Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

believed they had been organized in the same manner since 1971. Part of the judge's memorandum reads as follows:23 `The City argues that Subd. 6 ("Organized Collection Not Required or Prevented') of the statute makes the otherwise mandatory requirements of Subd. 3(c) optional for cities whose home rule charter provides for governance of the collection of solid waste. But once the City chose to organize parts of its collection, it exercised its authority under the home rule charter as allowed by the option granted in Subdivision 6(a), which states that "the authority granted in this section to organize solid waste collection is optional and is in addition to authority to govern solid waste collection granted by other "law. " (emphasis added). That is not to say that the choice made by the City in 1971 governs in perpetuity; but again, the arguments presented in this case show that the City intends at this time to continue organized collection in parts of the City. In other words, the optional part of Minn. Stat. 115A.94 is whether or not to organize; once the decision to organize has been made, the "shall" language of Subd. 3(c) makes clear, as demonstrated by the 1990 amendments, that cities are mandated to abide by Subd. 3(c) and the procedures of Subd. 4. Indeed, when the City admitted in court that it was operating under the statute for initial organization of commercial areas of downtown Minneapolis, the City made an "affirmative election " to organize collection for those areas and to abide by the statutory procedures in doing so. The City s RFP process chosen by the council on February 10 does not comply by the statutory requirements, and the City's argument that it is not required because this is not an initial organization but a re -organization is erroneous because a re -organization significantly changes the structure of collection, which is exactly what the Organized Collection Act aimed to control. ' A subsequent section of the ruling continues: `As stated earlier, the (City's) charter contains two enumerated powers — the power to provide removal throughout the City, and the power to enter into contracts for that removal. Neither of those powers concern the process by which organization of waste collection is done. That process is the specific subject matter of Minn. Stat. 11 SA.94.... it is clear from the mandatory language of the statute that the Legislature intended to craft a specific law concerning the procedures to be followed when a local government sets up its chosen form of organized collection. The statute was intended to cover all cities, including charter cities, and is intended to occupy the field of the procedures for waste collection organization.' This court case and ruling seems to indicate that for any city to make a change in their existing organized collection structure, they are required to go through the specific and what has proven to be a difficult, lengthy, and potentially expensive process. For example, arguably a city that has a contract for service with an existing hauling company, but desires to seek competitive proposals at the end of the contract term rather than negotiate a contract extension would be required to go through the Organized Collection process. Faced with going through the Organized Collection process, the city may choose to simply negotiate a contract extension without ever having another competitive process. 23 State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin District Court. Sept. 2006. Minneapolis Refuse, Inc. vs. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota. . R - Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements.doc Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC • 29 June 2009