Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Despite extensive study by the city of Falcon Heights Solid Waste Commission with conclusions that interests of the residents of Falcon Heights would be best served by organizing collection, the City Council was not able to proceed. 2.4.3.3 City of Minneapolis The city of Minneapolis has continuously been involved in some form of city-wide organized collection since at least 1902.20 In the early 1970's, the City decided to develop a split system in which approximately half of the City would be serviced by municipal crews and the other half would be serviced by a contracted hauler. At that time, Minneapolis Refuse Inc. (MRI) was formed as a consortium of a large number of pre-existing haulers and was awarded a contract to service half the City without a competitive procurement process. Municipal crews provide the same basic level of service in the other half, thus maintaining a balance of public/private service provision. These actions were taken long before the Organized Collection Act was adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1987. The authority for the City to organize collection is provided in the City's home rule charter that provides authority to enter into contracts to collect solid waste. Over the years, the City and MRI continued to negotiate five-year extensions to the collection contract up until and including a five-year extension in 2002. Thus, from 1971 through 2007, the City never competitively bid the waste collection contract. In 2005, the City developed a Business Plan for Solid Waste and Recycling Services that included competitive sourcing of this contract as a prudent public policy.21 A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by the City in March, 2006. MRI filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin the RFP process on the grounds that the City had not followed the Organized Collection Statute process that requires the 180 day planning and discussion process. The injunction was granted to MRI and the City was required to follow the Organized Collection process. The City claimed that the City was not required to follow that process since they had become organized well before 1987 when the Organized Collection Act was originally adopted. The City noted that the Organized Collection statute merely provides statutory authority for those cities that do not otherwise have authority to organize collection. Further, the City noted that Subd. 6. (c) of the Organized Collection statute provides that a city may exercise any authority granted by another law to govern collection of solid waste, including a home rule charter.22 The lawsuit between MRI and the city of Minneapolis went before a Hennepin County District Court judge, who issued his ruling on September 15, 2006. The ruling was in favor of MRI causing the City to be required to follow the Organized Collection process even though the City 20 "Procedures for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Contract." Dec. 1996. Office of the City Attorney, City of Minneapolis, MN. 21 Letter to the Honorable Sandra Colvin Roy, Chair, Transportation and Public Works Committee. Oct. 10, 2006. Dept. of Public Works, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 22 "Procedures for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Contract." Dec. 1996. Office of the City Attorney, City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. . 28 •Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC R - Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements.doc June 2009