My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2023
>
Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:48 PM
Creation date
3/7/2023 10:21:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/3/2023
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
Packets
Date
3/3/2023
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
393
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Experiences Establishing Collection Systems <br />Parts of this study attempted to gain information regarding municipal experiences with different <br />collection approaches to determine their effectiveness. Selected case studies were covered in <br />Section 2.4.3. The municipal survey included a yes/no question asking cities if they had <br />experience establishing an open or organized residential collection system. If participants <br />responded yes to this question, Foth followed -up with the city contact and requested them to <br />elaborate on their response. Below are lists of responses. The lists are separated into sections <br />based on the type of collection systems. <br />Open MSW/Open Recycling <br />Bloomington <br />• A residential survey conducted in 1995 showed that residents were in favor of an <br />organized collection system. Based on these results the City started the organized <br />process. This did not go any further than the public hearing because several citizens <br />showed up opposing organized collection. <br />Chanhassen <br />• We've tried to establish organized collection. We still have an open system. <br />Otsego <br />Residents like that they can choose their own hauler rather than having them chosen for <br />them. <br />Prior Lake <br />• We looked at organized collection and decided against it at this time. The council <br />decided against organized collection because of the responses received from Prior Lake <br />residents who were fearful of losing their hauler, day of the week and paying more <br />money for the same services. <br />Savage (Shakopee) <br />• (The respondent formerly worked for the city of Shakopee and provided the following <br />comments relating to Shakopee.) <br />At that time (late 80s to early 90s) Waste Management was the contracted hauler for <br />Shakopee's residential solid waste collection. An open system remained in place for <br />commercial properties. Residents in the community were very upset that their right to <br />choose their own hauler was taken away. You would be surprised at how many people <br />work in the solid waste industry that live in your neighborhood — they want to go with the <br />company they work for or their relative/friend works for. You would also be surprised at <br />the number of people who own their own businesses that take their household garbage to <br />their place of business for disposal. These people are upset that they are charged for <br />garbage collection at their house even though they don't use it. During the time frame <br />when Waste Management was the contracted hauler, the City billed residents for their <br />garbage service on their utility bill. When residents would go on extended vacations they <br />wanted to temporarily stop their garbage service. The City would have to adjust the <br />X:\MS\IE\2008\08M081\l0000 reports\Final Appendices\Appendix E -Participant Comments -Municipal, In-depth and Billing.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.