My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-14-07 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
03-14-07 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2009 1:20:49 PM
Creation date
4/23/2008 2:19:16 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.
/
14
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
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />MARCH 14, 2007 <br />Daniel Sjobeck, 2674 Schletty Drive, reported that he works in Roseville <br />and one of the benefits his employer provides is to allow employees to <br />dispose of their hash at work. Sjobeck reported that his property has <br />never been in an unkempt condition. Sjobeck reported that he is also able <br />to bring recyclable materials, exceptfor plastic,to his place of <br />employment. <br />The City Administrator noted that the recycling cost is $4.50 per month <br />and the bulky item cost is $1.38 per month, for a total of $5.88 per month. <br />City staff is proposing no exemption to the recycling and bulky item costs. <br />(This is a change from the current ordinance.) <br />Montour agreed that any exemptions should not include the recycling and <br />bulky item costs. His concern was with spending a lot of staff time in <br />verification of exemptions. Allan indicated that she was against any <br />exemptions except for out of town travel a minimum of one month in <br />duration. Allan felt the exemptions were somewhat confusing as well as <br />unenforceable. Allan felt that refuse collection was a service similar to <br />sewer and water services, and that everyone should be included. <br />McGraw stated that he struggled with an exemption if a resident worked <br />for a trash hauler, but no exemption to a resident who works for a business <br />that allows employees to dispose of their trash at work. McGraw stated <br />that his concern was with the equity and fairness of the situation. McGraw <br />indicated that he supported the recommendation for no exemption for <br />recycling and bulky item costs. <br />Allan noted that she owns a business in Little Canada and has trash <br />collection at both her home and business. Allan felt that was the proper <br />thing to do, and did not support exemptions for business owners or <br />employees who can bring their trash to work. Allan also felt it was <br />inequitable to allow business owners an exemption, but not employees <br />who can bring their trash to work. Allan felt, therefore, that it would be <br />best to limit exemptions to extended travel of a minimum of 30 days. <br />Sjobeck reported that he agrees with the concept of organized collection <br />noting that it keeps the City clean. However, he requested that exemptions <br />be allowed for residents who can bring their trash to their place of <br />employment. Sjobeck stated that if his employment changed, he would <br />notify the City to resume his trash service. <br />Jake Lesnick, 78 Jessica Court, indicated that he owns an auto repair <br />business in White Bear Lake and has a hazardous waste disposal license. <br />Lesnick stated that he has been bringing his trash to work for the past 10 <br />years due to the cost savings of not having to pay for trash service in two <br />locations. Lesnick noted that his property is in orderly condition and he <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.