My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-23-88 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
11-23-88 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:48:28 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:52:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
P1INUTES <br />City Council <br />November• 23, 1988 <br />Organize~ Mordby asked the Council to give the haulers a chance to resolve the <br />Collection problem, and pointed out that organized collection is always an option <br />(Cont.) the City can go to. <br />Tipler pointed out that it is necessary to haue volume-based fees no <br />matter which system the City goes to. <br />Scalze pointed out that the volume-based fees her• hauler• pr•ovides is <br />not much less that the standard pick-up fee. <br />Tipler• replied that as tipping fees become more expensive, the rates <br />for standard pick-up will rise, putting a bigger gap between those <br />fees and volume-based fees. Tipler reported that volume-based fees <br />and r•ecycling fees will become a marketinq tool. <br />Fahey asked if the hauler•s had the capability of providing weekly tr~ash <br />pick-up as well as weekly r•ecycling pick-iap. <br />Tipler commented that Dakota County just r•ecently became involved in <br />recycling, and the Committee did not look at what Dakota County was <br />doin~, because there was nothing to look at until a few months ago. <br />Tipler stated that the Committee felt that licensing was not the wa,y <br />to r~esolve the situation, since Little Canada woul~ then have to <br />become a police force to make sure things were getting done. The <br />Committee felt a contract would be more binding and workable solution. <br />Ti~ler• stated that the concerns raised by ~lor~dby are not that far• aoar~t <br />and felt that these items can be negotiated. Tipler• agreed that the <br />hauler~s had the capabilities of pr~oviding the services the City needs, <br />and the Committee is aware that fees will increase. However•, Tipler~ <br />felt it important to get into negotiations now. <br />Tipler r•eported that the hauler•s recently expresseA interest in forming <br />a consortium, and the Committee would be willinn to work with them. <br />Scalze expr•essed concer•n that a consortium will not save the citizens <br />as much mone,y as competitive bidding would.. <br />Tipler repliPd that a consortiiam would pr~esent one bid to the City and <br />if the City is not satisfied. with it, the bid can be rejected. <br />Tipler also oointed out that there ar~e three residential haulers in <br />the City and if a consortium were for•med, these haulers could d.ivide <br />the City into thr•ee systems. Ti~ler• pointed out that under this <br />system the entire City could get the same services at the same cost. <br />~ordby replied that the strongest contract is bet~deen the homeowners <br />and the haulers. If the homeowner does not like the service he or she <br />is getting, the homeowner~ can release the contractor~ at any time. <br />~lor•db,y pointed out that the thr•ee haulers in the City have differ~ent <br />percentages of the City's business. Dividing the City into three <br />zones ma,y give a hauler~ more business than he curr•ently has, anc+ another <br />hauler• less. <br />Page-21- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.