Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

should get out of the refuse collection business altogether. The Collection Plan never came before the City Council for a vote. However, the Mayor stated that something would eventually have to be done about the inefficient collection system in St. Paul. Recurring deficits in the City's refuse collection operations due to the inability of the City to compete with the private sector led to the decision to cease the City collection operation. In the City Council resolution the Mayor's Office was requested to study and review solid waste collection. The Department of Public Works expanded on the request, completing a Solid Waste Management Plan in December,1980. The plan recommended the City analyze six collection alternatives: 1. Modifications of the present open system. 2. Citywide negotiated system (one single contract). 3. Citywide competitive bid system (one single contract). 4. City controlled multiple -district systems. (Multiple, separate bid contracts). 5. Decentralized planning district system. 6. Municipal collection. These recommendations were included in the context of a general solid waste management plan covering resource recovery, source separation, and composting. Although Public Works has never analyzed collection options in detail, some investigation of all these alternatives has occurred. Regarding Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the Director of Public Works transmitted the Solid Waste Management Plan to St. Paul Refuse, Inc., requesting comments on the plan. St. Paul Refuse at the time said it represented haulers collecting from 82 percent of St. Paul residents. In a letter dated February 12,1981, St. Paul Refuse indicated its interest in negotiating a contract with the City covering resource recovery waste supply assurance, recycling, composting, and other issues, as well as mandatory organized collection in St. Paul. Regarding Alternative 5, at least two St. Paul neighborhoods have implemented organized collection on their own (Tangletown,1980, and Thomas-Dale,1982). In April 1982 'St. Paul and Suburban Refuse Association' filed a complaint against District 3/West Side Citizens Organization, Thomas-Dale/District 7 Planning Council, the East Side Development Committee, and the City of St. Paul, alleging that the defendants purposefully planned to eliminate competition in their respective districts without properly complying with City bidding requirements. The three planning districts wished to implement organized collection systems similar to the Tangletown system. The City answered the complaint stating that it was without foundation. The hauler group never responded, having apparently partially achieved its objectives, in that only Thomas -Dale went on to consider establishing an organized system. No other planning district or neighborhood has attempted to do so since 1982. Regarding Alternatives 1 and 6, Public Works is definately not interested in providing municipal collection services again. The City's unofficial policy has been to allow continuation of the existing open hauling system, with private haulers making their own modifications through exchange of customers, to the extent it is legal, in order to make the -2-