Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1992/05/04 kth& $ook • IMAGENPAINEEBBEE .............................:.. .O U PUWOR C:: RatoNi:: 1 . Consideration of Insurance Options (Don Brager, Finance Director) 2. Consideration of Newly Designed City Lapel Pin and City Flag and Authorization for Purchase of Each (Tim Cruikshank, Management Assistant) 3. Trailways Advocacy Group Proposal Presentation (Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry) - 7:30 p.m. 4. Park and Recreation Commission (to follow Trailways Advocacy • Group Proposal) 5. Single Garbage Hauler and Recycler - City Wide (Environmental Quality Task Force) 6. Continued Discussion of Surface Water Management Utility (Ric Minetor, Public Works Director/City Engineer (SEH and Staff) 7. Update on Regional Senior Center (Samantha Orduno, City Administrator and Mary Saarion, Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry) 8. Request for Additional Summer Hours for Mary Johnson, Program Supervisor (Mary Saarion, Parks, Recreation and Forestry) 9. Continued Discussion of Police Department Remodeling (Ric Minetor, Public Works Director/City Engineer) - i y Wide Parking Restrictions (Ric Minetor, Public Works Director/ City Engineer and Tim Ramacher, Police Chief) II. Outdoor Water Use Restrictions for 1992 (Ric Minetor, Public Works Director/City Engineer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 1. nriorOUNDS 92-251WS STAFF REPORT Report Number: BM AGENDA SESSION DATE MAY 4 , 199 2 Report Date: 4/29/92 DISPOSITION Item Description: CONSIDERATION OF LARGER DEDUCTIBLE ON INSURANCE POLICIES Administrator's Review/Recommendation: /,(� - No comments to supplement this report 1!1.64`' - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; Presently the City has a $5,000 deductible on it's insurance policies with an annual aggregate of $50,000. This means that the most that the City would pay for one loss would be $5,000 and the most that the City would pay for all losses in one year would be $50,000. The chart below shows the City's experience with this deductible. Savings Claims Net Savings 87/88 $ 8,000 $ 7,608 + $ 392 88/89 $ 13,000 $ 5,805 + $ 7,195 89/90 $ 23,639 $ 6,259 + $ 17,380 90/91 $ 25,764 $ 6,008 + $ 19,756 91/92 $ 30,148 N/A N/A 9-2/-93 $ 21,300— N/A N/A The City's experience with a $5,000 deductible has been favorable and has resulted in substantial savings on insurance premiums. A $10,000 deductible with a $50,000 aggregate would result in a further savings of approximately $5,000. An analysis of the City's claims experience for the last six years (1985 - 1991) shows the following: �-/' Donald Brager, Financ irector RECOMMENDATION; May 4, 1992 Page 2 Total all claims reported 72 Total claims closed without payment 42 Total claims less than $5,000 26 Total claims over $5,000 4 Of the four claims which exceeded $5,000 the year of occurrence and the amount of each claim is: 1986 $ 230,000 1987 $ 12,612 1988 $ 16,695 1990 $ 20,000 The premium savings for increasing the deductible to $10,000 is $5,000 per year. In four of the last five years the City would have paid an additional $5,000 in claims for a total additional cost of $20,000. The savings in premium during that time would 'have been $25,000 for a net savings of $5,000. If any year were to have two losses over $10,000 the City would loose money with this deductible arrangement. I do not feel that there are sufficient premium savings to justify assuming the additional financial risk of a $10,000 deductible. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 2• o�NDDS 92-252WS STAFF REPORT Report Number: Report Date: 4/29/9 2 AGENDA SESSION DATE MAY 4 , 19 9 2 p DISPOSITION Item Description: NEWLY DESIGNED LAPEL PIN AND CITY FLAG AND AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE THE SAME Administrator's Review/Recommendation: q� - No comments to supplement this report Nib - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; I have received prototype samples from Identity, Inc . for two different styles of the newly designed City lapel pin. One of the samples has a green border around the Mounds View logo and one sample has a blue border. These samples will be available at the meeting for your review. The price quotation is: • 500 pieces $1.25 ea. • 1000 pieces $1. 09 ea. • 2000 pieces $1. 05 ea. In addition, there is a one-time die charge of $50. I have also received a quotation from Upwind Products for pricing on a new City flag. The specifications of the flag are 4 ' x 6 ' , made of nylon and can include up to three colors. It has been suggested that the design of the flag be the same or similar to the design of the new lapel pins . The quotation for the flag is: • one ( 1) appliqued $182 • six (6) screen printed $457 (Six is the minimum for the silk screen process. ) tiimOut T-im-C-r-uikshank,- Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION; Make a selection as to the design of the City lapel pin and City flag and grant authorization to purchase each. Agenda Section: 3 . 0�9G�JDS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 92—2 5 3WS Report Date: 4/2 9/9 2 PES STAFF REPORT Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business ❑ Public Hearings AGENDA SESSION: MAY 4 , 1992 ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: TRAILWAYS ADVOCACY GROUP PROPOSAL PRESENTATION Administrator's Review/Recommendation: A - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY: The Mounds View Trailways Advocacy Group will be presenting the proposal for a Trailways System at the Monday, May 4 Work Session. Linka Holey will present the goals and objectives that was established by the group. Also, a resolution will be presented for consideration. Tom Fields will walk the Council through the trailway routes noting linkages and connections to neighboring trailways. In your packet you will find the proposal. This proposal is expected to be outdated as time goes on. New opportunities may arise for trailway development which would need to be added. Trails which become developed will need to be indicated on the map. For this reason the TAG wishes to remain a viable group meeting approximately once each quarter or as necessary. This proposal will be reviewed and updated as changes, developments, opportunities become available. The seven to nine consistent members of the TAG have been a great group of workers. They have worked as a team, discussing, debating, cooperating, compromising and finally completing a project for the benefit of the Community. My hat goes off to this group of residents which I think did a tremendous job! M.. y Apirec_ Ar of Parks_, Reoreationand Forestry RECOMMENDATION: To consider acceptance of the proposal presented by the Trailways Advocacy Group and adopt Resolution #4227. Agenda Section: 4 . WNW REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 9 2—2 5 4WS STAFF REPORT Report Date: 4/29/92 nitV'SICouncil Action: ❑ Special Order of Business ❑ Public Hearings AGENDA SESSION: MAY 4 , 1992 ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report JD - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY; The Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission members wish to address the City Council at the May 4th Work Session. The Commission wishes to express their recommendation that the City consider as a priority the subsidization of youth programming in the planning of the 1993 budget. The Commission also wishes to offer their "advise" regarding potential Park Dedication fee charges for the Everest Development addition proposal. - r7- 7f - ar Dire•/or of Parks , Recreation and Forestry. RECOMMENDATION; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 5. liU NDSTAFF REPORT Report Number: 92-257 WS REWReport Date: 4/3 0/9 2 AGENDA SESSION DATE MAY 4 , 1992 DISPOSITION Item Description: SINGLE GARBAGE HAULER AND RECYCLER - CITY WIDE Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report iiiA - Comments attached. L Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY: Per Council direction, staff has investigated the City's options with respect to changing our current system of waste hauling. Attached is listing of these options and an analysis of some of the potential benefits and drawbacks of each option. It is assumed in the listing that the hauler(s) licensed or contracted by the city will continue to provide recycling pick-up. An excerpt from the Metropolitan Council's "Study of Organized Refuse Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area" is also included for your reference. Although this study was completed in 1985, much of the data and information are still relevant today. Clp.N_Q-AL 0J0iii4J5-Its.i Carla As-les-en Recycling Coordinator RECOMMENDATION: Options for Waste Hauling Service City Billing 1. Contract with one hauler to service the entire city; mandatory service to all residents. 2. Contract with one hauler to service the entire city, but allow residents to use a different hauler if they wish (haulers would do billing for those "opting out"). 3. Contract with a limited number of haulers to service specified areas of the city (rates and recycling determined by contract); mandatory service to all residents with hauler servicing their street. Hauler Billing 4. Contract with one hauler to service the entire city; mandatory service to all residents. 5. Allow open hauling as we have now, but require that pick-ups be done on specified days in each area of the city. Garbage Hauling Options Option #1: Contract with one hauler to service the entire city; mandatory service to all residents; city would do all billing Pros: • City would be assured that all residents have waste service. • Wear on roads, pollution, and noise of trucks would be reduced with less trucks on the road. • Data collection for state and county agencies would be simplified. • Recycling would be done by one hauler; everyone in the city could recyclP the same items in the same manner - recycling participation likely to increase. • Persons with delinquent bills could have their garbage fees assessed to their property taxes . Cons: • Some residents may be satisfied with their current hauler and would not want to switch. • Loss of some license revenue (could be made up with administrative fee on bill) . • Some increase in staff work load, especially when program first begins: answering resident questions, setting up individual service plans, etc. Option #2 : Contract with one hauler to service the entire city, but allow residents to use a different hauler if they wish (hauler would do billing for those "opting out" ) . City would do billing for those residents using the city service. Pros: • Residents would have their choice of hauler and of billing system. • Wear on roads, pollution, and noise of trucks would be reduced IF fewer haulers choose to operate in the city. • Data yah id—be—s-imp-ie-r—IF -ewer—h-auler-s—e-hoose to operate in the city._ • City would be able to document garbage service to some of its residents; would need to obtain customer lists from private haulers to be assured of city-wide service (per state law) . Cons: • Participation rate for this type of program is unknown. Without a high participation rate in the City program, - program costs (staff time, promotional materials, etc. ) would outweigh potential benefits . • Recycling would not be standardized; materials collected and pick-up requirements would still vary by hauler. • City's rates would need to remain below private industry in order to attract residents to the city program. Option #3 : Contract with a limited number of haulers to service specified areas of the city (rates and recycling rules set by contract) ; mandatory service to residents with hauler servicing their street; either City or hauler could do billing. Pros: • City would be assured that all residents have waste service. • Wear on roads, pollution, and noise of trucks would be reduced with less trucks on the road. • Data collection for state and county agencies would be somewhat sim•lified de•endin• on number of haulers) . • If city does billing, persons with delinquent bills cou • have their garbage fees assessed to their property taxes. • Allows for more haulers to continue business within the city. Cons: • Some residents may be satisfied with their current hauler and would not want to switch to the one assigned to their area. • Loss of some license revenue (could be made up with administrative fee for billing) . • Increase in staff work load, especially when program first begins: answering resident questions, setting up service plans, etc. Depending upon the number of haulers participating, the amount of paperwork and time coordinating efforts among the haulers could be extensive. Option #4 : Contract with one hauler to service the entire city; mandatory service to all residents; hauler would do all billing. Pros: • City would be assured that all residents have waste service. • Wear on roads, pollution, and noise of trucks would be reduced with less trucks on the road. • Data collec state and—Bounty agencies—would—be simplified. • Recycling would be done by one hauler; everyone in the city could recycle the same items in the same manner - recycling participation likely to increase. Cons: • Some residents may be satisfied with their current hauler and would not want to switch. • Loss of some license revenue. • Hauler billing would likely be more expensive to residents than city billing. Option #5: Allow open hauling as we have now, but require that pick- ups be done on specified days in each area of the city. Hauler would continue to do all billings. Pros: • Residents would be able to use the hauler that they choose. • Trucks would be in a given area only one day per week. • Minimal public education needed to enforce new ordinance. • All haulers currently operating in the City could continue to do so; no loss of license fees to the City. Cons: • Truck traffic on pick-up day would be very heavy; no decrease in pollution or wear on roads. • Recycling would continue Lo be dune by eight different haulers . This makes public education efforts difficult, as each hauler collects different materials . • City could not ensure that all households are being serviced by a hauler. • Data collection for state and county agencies would continue to be tedious and difficult. 15147797 772,0 e<91-u-2eLl ,e,24,6-22,- CAN ORGANIZED COLLECTION REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY? Organized collection does reduce nuisance impacts associated with several refuse collectors picking up waste on the same block. Organized collection reduces wear and tear on roads and improves air quality because fuel consumption is reduced. Organized collection improves public safety because fewer miles are traveled by garbage trucks thereby decreasing the potential for accidents. The expected life of any street or alley surface is related to the traffic which is carried by the street or alley. The roadway surface is particularly affected by heavy wheel loads. The effect on a roadway of one refuse truck is equivalent to 1,500 automobiles. This figure has been documented by the Research Section of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and is currently used by Mn/DOT in street and highway design. In its organized collection efforts, St. Paul estimated to what degree the life of a street can be extended if refuse collection were organized. The city assumed that if under the current system, where each household arranges for collection, traffic volume on a given street is 500 cars per day and five refuse trucks per week, the equivalent traffic on the street amounts to 11,000 cars per week. Under an organized collection system with only one refuse truck per week, the equivalent traffic on the street is 5,000 cars per week. The comparison shows that the effect on the roadway by traffic may be substantially reduced. Realistically, all streets might not last substantially longer under an organized collection system because roadway life is dependent upon many other factors than traffic. However, traffic does have a significant effect upon roadway life. These additional roadway costs are external costs passed on to the city as a consequence of each household arranging for refuse collection. The reduced mileage that refuse trucks travel can reduce the potential number of accidents involving garbage trucks. Reducing the number of miles traveled by garbage trucks reduced traffic congestion and may reduce the number of accidents. Emissions of air pollutants would be reduced because garbage trucks would reduce total mileage. The precise reduction in pollutants as a result of moving to an organized collection system is difficult to predict because there are both gasoline and diesel powered collection vehicles, and it is difficult to estimate the reduction in traffic congestion and miles traveled by garbage trucks that would be achieved by organized collection. The emission rates of pollutants vary according to the speed of the vehicle with more emissions at lower speeds. Emissions of importance include hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Heavy duty diesel trucks also emit particulates, sulfur oxides, aldehydes, and organic acids. Of particular concern are particulate emissions from diesel engines because they contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons-(PAH)which are known carcinogens: Organized collection is one of several methods that could improve neighborhood aesthetics. It could eliminate the unsightliness of containers set out for collection sometimes every day of the week on some blocks. Organized collection could discourage illegal dumping and stockpiling of unwanted and unsightly items in backyards because the costs of removal are generally extra where a household arranges for collection with a waste hauler. Reducing litter, dumping, and stockpiling could contribute to public health and safety. LnC.((.+ �..t..t� LIABILITIES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ORGANIZED COLLECTION There are four potential liabilities or disadvantage to organized collection of refuse. Organized collection reduces an individual's choice of garbage collectors, requires additional municipal involvement, broaches anti-trust issues, and could potentially adversely affect existing refuse companies. Households that currently arrange with a hauler for refuse removal would no longer be able to select the hauler of their choice. This runs counter the nationwide trend of permitting individuals more choice in the type and level of services desired. However, a survey by the Minnesota Center for Social Research completed March 29, 1985, showed broad-based support for municipal control, with 77 percent of those respondents who now select their garbage hauler willing to let the city decide, although some agree only if it reduces their cost. r. . . . . . I,. 'i• •k .bout 11 •ercent of the so•ulation or about 20 I ercent of the re s ondents who selected their garbage hauler, who felt strongly that they wanted to retain choice. The study suggests that this group be studied further to identify their concerns. Organized collection will require municipalities with unorganized refuse collection to become more involved in refuse collection issues. Because there is a great del of satisfaction among households and businesses about the manner in which refuse is handled, it may be difficult to explain why additional government involvement is necessary. Municipalities will have to overcome the concern, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" Although the cost differentials to the households of the different market structures is not great, the sum of the costs to all the households in the city over a period of.a year's time can be significant. For example, if St. Paul went to an organized collection system, it could expect an annual savings of at least $1 million based upon 64,986 single-family units and a $1.50 differential in cost per household per month. Municipalities will incur costs associated with administration, billing, and monitoring of the contract. Billing can be done in conjunction with other municipal billings such as property tax statements or utility bills. National studies show that billing expenses are much less if handled by the municipality rather than by the waste hauler. Administration and monitoring costs amount to about five percent of the total cost of the contract according to the study by Ecodata, Inc. How organized collection is implemented in the region may be affected by anti-trust law. This matter requires additional study. Implementation of organized collection by municipalities has the potential to adversely impact some refuse collection companies. An increase in productivity means that fewer people are needed to perform the same function. Consequently,, fewer collection-crews-would be needed-to-collect-refuse-under-an _organized collection system. Whether this means a reduction in collection companies depends upon how organized collection is implemented. The businesses of some waste haulers, particularly those operating part-time or collecting waste as a job on the side, may be adversely affected. The implementation of the waste management system envisioned by the Council's solid waste policy plan may work to offset any negative impacts upon the collection industry as a result of organized collection. The provision services for yard waste, recyclables, and household hazardous wastes may compensate for the reduction in the labor force if organized collection were implemented by a significant number of cities in the region. Also, there- isan importunity-for new business ventures into management of the yard waste compost sites or recyclables processing facilities. The expansion or development of new industries as a result of increase recycling activities could also increase the demand for labor. L°t-P."1- a 4)u-A-1-4). 12412-61-1- FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Organized collection may reduce the costs of residential refuse collection by increasing collection efficiencies. Additional study is needed to determine if organized collection may benefit commercial and industrial waste generators. 2. Organized collection reduces adverse environmental impacts when more than one hauler services a given area or provides the same type of collection service. 3. Organized collection does not inherently increase participation in recycling or other abatement programs. It can be implemented in ways that would help to achieve the abatement objectives of the Solid Waste Management Guide/Policy Plan. 4. Organized collection cannot substitute for waste designation by the county, but can complement it. 5. Municipalities and towns have adequate authority to organize collection of residential refuse. 6. Organized collection of residential refuse may be a net benefit to solid waste management because it may reduce costs and environmental impacts; help abatement programs; and improve information about waste generation, composition, and abatement. 7. There is no need for a regional system for implementation of organized collection. However, individual communities should consider the potential benefits of organized collection. s q ��, ] iiia . ,- T I- 1` 115A.93 WASI'L� MANAGEMENT, 2866 7 ?. .` . for recyclable n � ; SA.924 [Repealed, 1990 c 604 art:10 s 32]:x. �- i;I 11' • .925:,-:-,- [Repealed,.1990 c 604 art 10 s 32].ry ,> .. . fi�' �;.m•organized finals are or wil 115A.!27.- [Repealed,- 1990 c 604 art 10 s 32] `- tely collected ( l • i15A.9 [Repealed, 1990 c 604 art 10 s 32] , ' `" .g process. 11 •• ;11 iThelocalg I LICENSING OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION , .ns-including 1 • - . ernment un•it, i I!' I� 115A.93 LICE ,ING OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION. - . . ,llsbmg the'or� Subdivision 1. .icense required.A person may not collect mixed'municipal solid ',(d) Organized I' ;1; waste for hire withou . license from the-jurisdiction where the mixed municipal solid c ude a:requireir • ' waste is collected. 4 finals.and (2) I "I I Subd. 2.Licensing.(a ach city and town may issue licenses for persons to collect 1..---,,,, . qty'in operat 1"I I" " mixed municipal solid wast- or hire within their jurisdictions. �,.•: a facility_iden 11 •!I.: I • (b) County boards shall.b• resolution adopt the licensing authority of a city or urcerecovery town that does not issue licenses. • ounty may delegate its licensing authority to a con- . ; • collectic sortium of counties or to municipal 'es to license collection of mixed municipal solid • Subd:4 c u 1 1 I waste within the county.- --' .an o0. rdinance, ! . Subd. 3.License requirements.(a)A •censing authority shall require to the extent city or town,by r i1 1 I possible that charges for collection of mix- , municipal solid waste vary with the vol- `a ection andmv 1, '41 !4 ume or weight of the waste collected. : 'operate=solid.vc • (b) A licensing authority may impose req ' ements that are consistent with the 'llectipn system. �: county's solid waste policies as a condition of re ;•ving and maintaining a license. (b) The resol I I:I { ' • , beheld at leN I I" I History: ISp1989 c 1 art 20 s 8 t, ` e cheld toe. If !afailuretogiv I( ) YARD WASTE ' ; .«` 111'd 1 I -.. - :: . _ : ._; - ��a� made ��dings, 1 ! 115A.931- LAND DISPOSAL OF YARD WASTE. , _- Darin a I `! r;, (a) Except as authorized by the agency,in the metropolitan •.ea after January 1, :lc), g i; elop.or super �!! 1990,and outside the metropolitan area after January 1, 1992, a pe\on may not dis- , ' g this aper ! I `I I I'I pose of yard waste: 'ce of persons I III.I I - • (1),in mixed municipal solid waste;, - ie' tion;service ! �i�?. '{ . . Tann: 4 ! -.-- (2) in a disposal facility; or . - y p (3) in a resource recovery facility except for the purposes of composti : or co- person the o? III ) ! iii composting. • '. d For 90 c I; .11 " (b) Yard waste subject to this subdivision is garden wastes,leaves,lawn cutti gs, i ` • ',,(c) the cit) ii II, weeds, and prunings. ,' censed cone I' 'i '1 History: 1988 c 685 s 21 t` is u) --11:4:-i h nied I I! ,I - _ ' e e t or ! ;I: RGANIZED COLLECTION1 • _ .;.11eetion as i�! 115A.94 ORGANIZED COLLECTION. = e)).The'cit) 1`�"describ( 1 1 . Subdivision 1. Definition. "Organized collection" means a system for collecting y ed col ' solid waste in which a specified collector,or a member of an organization of collectors, !-.-34-v .reg:. _. i '"• is authorized to collect from a defined geographic service area or areas some or all of (2.'evaluat the solid waste that is released by generators for collection. - -- ,: /�4 standarc Subd. 2.Local authority.A city or town may organize collection,after public noti , - gs1 fication as required-in subdivision 4.A county may organize-collection-as-pr-ovided-in ;' ;i; W I, e •ecision- ,1-11H., - subdivision 5. Pons• "I Subd. 3.General provisions.(a)The local government unit may organize collection -, organiza as a municipal service or by ordinance, franchise, license, negotiated or bidded con- ^\4. .�.C I I I , tract, or other means, using one or more collectors or an or anization of collectors. g o ''$ ';Witt i': (b) The local government unit may not establish or administer organized collec- , �;t1es;Witt dill:: ition in a manner that impairs the preservation and development of recycling and mar- maI 1 p 3 9 7• li 2866 2867 WASTE MANAGEMENT 115A.94 kets for recyclable materials.The local government unit shall exempt recyclable materi- „ I als from organized collection upon a showing by the generator or collector that the II materials are or will be separated from mixed municipal solid waste by the generator, 1 f separately collected,and delivered for reuse in their original form or for use in a manu- ; 1 facturing process. (c) The local government unit shall invite and employ the assistance of interested ; persons,including persons licensed to operate solid waste collection services in the ideal i government unit, in developing plans and proposals for organized collection and in cipal solid i establishing the organized collection system. cipal solid (d) Organized collection accomplished by contract or as a municipal service may include a requirement that all or any portion of the solid waste, except(1)recyclable materials and (2) materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the s to collect capacity in operation at the time that the requirement is imposed, be delivered to a waste facility identified by the local government unit. In a district or county where a f a city or ' resource recovery facility has been designated by ordinance under section 115A.86, :y to a con- organized collection must conform to the requirements of the designation ordinance. cipal solid Subd. 4.Cities and towns;notice;planning.(a)At least 180 days before implement- : an ordinance, franchise, license,contract or other means of organizing collection, the extent a c' or town,by resolution of the governing body,shall announce its intent to organize th the vol- toile• ion and invite the participation of interested persons,including persons licensed to ope :to solid waste collection services,in planning and establishing the organized t with the collectio ystem. \. license. (b) Th- esolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing. The hearing must be held . least two weeks after public notice and mailed notice to persons known • by the city or to to be operating solid waste collection services in the city or town. \ . The failure to give ailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings, pro ided a bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has been made. January 1, (c) During a 90-day .-riod following the resolution of intent,the city or town shall iy not dis- develop or supervise the d- elopment of plans or proposals for organized collection. During this 90-day planning .-riod,the city or town shall invite and employ the assis- tance of persons licensed as oft`- date of the resolution of intent to operate solid waste collection services in the city or t•wn. Failure of a licensed collector to participate in the 90-day planning period,when th- ity or town has made a bona fide effort to provide ing or co- the person the opportunity to partici.,te, does not invalidate the planning process. n (d) For 90 days after the date endi : the planning period required under para- ._cuttings, graph(c),the city or town shall discuss poss.•le organized collection arrangements with all licensed collectors operating in the city or •wn who have expressed interest.If the cit or town is unable to a: ee on an organized •llection arran:ement with a majority - of the licensed collectors who have expressed in ; est, or upon expiration of the 90 days,the city or town may propose implementation an alternate method of organiz- ing collection as authorized in subdivision 3. (e) The city or town shall make specific findings tha collecting (1) describe in detail the procedures it used to plan and t• attempt implementation collectors, of organized collection through an arrangement with collectors .ho expressed interest; e or all of and (2) evaluate the proposed organized collection method in light •fat least the fol- ublic noti- lowing standards: achieving the stated organized collection goals of ,e city or town; rovided in minimizing displacement of collectors;ensuring participation of all int- ested parties ' in the decision-making process;and maximizing efficiency in solid waste•:llection. collection (f) Upon request,the city or town shall provide mailed notice of all pro,eedings dded con- on the organization of collection in the city or town. ►llectors. Subd. 5.County organized collection.(a)A county may by ordinance require cities , sed collet-- and towns within the county to organize collection. Organized collection ordinances and mar- of counties may: 1 ;I I G1q 0 115A.94 WASTE MANAGEMENT 2868 2869 (1) require cities and towns to require the separation and separate collection of subdivisic recyclable materials; of identif (2) specify the material to be separated; and made fror. i( (3) require cities and towns to meet any performance standards for source separa- Subd. tion that are contained in the county solid waste plan. may adopt (b) A county may itself organize collection in any city or town that does not com- ply with a county organized collection ordinance adopted under this subdivision, and soil amen( the county may implement, as part of its organized collection, the source separation preservati program and performance standards required by its organized collection ordinance. Subd. Subd. 6.Organized collection not required or prevented.Except as provided in sub- of agricult division 5, a city, town, or county is not: the retailer (1) required to organize collection; or sion 4. Info (2) prevented from organizing collection of solid waste or recyclable material. sound way Subd. 7.Anticompetitive conduct.(a)A political subdivision that organizes collec- tion under this section is authorized to engage in anticompetitive conduct to the extent Subd. necessary to plan and implement its chosen organized collection system and is immune uct that is from liability under state laws relating to antitrust,restraint of trade,unfair trade prac- tices, and other regulation of trade or commerce. (1) of (b) An organization of solid waste collectors, an individual collector, and their or near the officers, members, employees, and agents who cooperate with a political subdivision shall be affi that organizes collection under this section are authorized to engage in anticompetitive (2) ma conduct to the extent necessary to plan and implement the organized collection system, agency at tt provided that the political subdivision actively supervises the participation of each offered for entity. An organization, entity, or person covered by this paragraph is immune from � (3) con liability under state law relating to antitrust, restraint of trade,unfair trade practices, History and other regulation of trade or commerce. History: 1987 c 348 s 27; 1989 c 325 s 26,27; 1990 c 600 s 1,2 115A.953 I. ! The offs VISIBLE COSTS commission products are 1 ,.945 VISIBLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT COSTS. History: An• .olitical subdivision that provides or pays for the costs of collection or dis- posal of so ', waste shall, through a billing or other system, make the prorated share 115A.956 S of those costs . each solid waste generator visible and obvious to the generator. Subdivis History: 1Sp19r' c 1 art 20 s 9 develop a pla and disposal c RECYCLABLE MATE' S PROHIBITED FROM CERTAIN FACILITIES be in mixed 1 Subd. 2, 1-15-A:95—RECYCLABLE-MAT '+4'_i-S. s flat suffr 1 n A resource recovery facility that is c: posting waste,burning waste,or converting plan for separ waste to energy or to materials for combus '.n, and is owned or operated by a public problem mate agency or supported by public funds or by ob 1.lions issued by a public agency, may facility and lr not accept recyclable materials except for transfer • a recycler,unless no other person mixed munici is willing to accept the recyclable materials. History: History: 1985 c 274 s 13; 1987 c 348 s 28 ::09-(/).i A.9561 N A - �c PROBLEM MATERIALS -' person ',,:t se of major 115A.952 RETAIL SALE OF-PROBLEM-MATERIALS, UNIFORM--P=BEL-ING The age AND CONSUMER INFORMATION. Q t History: 1 Subdivision 1.Duties of agency;rules.The agency may adopt rules to identify p •d- ucts that are used primarily for personal,family,or household purposes and that consti igt; ; 4= HOt tute a problem material or contain a problem material as defined in section 115A.03, . 3 Subdivisio y.. K t'. , 7 1 1981 115A.935 WASTE MANAGEMENT 20 21 was e in , -, ' .: : •• - -d motor oil,waste lead acid batteries,yard town has solid waste c waste,major appliances,and any other item speci c. • •• a rom the waste stream organize collection, p under this chapter. and business has a C. History: 1991 c 337 s 45 section must provide (b) A city or toy. 115A.94 ORGANIZED COLLECTION.-) household or busines lection service if the [For text of subds 1 to 3, see M.S.1990] alternative is used. Subd. 4.Cities and towns;notice;planning.(a)At least 180 days before implement- (c) To the exten ing an ordinance, franchise,license, contract or other means of organizing collection, must be incorporat: a city or town,by resolution of the governing hndy,shall announce its intent to organize adopted under this s collection and invite the participation of interested persons,including persons licensed History: 1991 c to operate solid waste collection services, in planning and establishing the organized NOTE:This section,a collection system. 337,section 91. (b) The resolution of intent must be adopted after a public hearing. The hearing 115A.953 [Repea must be held at least two weeks after public notice and mailed notice to persons known by the city or town to be operating solid waste collection services in the city or town. 115A.956 SOLID The failure to give mailed notice to persons or defect in the notice does not invalidate Subdivision 1. the proceedings, provided a bona fide effort to comply with notice requirements has develop a plan that been made. and disposal of pro• (c) During a 90-day period following the resolution of intent,the city or town shall be in mixed munici develop or supervise the development of plans or proposals for organized collection. want regional charm During this 90-day planning period,the city or town shall invite and employ the assis- and disposal techn tance of persons licensed as of the date of the resolution of intent to operate solid waste Subd. 2. Prob collection services in the city or town. Failure of a licensed collector to participate in that sufficient pros the 90-day planning period,when the city or town has made a bona fide effort to provide 15, 1992,the offic: the person the opportunity to participate, does not invalidate the planning process. 15,mu1992, solid c: • (d) For 90 days after the date ending the planning period required under para- materials to a pro, graph(c),the city or town shall discuss possible organized collection arrangements with of the designated , all licensed collectors operating in the city or town who have expressed interest.If the 1991 city or town is unable to agree on an organized collection arrangement with a majority History: of the licensed collectors who have expressed interest, or upon expiration of the 90 115A.9561 MA days,the city or town may propose implementation of an alternate method of organiz- ing collection as authorized in subdivision 3. Subdivision (e) The city or town shall make specific findings that: (1) place ma (1) describe in detail the procedures it used to plan and to attempt implementation i (2) dispose o of organized collection through an arrangement with collectors who expressed interest; disposal facility. ad Subd. 2. Re t (2) evaluate the proposed organized collection method in light of at least the fol- county shall ensu lowing standards: achieving the stated organized-collection goals of the city or town; ancesFor the p minimizing displacement of collectors;ensuring participation of all interested parties (1) the rem. in the decision-making process; and maximizing efficiency in solid waste collection. (2) the rem • (f) Upon request, the city or town shall provide mailed notice of all proceedings (3) the rem on the organization of collection in the city or town. (4) the recy (g) If the city or town and all the persons licensed to operate mixed municipal solid I waste collection services and doing business in the city or town agree on the plan, the History: 19' city or town may implement the plan without regard to the 180-day period specified 115A.96 HO f in paragraph(a). 1 [For text of subds 5 to 7, see M.S.1990] History: 1991 c 337 s 46 Subd. 6. include in its 5 115A.941 _SOLID WASTE; REQUIRED COLLECTION. waste master p (a) Except as provided in paragraph(b), each city and town with a population of ment plan. Th: 5,000 or more shall ensure that every residential household and business in the city or (1) includ: i j /q9 I � R'r I I 20 ,,i-- WASTE MANAGEMENT 11SA.96 d acid batteries t Yard t •om the waste stream to has solid waste collection service.To comply with this section,a city or town may . olganize.collection, provide collection, or require by ordinance that every household -, and business has a contract for collection services. An ordinance adopted under this - section must provide for enforcement. , .;, (b) A city or town with a population of 5,000 or more may exempt a residential j` household or business in the city or town from the requirement to have solid waste col- ' lection service if the household or business ensures that an environmentally sound .` alternative is used. s before implement- , (c) To the extent practicable,the costs incurred by a city or town under this section ` ganizing collection, f 3 is intent to organize must be incorporated into the collection system or the enforcement mechanisms ng persons licensed ! adopted under this section by the city or town. hing the organized History: 1991 c 337 s 47 NOTE:This section,as added by Laws 1991,chapter 337,section 47,is effective July 1,1992.See Laws 1991,chapter aring. The hearing 337,section 91. to persons known 5A.953:., [Repealed, 1991 c 337 s 90] - a the city or town. toes not invalidate { 11 .956 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL PROBLEM MATERIALS. ' requirements has bdivision-1. Problem material processing and disposal plan. The office shall develo• . plan that designates problem materials and available capacity for processing city or town shall and dispo . of problem materials including household hazardous waste that should not l anized collection be in mixe• + unicipal solid waste.In developing the plan,the officeshall consider rele- j I: employ the asses- vant regional • aracteristics and the impact of problem materials on specific processing l perate solid waste and disposal to •nologies. j i •to participate in Subd. 2. Prob •m material separation and collection plan.After the office certifies effort to provide •_ that sufficient proces 'ng and disposal capacity is available,but no later than November Inning process. 15, 1992,the office sh.. develop a plan for separating problem materials from mixed I ired under para- municipal solid waste,c• ecting the problem materials,and transporting the problem rangements with materials to a processing • disposal facility and may by rule prohibit the placement . d interest.If the of the designated problem m•terials in mixed municipal solid waste. t with a majority History: 1991 c 303 s 2 I ration of the 90 ,, thod of organiz 115A.9561 MAJOR APPLIANC at. - - , Subdivision 1. Prohibitions.A pe . may not: (1) place major appliances in mixed •unicipal solid waste; or . ' mplementation tressed Interest (2) `dispose of major appliances in or on e land or in a solid waste processing or disposal facility.The,agency may enforce this •• ction pursuant to section 115.071: �I Subd. 2. Recycling required. Major applianc- must be recycled or reused. Each at least the foi- e city or town; county shall ensure.that its residents have the oppo nity to recycle used major appli- i• erected part':- •r` ances. For the purposes of this section, recycling incl •es. I ate collection. (1),the removal of capacitors that may contain PC:., 4 'I tll-proceedings • (2) the removal of ballasts that may contain PCBs; (3) the removal of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerant gas; a •• I iunicipal solid (4) the recycling or reuse of the metals i the plan, the History: 1991 c 337 s 48 f I ;nod specified 115A.96 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEME a b `- -[For text of subds 1 to 5, see'M.S.1990]`' ,I' gy � ± Subd. 6. HousehQld_lazardous waste Qment plans.- -�a) Each oo +t shall . `" include in its solid waste management plan required in.section 115A.46, or 1 solid ` '' waste master plan required in section 4.73.803,,a.household hazardous waste m age- Copulation of ment.plan. The plan must at least: ,. , . _ -_ .._ in the city or 1 include a broad based public education component; i . ,11 I Agenda Section: 8'. illf ntll REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Report Number: 9 2—2 5 6WS STAFF REPORT Report Date: 4/29/92 ° Council Action: ❑ Special Order of Business AGENDA SESSION: MAY 4 , 1992 ❑ Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda ❑ Council Business Item Description: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HOURS FOR MARV JOHNSON, PROGRAM SUPERVISOR Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) IJMMARY; In the past the Mounds View Parks, Recreation & Forestry Department has always had additional summer assistance in the office to handle the load of summer program supervision and implementation, handling park reservations, offering telephone and registration assistance and other related customer service tasks. This year is the first year that a Summer Playground Supervisor will not be hired because of lack of budgetary funding. Also, the additional duties of covering Senior Citizen programs and an drastic increase of summer youth athletic registrations will certainly require increased management by the Department. Staff also will be managing the work supervision of JPTA youth workers this summer. All of these added programs and responsibilities take a toll if adequate staff is not available to sufficiently serve the needs of the program and services. For these reasons I again request, as in the previous three summers, the increase in hours of Mary Johnson Jr., Program Supervisor to 40 hours per week beginning May 18 to September 4, 1992. The additional hours to be funded from the Recreation Activity Fund, thus putting no burden on the General Fund budget. Mary is an outstanding employee who is enmeshed into the daily functions of the Department and who provides greatly appreciated assistance. The additional hours are especially necessary during the summer months when there are greater programming tasks with increased programming, when-coverage-for-vacation times, meetings, out-of-the officesupervision and management becomes a greater need. The additional 20 hours per week would come to approximately $4,225.00. With the wages funded from the Recreation Activity Fund (a fee subsidized fund which also pays for Marv's 20 hours per week salary as currently budgeted) the additional hours do not impact the General Fund budget. ', r Mar •ASr. . ''rsr, of Parks, Recreation & Forest To consider the approval of extending the hours of Program Supervisor Marvin j;;,ECOMME NDATION; Johnson Jr. to 8 hours per day for the timespan of May 18 - September 4, 1992 for the purpose of providing necessary office coverage during these busy months in-an effort_to-maintain good customer service with the-increase-of-participant---- registrations; funding to be paid from the Recreation Activity Fund. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: 10 .. ©� �� Report Number: 9226 0 W S STAFF REPORT lir Report Date: 4/29/92 AGENDA SESSION DATE May 4, 1992 - DISPOSITION Item Description: City Wide Parking Restrictions Administrator's Review/Recommendation: (} - No comments to supplement this report �7./'}"/'�L - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) SUMMARY: Staff has previously discussed the possibility and benefits of implementing a City Wide parking prohibition between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Public Works primarily sees a benefit in snow plowing operations and the Police Department sees a primary benefit in patrolling operations. During the Halloween storm, a number of vehicles were parked on the street and created problems for snow plowing. Even though this storm began early in the day; if a 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. parking restriction were in effect, staff believes a significant number of the vehicles would not have been parked in the street. Part of the restriction is to get people in the habit of parking off-street. Attached is a copy of a survey staff conducted covering a number of area cities. As you will notice, there is a lot of variety even with the Cities that do have restrictions. This is likely due to the historical differences in development of the city. Anoka, for example, has had the parking restriction for a signif- icant number of years. The development of the City took the restriction into account and therefore, the year around ban is accepted by-the-residents, - Staff looks forward to discussing this issue with the Council. 444g7- Ric Minetor City Engineer/Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION• SURVEY ON SNOW PARKING BANS COMPLETE HOURS IN SEASONAL DATES IN SEASONAL HOURS IN DATES IN CITY OF PRKNG BAN EFFECT PRKNG BAN EFFECT HRLY PRKNG EFFECT EFFECT -AMA I 2AK TO 6AM N ARDEN HILLS N Y 10/1 TO 4/15 Y 2AM TO 6AM BLAINE N Y 11/1 TO 4/1 Y 2AM TO 7AM BLOOMINGTON Y MOVE EVERY 24HRS N N BROOKLYN PK N N Y 2AM TO 5AM 10/15 TO 4/15 CAMBRIDGE N N Y 1AM TO 7AM 11/1 TO 3/31 'COLUMBIA HTS N It I , 2AM TO 6AM 11/I TO 4/1. COON RAPIDS Y 2A14 TO 6Alf N EAGAN N N Y 6AM TO 6PM 11/15 TO 4/15 EDEN PRAIRIE N N N FRIDLET E Y 11/1 TO 5/1 LITTLE CANADA N Y ACCORDING TO SNOWFALL N NEW BRIGHTON Y DURING THE DAY: 6 ER PARKING MAX AT ONE TIME/BETWEEN THE HRS OF. 2-5AM IT IS ONLY 30MIN MAX NEW HOPE Y 2AM TO 6AM N N OAKDALE N N Y 2AM TO 7AM 11/1 TO 4/1 ROSEVILLE N N N r SHOREVIEW I 2AM TO 6AK N SPRING LK PK N Y 3" OR MORE OF SNOW, NO PARKING UNTIL PLOWED ST. LOUIS PK Y N N WOODBURY N N Y AFTER 2" ? _N Y 11/15 TO 4/1 N Agenda Section:REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION _l.l WINDS 92-261WS STAFF REPORT Report Number: LE AGENDA SESSION DATE May 4, 1992 Report Date: 4/29/9 2 DISPOSITION Item Description: Outdoor Water Use Restrictions Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) $UMMARYa In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 70 Section 18, I am implementing restrictions on the outdoor use of water beginning on May 18 and continuing through September 14, 1992. The restric- tions are helpful in reducing the peak usage of water, and also the total usage during the summer months. In the past, residents have expressed concerns that the odd-even rule is confusing or unfair. I feel it is fairly simple, odd addresses on odd days, etc. It does not seem unfair, although some residents feel that it causes an undue burden on those individuals who frequently leave town for weekends: They can't water on the Friday before they leave. There were also concerns that we should either have odd-even or a ban during certain hours, not both. I believe that the current system has been fair; and we have predicated our Water Department Capital Plan on continued summer restrictions. I feel that we need to stay with the current system as residents are getting used to the odd-even rule and continual- ly changing the rule is confusing. The mid-day ban is helpful in lowering the peak usage and also discourages residents from starting a aprink-l-er -when-they-Ieave for work-and letting it run all day. We have observed this in the past and have turned sprin- klers off that were left running during these hours when no one was at home. I welcome any comments the Council has regarding the restric- tions; we will be advertising the restrictions on the City Bill- board beginning May 11. ftoki Ric •etor City Engineer/Director of Public Works RECOMMENDATION; REQUEST FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Agenda Section: STAFF REPORT Report Number: JOUNDS tilin AGENDA SESSION DATE May 4, 1992 Report Date: II DISPOSITION Item Description: Police Department/Water Plant Remodeling Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) $TIMMARY; I have received a quote from Madsen-Johnson for the remodeling of the existing water filtration plant to a police garage and stor- 1 age area. This includes the conversion of the existing garage to a squad room and conference room. The quoted cost is $201,490. I have reviewed the cost estimate and it seems complete and reason- able. Staff is looking for direction from Council on this item. • ... Ric M'ne or City Engineer/Director of Public Works • RECOMMENDATION; . •-.-..„ ••;•-././ i....,,z, . % // ‘:::,'N.1;•• //. '''' . ›.! 41 i/ i '-•-q-al INA 44-s..‘k- /./ /7 NN•-•.,.. /7 ••••-, /„., 0 ‘,...••.,§: //I -, „r /./ ......,,. . /, /7/ I/ `,,,..N. /; ;•' a, j\N/N‘\\// /1// /7 ...., -,..,.. i.,, el / A...,. // A -1- , 'N',•.„ ' / iy 7/ N-e.`,. ....: 1-/ ...„:,...., .<<,.... .,,,s .Z,N‘)/ ', . . • / ir'l 's•,•. /7' ..• ty N './ N / . . • L.:'. . .-:•,-'. • 1\-• \ ' '/ s-.„.•.,, V . X3•1; • At .0' / " Of 1.''' . - -t.•.:• .,,!:::. . A. • • • - 0 Y NLVZVI I it -; N—..,.9/\---/:=NN . . .., 1 -,....n\.. Ny oen . • ,,IN ,.,•••• ,,.,..------ , I '':::-.... -...--,. 1-----th ..,1,-„•,-N-..„,k,Vvy, ..,), 1 E•'•;i • • 1---,.....1, — 7 p \.% / 9.t., / • 4.,:,..A. ..:. SY...f.„, 6 t t , i •— — '"N. ----j.,„ .::..,.."/s•z t../ '\-..z.,.... a (4-, N ...N.--' /Ns>, > ' 1' 51:lax'a.14.0 . ..\:,,,,,, '''NAs.,-,. / -..\ ,/ isl I--ylizi _ •••., ":,',./ Xs. ------,-‘,... ._ ‘-''''",;:, 'y ----...-„„ --:-.7.,./ ? ,(., u.::t ,,,,) - -7-- ---,.- ,,, zlY CkYn , '''•., •"/.. .--, •-•.„ „ • .., . • „..