meeting, this term that's been attached to this report called Managed Competition. And I have, personally I have a real problem with that and I think whatever system we set up is going to need to rely on free enterprise and hoping competition. Not managed competition. I'm against city collection. I'm against one contract. I'm against governing how many haulers, except I think they should all be licensed. I'm against the city managing it. I'm against more staff to manage it. I'm against organizing commercial hauling. Underlining commercial meaning if you're talking about business, downtown area. That type of thing. I don't think that's an area that's a major concern because that has a road system in place that's built to handle it and that sort of thing and the safety issues aren't as paramount. I'm going to say, given today now, I mean I've talked to probably you know well over I'm not going to say in the short period of time over the last month, you know probably with 20 a day has to be over 120 people on this issue and it really comes back to, you know again understanding the issues and understanding safety is an issue and understanding road repair and maintenance is an issue and I think there's ways to organize a system and I think there's a role for the city in helping to lay the framework for that but personally I'd really like to see us lean towards very small neighborhood or small service districts and I think every hauler should have the right to bid every one of those and every hauler should have the right to be held accountable for the service in that area. And if they're not, that area should be able to get a new hauler. I think things like that can be accomplished within an established framework and I'd really like to see us work towards developing that type of a framework and I just think it'd be a lot easier to do that. I thin we kind of sit back and throw some ideas up on the board in a less formal setting and you know. I think there's a lot of good ideas that could probably come out of the group but maybe we could start focusing on something that would make some sense to proceed with from the Council's standpoint and, you know I think that's basically where we could get as far as providing some direction. Again, I really don't think we need more study of this thing. I think we need more direction. 28 • 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So we're talking potentially having a work session to come up with some of the conclusions as Colleen had indicated and giving the committee a sense of direction as to what we're really 1 looking at and then proceeding from there. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Can we move approval of the findings and recommendations this evening and then plan a work schedule, or work session? And if 'so, I'd like to pull recommendation number 2. ' Mayor Chmiel: Well we have two things here. This is an unfinished business. The hearing was still left open. So we have not yet closed the public hearing. 1 Councilman Senn: Don, could I make the same suggestion I made last week and Colleen, in deference to what you're saying but couldn't we simply close the public hearing. Vote to receive the report. I think if we get into a discussion over the recommendations tonight, I think we're going to end up in a lot of debate. I'm not sure I'm in agreement with a lot of them. But receive the report and agree that basically what we're going to do is set up a work session to discuss where we go from here and provide some direction on if there is going to be a Phase 2 or if there's some steps we're going to take towards either implementation or not implementation of any 1 organized collection. Mayor Chmiel: Roger. A legal interpretation. ' Roger Knutson: One...to that. You can do that Councilmember but what you should do, or what I would recommend doing. If you don't want to adopt the findings or the resolution that's been prepared, you should table that item to a specific Council meeting because under the Statutory process you have to adopt this kind of resolution if you want to end up with any organized collection. So for example tonight, if the motion was made to adopt this and the motion were to fail, then you went to your work session and you decided huh. On reflection we want to do something with organized collection. You'd have to start the whole darn process over 1 again. Councilman Senn: Okay, I don't have a problem with the resolution except in the last paragraph it says, adopt the findings of the recommendation. Is that a requirement? I mean otherwise the resolution kind of just like you say, keeps the process going. I think by sticking that in there you're kind of asking Council to make some decisions right now as it relates to those findings and recommendations and I'm not sure if I'm prepared to do that. Roger Knutson: I'm not asking. Councilman Senn: No, but I'm just saying. Roger Knutson: You need some factual findings to support your resolution. Whether these are appropriate or ' not, I'll leave that up to your judgment. Mayor Chmiel: Right. And I think that's, 1 agree with that. 1 Councilman Senn: So then tabling becomes the thing? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 1 29 . 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 �. Councilman Senn: Could we vote to accept the report, table the item pending a Council work session? Roger Knutson: Certainly. , Councilman Senn: And then bring it back on a Council age following the work session? Roger Knutson: Yes. 1 Councilman Senn: Or do we need to set a date certain? Roger Knutson: No, you can do that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think we can do that but I think what we'd like to do is try to set up a work session date first and then once that work session date is done, we may want to have an additional one. And I don't want to establish a date...so. Could I have a motion to table and accept the findings as indicated with the setting up of a work session for, and I have to try to fmd one of those. It would be rather difficult. Maybe Monday, November 29th? That'd be the following meeting after our Council meeting. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Don't we have, our off Mondays are all budget discussions? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we're. 1 Councilman Mason: We're done hopefully by then. Mayor Chmiel: Hopefully after this coming Monday, we should be done until probably sometime in December correct? Don Ashworth: Well, December 2nd is the hearing itself and that's the reason that. We did, left November 29th 1 as an alternative but it's not really one since it's so close to the hearing itself that you can't. Councilman Mason: The hearing's the 30th right? Don Ashworth: I thought it was December 2nd. It's an off night. It's not a Monday night. Mayor Chmiel: It would have to be a Thursday evening, December 2nd. Don Ashworth: Well it surely isn't a Friday so I think that is correct. Councilman Senn: So the 29th? Mayor Chmiel: So the 29th would be an available work session time frame. 1 Councilman Senn: Okay I'll move, oh go ahead. Councilman Mason: Before we get a motion on that. Where do we stand with the public hearing tonight? Mayor Chmiel: We don't close it yet. We're just tabling it. 30 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 Councilman Mason: Okay. And is it worth getting any more comment tonight or not? ' Mayor Chmiel: I don't think so because nothing has really changed until once we come up with some kind of an idea and concept. ' Councilman Senn: Roger, can we close the public hearing and simply table the action? Roger Knutson: You can do that if you wish. 1 Mayor Chmiel: You can. You can do that but. Councilman Mason: But we'll want to reopen it. 1 Mayor Chmiel: But I would just as soon keep it open. I would just as soon keep it open with the tabling because then if there is additional input that they have, they can provide that at that time. 1 Councilman Senn: Doesn't the process still allow for numerous points of public input? Roger Knutson: You can allow anyone to talk whether it's a public hearing or not. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but I like with a public hearing to still keep it open. Councilman Senn: So then basically we move, okay. We make a motion to table the item and receive the report from the committee and schedule a Council work session on the 29th of November to further discuss. • Mayor Chmiel: 5:00 or 5:00 p.m.? Let's get a time frame. Is 5:30 better? Councilwoman Dockendorf: 5:30's better. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Wing: In the history of the world this is not going to get honorable mention. If I cannot make that 1 meeting, can I just say that if you choose to go with somebody that's not my present hauler, I will survive and I will get used to it. So don't let me interfere. Councilwoman Dockendorf: But I think the point is that. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think everything you've said, everybody on the Council feels the same way Richard. There's no question. 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well people resist change and I think we need to be innovators here and we treed to lead the city and let's not back away from it because we're going to get public flack over it. 1 Councilman Mason: Has a motion been made yet? Mayor Chmiel: A motion has been made. We're looking for a second. 1 1 31 • 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 1. Councilman Mason: I'll second it. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to receive the report from the Recycling Committee and to table action concering a resolution of intent for the proposed establishment of organized collection of solid waste in the city until after the City Council discusses the issue at a work session on November 29, 1993. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Chmiel: That meeting will be held upstairs I would imagine in the. Don Ashworth: Probably the courtyard as a work session. 1 Councilman Mason: Anyone's invited right? Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Anyone who'd like to come, be my guest. 1 RESOLUTION DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY. Councilman Senn: I think I pulled that last week. Last time, or whatever. It's hard to differentiate the weeks anymore. Don isn't, I think in last month's there was an Exhibit A attached. Or at last meeting there was an Exhibit A attached. Mayor Chmiel: I don't recall. 1 Don Ashworth: I don't recall either. Do you think you know what that may have been? Councilman Senn: Well all through, I mean if you read basically through the resolution. The resolution continually keeps referring to Exhibit A. Don Ashworth: Okay, why don't you go ahead and table again. Remember this is the one that MacGillavray 1 had brought out during the sale basically. We're going to have to follow this by a thing that requires federal. This is mandated by the federal government. It's really stupid but it's required. So if you'd like to table and I'll find out whether or not there was an Exhibit A. Councilman Senn: Well there was. I mean you don't have to table. There was an Exhibit A attached which effectively was the $5.630 general obligation tax increment bond series information. And then the actual statement of the refinancing that occurred. Don Ashworth: That should have been on the GO. That should have spelled out the three. 1 Councilman Senn: Yeah, the general obligation. Don Ashworth: The three GO projects that we did which was 78th Street realignment, the Lilac and Upper 1 Bluff Creek. Councilman Senn: Okay, that's one of the problems. It didn't. It doesn't lay any of that out. It basically just 111 32 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - November 8, 1993 says that there's a 5.630 and those three projects are part of the 5.630? ' Don Ashworth: Right. It was the ones, as we sat in the conference room, I showed you the one sheet that encompassed the GO projects. If the Council would like to pass this with the idea that staff would in fact attach that, which will show those 3 or 4 specific projects, we can do that. Or we can bring it back. Either way. 1 Councilman Senn: No, no. I don't care if you bring it back. I just want to make clear that all we're dealing with is the 5.630. I mean that night we dealt with a number of bond issues other than that, okay. And but when this action came in last week, I mean it refers to that but then there's no attachment on Exhibit A that backs that ' up. And all I'm trying to do is clarify or make sure that we're dealing with the GO bond issue at the 5.630 and I don't have a problem with that. But if it deals with all the other bond issues we dealt with that night, which were I think 2 or 3. Well, 3 other bond issues, then I think those need to be, how would I say, made part of this ' and specifically called out. Don Ashworth: In that instance I would prefer tabling because I, what this resolution says is that any cost associated with any of the projects. We knew in advance that we were going to do those projects and that as a part of the bonding, we're going to try to recoup any costs that we had incurred prior to the time we actually sold the bonds as a part of that project. And very truthfully, I'm trying to go through in my own mind. We sold 5 bond issues that night and I can't sit here tonight and tell you that it only deal with the GO one. I'm just not sure. Councilman Senn: Well the 5.630 that's attached here as Exhibit A is only the GO one? If that's all it is, then ' as far as I'm concerned, we can go ahead and pass on it. But like you say, that's what I just wanted to check. Don Ashworth: Then if that's the case, I would suggest that the Council approves this with a condition that the only thing this is applying to is the $5.6 million unless staff finds that that is not correct, in which case we will 1 bring it back to you. Councilman Senn: So moved. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Yes. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the resolution declaring the official intent of the city of Chanhassen to reimburse certain expenditures from the proceeds of bonds issued to the city in the amount of $5.6 million. If staff determines that this is not correct, the matter will be brought back before the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. (The Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) 1 1 ' 33 • 1 61 C ITY OF f O 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Wm BY att A inwstretor MEMORANDUM °"""'" t✓ • waitrea TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Date r' 9 3_ Dote Submitted tD Commission' FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director Date Submitted to CouncU DATE: November 3, 1993 // • 8 -73 ' SUBJECT: Update Memorandum, Organized Collection At the previous Council meeting, the Phase I report of the Organized Collection Study was presented. Most of the meeting focused on presentations by haulers who were opposed to the idea. Several residents also raised concerns. Diu to the lateness of the hour, it was not possible ' to provide a response to these issues. The Council voted to continue the item. It is important to remember first why the Council initiated the study and secondly, to touch on ' what the Recycling Committee actually recommended the Council do. The study was initiated after the City Engineer raised concerns over the widespread breaking. of the law that resulted from the haulers running significantly overweight trucks on City streets during weight limits. Related to this is the concern that this situation is greatly accelerating the deterioration of City streets which then need to be rebuilt prematurely at public expense. When the Recycling Committee looked into the situation they added the issues of noise and visual impacts stemming from garbage being picked up over several days, air quality impacts, waste of energy caused by inefficient routing and the cost implications of the current "open" system. None of the haulers' comments nor any of their mailings to their customers appear to have touched on these issues; Their primary focus seems to have been on customer choice and the impact of organized collection on private enterprise. Both of these concerns are valid and were discussed by the Committee at length but they felt that there were options for addressing them. What exactly is the Council being asked to do? The Committee is asking that you accept their Phase I study and enter into Phase 11 where an actual organized collection program will be negotiated. If at the end of that period you feel that the program is unacceptable, you can modify or discard it. You can allow the present sys to exist or develop some other alternative to address the issues. As I indicated above, there was no opportunity to respond to the issues that were raised at the last meeting. I have therefore asked our consultant, Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corporation, to prepare a response. This is attached to this memo. Additionally, you will find 1 1 Don Ashworth November 3, 1993 Page 2 ' Dean's Phase II work outline and proposal. The scope of services is particularly important since it outlines what will be occurring if you proceed with Phase II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Phase I Study and approve undertaking Phase II of the program. 1 1 1 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c.._ ‘ RE :1 . EI VEp 1 Nov 0 3 1993 RESOURCE e ] r yr t "'"° 4 HASSEN STRATEGIES CORPORATION November 1, 1993 I 6600 CITY WEST PARKWAY II SUITE Sao Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP MINNEAPOLIS, MN Planning Director - ' 55344 City of Chanhassen ' 612/942-8010 P.O. Box 147 fAX612 /9az -7a6a Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: 10/25/93 Public Hearing Comments - Organized II Collection Dear Paul: 1 This memorandum is intended to serve as a summary and response to comments registered at the October 25 public 1 hearing on organized collection. A total of nineteen persons addressed the City Council, including seven haulers, nine residents, one Carver County Commissioner, one Carver County solid waste specialist and- one I Organized Collection Study Committee member. The seven haulers that commented represented four of the 1 six licensed haulers in Chanhassen: Waste Management (1) I Woodlake /BFI (2) Aagard (3) Chaska (1) 1 Following are paraphrased comments /questions raised by the haulers and subsequent responses. II 1. We generated 350 customer responses to our survey of resident attitudes; why wasn't this .included in the report? 1 The survey responses were presented at a committee meeting in June. It was agreed that such information was I biased. The committee requested that a resident survey be conducted -- this was not an original element in the study. Committee members agreed to make random phone calls, selecting every tenth residence in the phone book, II within various "letters" of the alphabet. RSC agreed to generate the survey questionnaire and tabulate the results. The questionnaire was presented to the I 0 II 1 1 Paul Krauss Page 2 • committee for review and revision prior to implementation. Six participants generated 81 resident responses over a two -week period. 2. I disagree with the report's conclusion that most of the collection vehicles exceed weight restrictions in the spring. ' All information presented in the report, regarding the existing collection system, was generated form the hauler survey. . The haulers identified all fleet vehicles, as well as vehicle capacities and gross vehicle weights. Most of the garbage trucks exceed weight restrictions in the spring -- some exceed weight restrictions all year. ' 3. By signing a contract for collection, the City is one step . closer to Superfund cleanup liability. - 1 This issue was raised by the committee and noted in the report. Neither the Attorney General's office nor the City Attorney agree 11 with this position. There are no legal precedents to support this conclusion. State Statutes specifically permit cities and counties to organize collection. State Statutes also require cities to ensure that all households have solid waste collection service, which is most efficiently and cost - effectively accomplished by organized collection. 4. I'm not supporting organized collection, but I'm not opposed to it either -- I'm concerned about losing my existing base of customers in Chanhassen. 1 Organized collection with existing haulers will "freeze" the base level of customers each hauler currently has. Future account growth will be tied to hauler performance and residential growth in ' the City. A hauler cannot lose accounts unless there is a failure in performance. A hauler may lose accounts in open collection through competition with other haulers, which has occurred in 1 Chanhassen. 5. We made a major investment in the RVS recycling center and we're concerned about losing it due to organized collection. See response #4. Organized collection will have no impact, unless the City were to competitively bid for service and this particular hauler lost all existing accounts. • 6. Heavy truck damage -- we always hear of it -- what about school buses and other heavy trucks? Garbage trucks and school buses are the only potentially overweight vehicles which have "regularly scheduled service" in neighborhoods. 1 1 Paul Krauss IF • Page 3 The largest school buses will exceed 7 -ton weight restrictions when carrying more than 63 students. School buses do not travel on all residential streets for service and there are not multiple carriers providing duplicative service. State Statutes also exempt buses from weight restrictions. . - 1 Nine residents raised issues with the City Council (one spoke twice). Most of the comments addressed the preference to have choice in hauler selection. Following are responses to questions or other comments noted. • 7. I have garage -side pickup service and I'm willing to pay for it. What evaluation of organized collection will be done to ensure service, how often and how will you respond to complaints? Attached is the proposed work program or scope of services for Phase II. The answers to several questions posed by hearing participants will not be determined until Phase II is completed; however, the scope of services clearly .outlines the issues that will be discussed and included in service contracts. II F & II G: Service levels 1 II J: Performance standards II I: Complaints 8. What about other vehicle impacts; performance standards and monitoring? See response #6 and response #7. 1 9. There was no mention of the disadvantages to organized collection. This is a reasonable comment from anyone not having seen the Organized Collection Study. The committee requested that a one- page "findings and recommendations,• highlighting the basis for committee recommendations, be presented to the City Council. As a result of the rather lengthy hearing preceding the organized collection hearing, I did not supplement the one -page summary in my presentation. It was my intention to respond to questions or comments after the hearing was closed. • Section II of the report includes the description of the alternative collection methods. Table 3 (attached) includes a ranking of the alternative collection methods, highlighting the most favored /least favored aspects of the alternatives. The disadvantages of organized collection include loss of free 1 ' Paul Krauss Page 4 enterprise, loss of resident choice and an increase of city administrative commitments. 10. Priorities for collection should be the environment, cost and convenience. ' I am not certain that this was a resident's endorsement of organized collection; however, organized collection is the surest way to meet these priorities. 11. The commercial hauler we used did not work out at the center - fortunately, we had the choice to select another hauler. ' Organized collection will be limited to residential service and will not affect commercial accounts. In general, if a residential hauler does not meet minimum performance standards, the City will have remedies, including license revocation. 12. Sf it ain't broke, don't fix it. 1 The City Engineer has identified increasing costs of street maintenance and repair. One of the unnecessary impacts to local streets is the duplicative service inherent in open collection. The City does not experience six independent contractors providing duplicative school busing service; rather, the system operates as efficiently as possible with one carrier, providing the least impact to local streets. The existing open collection system may be "broke." 13. S am not aware of any groundswell to organize collection. Committee meetings were attended by several residents who indicated their neighborhoods had implemented their own organized collection, ' or were waiting to see what the City was going to do. The reasons for organizing collection were reported to include reducing the number of trucks on streets, reducing aesthetic impacts and reducing costs. There were no residents who attended the committee meetings to express objections to the potential for organized collection. The survey of residents showed that nearly half of respondents didn't have a preference for open or organized collection. Roughly one - quarter of the residents opposed organized collection, while ' one - quarter supported organized collection. There has neither been a "groundswell" to organize collection nor a groundswell to oppose organization. The remaining comments by Marcus Zbinden and John Siegfried, Carver County, and Uli Sacchet, Study Committee favored the City's examination of organized collection. The County presented its 1 • 1 1 Paul Krauss 1 Page 5 interest in processing rather than landfilling waste through hauler subsidies and city contracts. Mr. Sacchet provided a very good summary of the committee's review process, survey credibility, findings, recommendations and future work scope. Hopefully, I have identified all of the significant comments raised at the public hearing. I will be prepared to address other comments the City Council may have at the November 8th Regular Meeting. The purpose of Phase II is to resolve the details on issues regarding service levels, performance standards, complaint response, City /hauler roles and responsibilities, account growth distribution and cost. State Statutes require the 90 -day 'negotiating" period with interested licensed haulers. There is no way to respond to the concerns expressed about hauler choice and competition. These are personal opinions and must be considered. As the report notes, there have been no known attitude 1 surveys completed in cities that have organized collection. There is no way to document whether residents still have concerns about choice and competition. It is hard to believe that residents would favor a reversal to what Chanhassen is considering: switching from service by one hauler on one day a week to six haulers randomly providing service in the neighborhood on any given week day. We have not learned of any cities with organized collection that have reverted back to open collection. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, C— 17) Dean R. Johnson 1 Partner DRJ /sh 1 Attachments 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSAL • PHASE II - ORGANIZED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION STUDY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ELEMENTS, HAULER NEGOTIATIONS AND SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION 1 I. BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen approved a proposal by Resource Strategies Corporation (RSC) on May 10, 1993 to assist the City in evaluating the potential for organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and recyclables. The Organized Collection Study Committee has completed the 90 -day planning period, prepared the "City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study" with assistance from RSC and submitted recommendations to the City Council to organize collection in the City. Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.94, identify a 90 -day negotiating period to "... discuss possible organized collection arrangements with all licensed collectors operating in the city or town who have expressed interest. If the city or town is unable to agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority of the licensed collectors who expressed interest, or upon expiration the 90 days, the city or town may propose implementation of an alternate method of organization as authorized..." RSC proposes to assist the Organized Collection Study Committee in establishing an organized ' collection system that reduces environmental impacts, reduces impacts on local streets, reduces costs of collection to residents, improves overall efficiency of collection and allows the opportunity to existing licensed haulers to continue providing solid waste collection service in the City of Chanhassen. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES • The following Scope Of Services is an breakdown of tasks required to complete Phase It of the ' Organized Collection Study, which includes identification of uniform collection programs, establishment of collection zones, negotiations with existing licensed haulers, amendments to ' ordinance/licensing provisions, public education and promotional information, implementation strategies and service contracts. . . 1 1 A. AMEND LICENSING PROVISIONS 1 RSC will prepare amendments to existing hauler licensing provisions to establish limits on the number of licenses issued by the City. B. HOUSING UNIT INVENTORY The City will assist RSC in identifying the total number of single family detached and single 1 family attached housing units in the City (all households not utilizing centralized solid waste collection service). The household inventory will be summarized by various zones or sectors 1 within the City. C. RESIDEN'ITAL GROWTH AREAS The City will assist RSC in identifying planned residential growth areas in the City and in malting development assumptions and growth projections within the zones identified in paragraph IIA. D. HAULER NOTICE, ACCOUNT VERIFICATION AND ACCOUNT DISTRIBUTION 1 RSC will provide notice to existing haulers of the Phase II process and request for participation. It is presumed that uninterested or uncooperative parties will be excluded from contract discussions 1 and future contract participation. RSC will prepare maps and survey forms to solicit detailed account distribution information from haulers. Data collected will be analyzed and organized according to the zones identified in paragraph ILA. E. ESTABLISHbIENT OF COLLECTION ZONES 1 Based upon data assembled and analyzed, RSC will establish potential hauler collection zones within the City. The zones will be based upon total accounts of existing haulers and, to the extent 1 possible, hauler account distribution within the City and future growth assumptions. F. IDENTIFY UNIFORM COLLECTION PROGRAM BASE SERVICE LEVELS RSC will develop base level curbside collection program criteria and standards. Service levels will be volume based for recycling and reduction incentives and are anticipated to include: • Same day recycling (expand existing service requirements) • Senior /disabled services • One can (32 gallon) biweekly service • One can (32 gallon) weekly service • Two can (64 gallon) weekly service • Three can (96 gallon) weekly service • Full service weekly • Special collections (ie. Christmas trees, cleanup options) The Committee will determine whether wheeled carts will be required as a base level service or as an optional service level to residents. 1 2 1 G. DEVELOP UNIFORM COLLECTION PROGRAM SERVICE OPTIONS RSC will identify and summarize collection service options which may be made available to 1 residents for fees in addition to base base level service. Optional services may include but not be limited to the following: 1 • Door step /garage -side pickup • Service level overage fee • Additional recycling collection/referral • 1 • Bulky item collection • Yardwaste collection ' H. DETERMINE PREFERRED ORGANIZED COLLECTION METHOD RSC will present background information to the Committee from cities which utilized existing haulers in establishing organized collection. The Committee will determine the preferred organized collection method for the City. L DEFINE CITY AND HAULER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES - RSC will identify roles and responsibilities for the City and haulers within the proposed organized 1 collection structure. Roles and responsibilities may include but not be limited to the following: • Responding to service inquiries • Responding to complaints • Complaint resolution procedures • Billing process • Reporting requirements • Monitoring requirements • Public education and service promotion J. DEVELOP PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RSC will develop performance standards which reflect City expectations for minimum levels for uniform collection service and the criteria for hauler performance evaluation. The standards will include remedies for performance deficiencies and termination criteria. The standards may include but not be limited to the following: 1 • Performance guarantee • Personnel requirements ' • Equipment requirements • Insurance requirements • Surety requirements • Safety and supervision 1 • Monitoring and reporting K. ESTABLISH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 1 RSC will prepare minimum service contract requirements for Committee, City Attorney and hauler review. The contract(s) will be based upon and include but not be limited to the following: 1 • 3 1 • 1 • Definitions 1 • General provisions • Collection method • Contract services • Collection schedule • Service zones and adjustments • Roles and responsibilities • Service fees and adjustments • Service term, renewal and negotiating windows • Performance standards • Remedial actions and termination • Monitoring and reporting • Public education and service promotion • Surety requirements • Indemnification • Assignment L. NEGOTIATE CONTRACT TERMS AND RATES RSC will establish base level and optional service fee structures and contract terms for Committee review and evaluation. RSC and the Committee will review and negotiate contract terms and fees ' with the haulers. The City will maintain the right to publicly bid or negotiate for collection service with other haulers, if negotiations with existing haulers is unsatisfactory to the City. 1 M. AMEND ORDINANCE/LICENSING PROVISIONS RSC will assist the City in preparing amendments to or establishing ordinance and licensing provisions which will be necessary to implement organized collection in the City. The provisions will include hauler licensing and contract references and mandatory collection requirements within the City. The provisions will also include exemptions to mandatory collection, consistent with State Statutes. 1 N. PREPARE PUBLIC EDUCATION/ PROMOTIONAL INFORMATION ' RSC will prepare press releases, public education and promotional information which identifies the details of the pending changes in the solid waste collection system in Chanhassen. The City will be responsible for printing and distribution of all information, which may include but not be limited to the following: • Purpose and objectives • Organized Collection Study process and summary • Collection program highlights • Hauler identification • Startup dates • Base and optional services • Collection days and zones • Transition issues and expectations • Additional information sources and contacts • Complaint process, contacts and remedies 4 1 O. IMPLEMENT SERVICE CHANGES RSC will present the contract recommendations, licensing/ordinance amendments and implementation schedule to the City Council for review and consideration. RSC will provide additional assistance to the City, as requested, in the implementation and transition to organized collection. P. STUDY COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT RSC recommends that the Study Committee provide project oversight, comparable to the level of participation in Phase I, to afford a balanced approach to service provisions, contract negotiations ' and final contract recommendations. It is anticipated that the Committee will meet at four • intervals in the process, as follows: • Meeting #1 Establish collection zones, service levels and preferred collection method • Meeting #2 Establish roles/ responsibilities, performance standards, contract provisions • Meeting #3 Negotiate contract terms and rates • Meeting #4 Recommend final contract/implementation provisions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT B TABLE 4 ALTERNATIVE METHODS COMPARATIVE MATRIX 1 -+- 1 I M Q -0 N•.Imisu» Lc, 0u7M 0cowo M O • 1 a m `0N•-1N N. -+ vl th O 1 • g I 41cP -0 N..r.- iu9�utat �...i� "0 N� 1 ca . 1 1 1 :___ � N 8 Q 1 g .., • Z O Vic'» -0 ■ 1 d _ 1 O M u7 Ln u7 •-o N ..t ...i .a u7 .-4 CO al In ,# vs . 11 1 Li g 1 � i i r g N. N. 1 0. ic..) ...., , t 1 •.,_.; c...,, l 1 V IP ni o c.7 1:1 2 2 �� ' -o .� ?' � it it 1 LJL)L ZQI@cs ..ut 1 City of Chanhassen Strategies y 38 Resource Strateg 1 TTY 0 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I it (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Mee by cny Administreti MEMORANDUM Meditied TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager cet�..L-L O' g PO Submitted to to Commissimi 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director Charles Folch, City Engineer Sete Submitted to Council / X 5-9.3 1 DATE: October 20, 1993 1 SUBJ: Findings and Recommendations of the Organized Collection Study Committee I Last winter the City Council directed staff to Undertake a study of the benefits of organized collection of solid waste for the City. The impetus behind this request was largely to respond to issues raised from the significant damage to City streets that results from their repeated use I by overweight garbage trucks during load limit periods. It appeared that some sort of organized collection program was the only means of effectively limiting this damage which has resulted in the need to reconstruct streets at great cost. At the same time, there appeared to be other benefits I to organized collection including, reduced noise, lower costs, improved visual environment by reducing the number of days trash is collected, better compliance with State law and improved energy efficiency. The City retained the Resource Strategies Corporation to help undertake the 1 study which had to be conducted in accordance with established guidelines. The Recycling Committee was convened to undertake the organized collection study and work 1 with Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corp. The group met frequently over a period of months to define the issues, survey residents, develop and understand the options and prepare a recommendation. The meetings were attended by representatives of many of the existing haulers. 1 While it would not be accurate to state that the haulers are in agreement with the recommendations, it is fair to state that they have had opportunity to review and comment. The Findings and Recommendations of the group are attached to this memo. Dean Johnson and possibly some of the members of the Recycling Committee will be present at the meeting to I discuss the report. It is also likely that the haulers will be represented. Since we were heavily committed over much of the summer neither the Planning Director or City I Engineer were able to participate extensively in the committee's work until recently. However, we have been brought up to speed on it and found it to be well prepared and am in agreement with the recommendations. Please refer to the attached study and summary for details. We 1 • 1 Don Ashworth 1 October 20, 1993 Page 2 1 believe that the form of "managed competition" being proposed has the potential to address the many issues raised by open collection. At the same time, it has the potential to restrain or reduce costs through improved efficiency while preserving the benefits of a "free market" approach in terms of customer satisfaction and existing business serving our community. The Recycling Committee has recommended that the City Council, receive the report, initiate 1 licensing to limit the number of haulers to the present six that would decline over time when/if a hauler drops out, adopt a resolution of intent to organize waste collections and proceed with the Phase II program of the study where implementation would be developed. Dean Johnson was asked to prepare a proposal to respond to Phase II assistance. The proposal is attached for your review. 1 1 • 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY COMM TI'EE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS • As many as six (6) solid waste collection vehicles and six (6) recycling vehicles currently serve the sarne residential neighborhoods in Chanhassen each week • Garbage cans and recycling bins are visible throughout the community on each week day ' • The current open system of collection results in up to five or six times more mileage on residential streets by heavy collection vehicles than required by organized collection 1 • A typical solid waste collection vehicle and typical recycling vehicle, meeting weight restrictions, have the combined cumulative effect on residential street pavement as 1650 automobiles • The current open system of collection may create the equivalent impact on residential streets as nearly 10,000 automobiles each week - up to six tunes more than required by organized collection • Organized collection will reduce current collection vehicle air emissions, vehicle noise, vehicle fuel consumption, vehicle trips, vehicle miles, residential street wear and aesthetic impacts . • The costs of organized collection are lower than the costs of open collection in Carver County and within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area • Any change in the current system of open collection will result in varying impacts on existing licensed haulers in the City ' • The Committee favors an organized collection system which allows existing haulers to continue providing service in the City, while minimizing the negative impacts of open collection • In a survey of Chanhassen residents, 27% of the respondents were not at all supportive of organized collection, 48% were neutral and 25% were very supportive of organized collection • Residential organized collection will allow the City to comply with and enforce provisions of Minnesota Statutes, which require that cities with a population over 1000 ensure that every household in the community has solid waste collection service RECOMMENDATIONS ' In view of the study objectives, review of existing conditions, evaluation of collection impacts, service costs and resident opinions, the Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee recommends that the City Council consider the following actions: 1 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 to a 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 in Chanhassen. 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ORGANIZE RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.94 allows cities to organize collection of solid waste and identifies a process for organization; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chanhassen provided mailed notice to licensed solid waste haulers and published notice in the official newspaper of a public hearing on May 24, 1993, to consider organizing solid waste collection, and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. . A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION AND PLANNING FOR A POTENTIAL SYSTEM OF ORGANIZED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN; and WHEREAS, The City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee has completed a planning period and summarized its findings and recommendations in the "City Of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study;" and 1 WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has mailed notice to licensed solid waste haulers, published notice in the official newspaper and held the public hearing on its intent to consider organized collection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the "City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study," adopts The Findings and Recommendations of the Organized Collection Study Committee and authorizes the Committee to begin a 90-day review period to discuss possible organized collection arrangements with interested, existing licensed haulers in the City of Chanhassen. 1 Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 25th day of October, 1993. ATTEST: 1 1 Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor 1 YES tT Q ABSENT 1 1 1 • 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, October 25, 1993 at the Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive input on the ' recommendations of the City of Chanhassen Recycling Committee, regarding the establishment of organized collection of solid waste in the City. 1 The Recycling Committee completed a 90 -day planning process, which included the review and analysis of the existing open collection system and alternative methods of collection. The Committee held five public meetings with licensed haulers and residents to discuss organized collection. A summary of the planning process and recommendations of the Recycling Committee are included in the "City of Chanh a rsen Organized Collection Study." Based upon recommendations of the Committee, The City Council will consider a resolution of 1 intent to organize residential solid waste collection. If the City Council decides to pursue organized collection, the Recycling Committee will begin a 90-day process to discuss possible arrangements for organized collection with interested, existing licensed haulers. ' Copies of the Organized Collection Study are available for review and inspection at the Chanhassen City Hall. All persons who desire to comment on this matter will be heard at the public hearing. Dated this 8th day of October, 1993. /s/ Don Ashworth Don Ashworth, City Cleric/Manager City of Chanhassen Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota 1 1 1 1 1 AGENDA 1 RECYCLING COMMITTEE MEETING 1 ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY _ Tuesday, September 21, 1993, 5:30 P.M. 1 City Council Chambers 1 1. Organized Collection Study - Final Report 1 2. Committee Recommendations 1 3. Adjournment 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Recycling Committee Meeting 1 Organized Collection Study August 31, 1993 Attendance 1 1 NAME REPRESENTING PHONE JoAnn Olsen City of Chanhassen 937 -1900 1 Paul Smith Metropolitan Council 291 -6408 1 Don Chmiel City Council 937 -1900 Tom Moline Woodlake 941 -5174 1 Chris Boatwright Asgard West 332 -8412 . Marcus Zbinden Carver County 448 -1217 1 Gary Lana Chaska Sanitation 448 -2547 I Colleen Dockendorf City Council 470 -4112 Cyrus Childs Committee member 934 -4907 1 Sharmin Al -Jaff City of Chanhassen 937 -1900 Jay Johnson Committee member 934 -5682 1 Uli Sacchet Committee member 937 -2371 Beth Wahlberg Resource Strategies 942 -8010 I Dean Johnson Resource Strategies Corp. 942 -8010 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 .5" C 1 TY - 0 . F I V ' , --: CHANHASSEN 6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 boa IN CIO Adininittnia gamed 1 MEMORANDUM :iNdified r -9 TO: Don Ashworth, Qty Manager 0 -1,20 .� -- Submitted to CommissioA FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director Charles Folch, City Engineer Submitted to Council DATE: October 20, 1993 • SUBJ: Findings and Recommendations of the Organized Collection Study Committee Last winter the City Council directed staff to idertake a study of the benefits of organized 9 collection of solid waste for the City. The impetus behind this request was largely to respond II to issues raised from the significant damage to City streets that results from their repeated use by overweight garbage trucks during load limit periods. It appeared that some sort of organized N collection program was the only means of effectively limiting this damage which has resulted in the need to reconstruct streets at great cost. At the same time, there appeared to be other benefits to organized collection including, reduced noise, lower costs, improved visual environment by TB reducing the number of days trash is collected, better compliance with State law and improved energy efficiency. The City retained the Resource Strategies Corporation to help undertake the -, study which had to be conducted in accordance with established guidelines. _I The Recycling Committee was convened to undertake the Organized collection study and w ork - with Dean Johnson of Resource Strategies Corp. The groin met frequently over a period of months to define the issues, survey residents, develop and understand the options and prepare a 1 recommendation. The meetings were attended by representatives of many of the existing haulers. 1 While it would iiot . be accurate to state that the haulers are In - agreement with the �,. recommendations, it is fair to state that they have had opportunity to revIeifi and comment. t The Findings and Recommendations of the group are attached to this memo. Dean Johnson and possibly some of the members of the Recycling Committee will be present at the meeting to discuss the report. It is also likely that the hI i1ers will be represented. Since we were heavily committed over much of the summer neither the Planning Director or City Engineer were able to participate extensively in the committee's work until recently. However, ill we have been brought up to speed on it and found it to be well prepared and am in agreement a l with the recommendations. Please refer to the attached study and summary for details. We • �■ II 1 i ll Don Ashworth October 20, 1993 I 4 Page 2 believe that the form of "managed competition" being proposed has the potential to address the 1 4 many issues raised by open collection. At the same time, it has the potential to restrain or reduce costs through improved efficiency while preserving the benefits of a "free market" approach in I terms of customer satisfaction and existing business serving our community. 11 The Recycling Committee has recommended that the City Council, receive the report, initiate licensing to limit the number of haulers to the present six that would decline over time when/if I U a hauler drops out, adopt a resolution of intent to organize waste collections and proceed with the Phase II program of the study where implementation would be developed. Dean Johnson was I asked to prepare a proposal to respond to Phase II assistance. The proposal is attached for your II review. 1 III 1 1 a 1 1 .— 1 1 1 1 1 .— 1 1 • 1 11 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORGANIZED COLLECTION STUDY COMMITTEE 1 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IP FINDINGS 1 • As many as six (6) solid waste collection vehicles and six (6) recycling vehicles currently serve the ll same residential neighborhoods in Chanhassen each week 1 • Garbage cans and recycling bins are visible throughout the community on each week day II • The current open system of collection results in up to five or six times more mileage on residential 1 streets by heavy collection vehicles than required by organized collection i Th A typical solid open waste system collection of collec vetihion cle and typical recycling vehicle, meeting weight restrictions, have the combined cumulative effect on residential street pavement as 1650 automobiles IN may create the equivalent impact on residential streets as nearly 10,000 automobiles each week - up to six times more than required by organized collection 1 • Organized collection will reduce current collection vehicle air emissions, vehicle noise, vehicle 1 fuel consumption, vehicle trips, vehicle miles, residential street wear and aesthetic impacts 1 • The costs of organized collection are lower than the costs of open collection in Carver County and II within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area I • Any change in the current system of open collection will result in varying impacts on existing licensed haulers in the City 1 • The Committee favors an organized collection system which allows existing haulers to continue providing service in the City, while minimizing the negative impacts of open collection II • In a survey of Chanhassen residents, 27% of the respondents were not at all supportive of 1 organized collection, 48% were neutral and 25% were very supportive of organized collection II • Residential organized collection will allow the City to comply with and enforce provisions of I Minnesota Statutes, which require that cities with a population over 1000 ensure that every household in the community has solid waste collection service II I RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the study objectives, review of existing conditions, evaluation of collection impacts, service costs and resident opinions, the Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee 1 recommends that the City Council consider the following actions: III 1. Accept the City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study. 1 2. Initiate licensing and/or ordinance provisions to limit the number of solid waste collection II licenses to a maximum of six, with a declining limit based upon turnover. 1 3. Adopt a Resolution of Intent to organize solid waste collection. I 4. Proceed with Phase 11 of the Organized Collection Study to discuss arrangements for organized 1 collection with existing licensed haulers in Chanhassen. II I r 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: RESOLUTION NO: 1 MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ORGANIZE RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE 1 COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 115A.94 allows cities to organize collection of solid waste and identifies a process fororganization; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the city of Chanhassen provided mailed notice to licensed solid waste haulers and published notice in the official newspaper of a public hearing on May 24, 1993, to consider organizing solid waste collection; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. . A RESOLUTION OF 1 INTENT TO COMMENCE THE PROCESS OF EVALUATION AND PLANNING FOR A POTENTIAL SYSTEM OF ORGANIZED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN; and 1 WHEREAS, The City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study Committee has completed a planning period and summarized its findings and recommendations in the "City Of 111 Chanhassen Organized Collection Study ;" and WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has mailed notice to licensed solid waste haulers, published notice in the official newspaper and held the public hearing on its intent to consider organized collection. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council accepts the "City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study," adopts The Findings and Recommendations of the Organized Collection Study Committee and authorizes the Committee to begin a 90-day review period to discuss possible organized collection arrangements with interested, existing licensed haulers in the City of Chanhassen. 1 - Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 25th day of October, 1993. ATTEST: 1 1 Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor YES 110 ABSENT 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA 1 II NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen will hold a public II hearing at 7:30 p.m., Monday, October 25, 1993 at the Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter 1 Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive input on the 1 recommendations of the City of Chanhassen Recycling Committee, regarding the establishment 1 of organized collection of solid waste in the City. 1 The Recycling Committee completed a 90 -day planning process, which included the review and 1 analysis of the existing open collection system and alternative methods of collection. The II Committee held five public meetings with licensed haulers and residents to discuss organized 1 collection. A summary of the planning process and recommendations of the Recycling II Committee are included in the "City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study." ' Based upon recommendations of the Committee, The City Council will consider a resolution of II intent to organize residential solid waste collection. If the City Council decides to pursue 1 organized collection, the Recycling Committee will begin a 90 -day process to discuss possible II arrangements for organized collection with interested, existing licensed haulers. I Copies of the Organized Collection Study are available for review and inspection at the II P g Y u�sPe I Chanhassen City Hall. All persons who desire to comment on this matter will be heard at the public hearing. II 1 Dated this 8th day of October, 1993. 1 I /s/ Don Ashworth Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager II City of Chanhassen I Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota II II II 1 a 1 or II II November 22, 1993 II Chanhassen City Council II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Don Chimel: I Dear Council Members: Mark Senn, Colleen Dockendorf, I Mike Mason, Richard Wing I attended the Council Meeting November 8th and observed 1 discussion on Organized Collection. Although opposition to this idea seems to be yelling the loudest currently, I believe that the number of quiet organized collection efforts continue. I live in Fox Chase where a group of neighbors assembled one II day last spring. The group was very much in favor of cutting down the haulers and overall trucks which enter our neighbor- hood. With Fox Chase a "Dead End" subdivision, our problem is double the normal hauler route. I volunteered to get quotes for our neighborhood and then heard that the City was considering organized collection from my hauler. If the Council and Mayor would like to get into a 1st phase II of organized collection I make the following suggestions. 1. Stick to issues which no one can dispute! First, wear 1 and tear on City streets. The City has a vested interest in this point, which should be reason enough. I think the Mayor shares this opinion. 1 Secondly, public safety. One garbage truck and one recycling truck per week is safer than ten trucks per I week - period! 2. Begin a test program in a Dead End neighborhood like I Fox Chase where residents will generally be more supportive since they have more to gain. Government and industry test market good ideas in select I regions every day. As the City becomes more comfortable with its program it can expand to more neighborhoods. Perhaps some areas of the City will never be right for I organized collection. a II II 1 1 3. Continue on the minimal involvement track. Make haulers 1 bill direct. The City should assist in selecting bids and handling complaints (it already handles plenty of complaints!). I offer these ideas for Y our discussion in the special council work session scheduled November 29th, as I will not 1 be able to attend. . Si cerely, Steve Hi thun • Daytime phone: 854 -7363 65/0 3c Rc 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSAL , PHASE II - ORGANIZED SOLID WASTE COLLECTION STUDY SOLID WASTE COLLECTION ELEMENTS HAULER NEGOTIATIONS AND SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION I. BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen approved a proposal by Resource Strategies Corporation (RSC) on May 10, 1993 to assist the City in evaluating the potential for organized collection of mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) and recyclables. The Organized Collection Study Committee has completed the 90 -day planning period, prepared the "City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study" with assistance from RSC and submitted recommendations to the City Council to organize collection in 1 the City. Section 90-day "... discuss Minnesota Statutes, S c n 115A.94, identify a 90 day negotiating period to discu possible organized collection arrangements with all licensed collectors operating in the city or town who have expressed interest. If the city or town is unable to agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority of the licensed collectors who expressed interest, or upon expiration the 90 days, the city or town may propose implementation of an alternate method of organization as authorized..." RSC proposes to assist the Organized Collection Study Committee in establishing an organized collection system that reduces environmental impacts, reduces impacts on local streets, reduces , costs of collection to residents, improves overall efficiency of collection and allows the opportunity to existing licensed haulers to continue providing solid waste collection service in the City of Chanhassen. II. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 The following Scope Of Services is an breakdown of tasks required to complete Phase It of the Organized Collection Study, which includes identification of uniform collection programs, , establishment of collection zones, negotiations with existing licensed haulers, amendments to ordinance /licensing provisions, public education and promotional information, implementation ' strategies and service contracts. 1 _ , 1 A. AMEND LICENSING PROVISIONS RSC will prepare amendments to existing hauler licensing provisions to establish limits on the number of licenses issued by the City. ' B. HOUSING UNIT INVENTORY The City will assist RSC in identifying the total number of single family detached and single ' family attached housing units in the City (all households not utilizing centralized solid waste collection service). The household inventory will be summarized by various zones or sectors within the City. C. RESIDENTIAL GROWTH AREAS The City will assist RSC in identifying planned residential growth areas in the City and in making development assumptions and growth projections within the zones identified in paragraph ILA. D. HAULER NOTICE, ACCOUNT VERIFICATION AND ACCOUNT DISTRIBUTION ' RSC will provide notice to existing haulers of the Phase II process and request for participation. It is presumed that uninterested or uncooperative parties will be excluded from contract discussions and future contract participation. RSC will prepare maps and survey forms to solicit detailed 1 account distribution information from haulers. Data collected will be analyzed and organized according to the zones identified in paragraph IIA. E. ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLECTION ZONES ' Based upon data assembled and analyzed, RSC will establish potential hauler collection zones within the City. The zones will be based upon total accounts of existing haulers and, to the extent possible, hauler account distribution within the City and future growth assumptions. F. IDENTIFY UNIFORM COLLECTION PROGRAM BASE SERVICE LEVELS RSC will develop base level curbside collection program criteria and standards. Service levels will be volume based for recycling and reduction incentives and are anticipated to include: ' • Same day recycling (expand existing service requirements) • Senior /disabled services • One can (32 gallon) biweekly service • One can (32 gallon) weekly service • Two can (64 gallon) weekly service • Three can (96 gallon) weekly service ' • Full service weekly • Special collections (ie. Christmas trees, cleanup options) The Committee will determine whether wheeled carts will be required as a base level service ' or as an optional service level to residents. 2 1 1 1 G. DEVELOP UNIFORM COLLECTION PROGRAM SERVICE OPTIONS RSC will identify and summarize collection service options which may be made available to 1 residents for fees in addition to base base level service. Optional services may include but not be limited to the following: • Door step /garage -side pickup • Service level overage fee • Additional recycling collection /referral • Bulky item collection • Yardwaste collection H. DETERMINE PREFERRED ORGANIZED COLLECTION METHOD RSC will present background information to the Committee from cities which utilized existing haulers in establishing organized collection. The Committee will determine the preferred ' organized collection method for the City. L DEFINE CITY AND HAULER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILl'ILES RSC will identify roles and responsibilities for the City and haulers within the proposed organized collection structure. Roles and responsibilities may include but not be limited to the following: • Responding to service inquiries • Responding to complaints • Complaint resolution procedures • Billing process • Reporting requirements • Monitoring requirements • Public education and service promotion J. DEVELOP PERFORMANCE STANDARDS RSC will develop performance standards which reflect City expectations for minimum levels for uniform collection service and the criteria for hauler performance evaluation. The standards will include remedies for performance deficiencies and termination criteria. The standards may include but not be limited to the following: , • Performance guarantee • Personnel requirements • Equipment requirements • Insurance requirements • Surety requirements • Safety and supervision • Monitoring and reporting K. ESTABLISH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS 1 RSC will prepare minimum service contract requirements for Committee, City Attorney and hauler review. The contract(s) will be based upon and include but not be limited to the following: ' 3 1 • Definitions • General provisions • Collection method • Contract services • Collection schedule • Service zones and adjustments • Roles and responsibilities • Service fees and adjustments • Service term, renewal and negotiating windows ' • Performance standards • Remedial actions and termination • Monitoring and reporting • Public education and service promotion ■ • Surety requirements ■ • Inden -iification • Assigi _ ;ent ' L. NEGOTIATE CONTRACT TERMS AND RATES ' RSC will establish base level and optional service fee structures and contract terms for Committee review and evaluation. RSC and the Committee will review and negotiate contract terms and fees with the haulers. The City will maintain the right to publicly bid or negotiate for collection service with other haulers, if negotiations with existing haulers is unsatisfactory to the City. M. AMEND ORDINANCE/LICENSING PROVISIONS RSC will assist the City in preparing amendments to or establishing ordinance and licensing ' provisions which will be necessary to implement organized collection in the City. The provisions will include hauler licensing and contract references and mandatory collection requirements within ' the City. The provisions will also include exemptions to mandatory collection, consistent with State Statutes. N. PREPARE PUBLIC EDUCATION/ PROMOTIONAL INFORMATION RSC will prepare press releases, public education and promotional information which identifies the details of the pending changes in the solid waste collection system in Chanhassen. The City will be responsible for printing and distribution of all information, which may include but not be limited to the following: • Purpose and objectives • Organized Collection Study process and summary • Collection program highlights • Hauler identification • Startup dates ' • Base and optional services • Collection days and zones • Transition issues and expectations • Additional information sources and contacts • Complaint process, contacts and remedies 4 1 O. IMPLEMENT SERVICE CHANGES 1 RSC will present the contract recommendations, licensing /ordinance amendments and implementation schedule to the City Council for review and consideration. RSC will provide 1 additional assistance to the City, as requested, in the implementation and transition to organized collection. i P. STUDY COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT RSC recommends that the Study Committee provide project oversight, comparable to the level of 1 participation in Phase I, to afford a balanced approach to service provisions, contract negotiations and fmal contract recommendations. It is anticipated that the Committee will meet at four 1 intervals in the process, as follows: • Meeting #1 Establish collection zones, service levels and preferred collection method 1 • Meeting #2 Establish roles /responsibilities, performance standards, contract provisions • Meeting #3 Negotiate contract terms and rates • Meeting #4 Recommend final contract /implementation provisions III. COMPENSATION Attachment A illustrates the allocation of time for each task and deadline for each task. RSC proposes to bill the City on an hourly basis, according to the hours estimated on Attachment A for the Scope of Services identified in HA-DP. The fee for professional services, excluding expenses, is estimated at a cost of $14,325. This fee includes attendance at four (4) Committee meetings, two (2) City Council meetings and three (3) staff meetings. This estimate may be considered a "cost not to exceed," provided City staff participation and assistance balances the work tasks as 1 identified. Estimated RSC out -of- pocket expenses include the following: 1 • Copies: surveys /misc. /packets (700 @ $ .10) $70.00 • 196 miles @ $ .275 per mile $ 54.00 • Postage $ 28.00 • Additional meetings: Principal $200.00 /meeting Associate $100.00 /meeting 1 RSC standard billing rates include the following: • Principal $85/hour • Associate $45/hour • Secretary $25/hour • Mileage $.275 /mile • Copies $.10 /page • Phone/Fax Actual cost • Postage Actual cost • Miscellaneous Actual cost 5 1 1 RSC will invoice the City on an hourly basis according to the Scope of Services. RSC will submit detailed monthly invoices, identifying task activities, time allocation, and expenses incurred. RSC will not bill the City for work completed in excess of the Scope of Services, unless written 1 authorization for additional work andjor compensation is issued by the City. V. ACCEPTANCE 1 This Proposal has been accepted by the City this day of , 1993 and RSC agrees to perform all work according to the Scope of Services, Compensation and general 1 conditions contained herein. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESOURCE STRATEGIES CORPORATION • BY BY Its Mayor Its President BY Its City Clerk/Manager 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 ATTACHMENT A I BUDGET I TASK PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE SUPPORT TOTAL I HA 2 1 1 4 1 DB 2 4 -- 6 ITC 2 2 -- 4 HD 16 12 1 29 BE 2 4 -- 6 I IIF 4 6 1 11 IIG 4 6 1 11 IIH 6 8 2 16 I III 6 6 1 13 IIJ 8 4 2 14 ILK 10 8 2 20 IIL 8 6 1 15 I IIM 2 4 2 8 UN 6 12 2 20 HO 10 4 -- 14 I HP 20 14 8 42 TOTAL: 108 101 24 233 RATE/HR $85 $45 S25 - 1 TOTAL $ $9180 $4545 $600 $14,325 1 TIMETABLE 1993 -1994 I (* TENTATIVE COMMITTEE /COUNCIL MEETING DATES ) TASK NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL I HA *11/22 I IIB IIC BD HE I IIF IIG MI *11/30 I III IIJ IIK *12/21 I IIL *1/18 *2 /1 IIM *2/28 IiIN HO HP 7 1