CC PACKET 12131988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 was done and the "service went down while the prices went up. " He added 2 that he didn't think older residents should have to haul their garbage • 3 down to the curb and wondered whether residents were going to be given 4 a choice of days to have their collections made because the resident 5 said he is out of town all week and he has to put his garbage out on 6 Monday and can't bring the empties back in until he returns on Friday. 7 When Mr. Gondek identified himself as the letter write who had sent 8 letters to all the Councilmembers in which he had drawn a comparison 9 between the City's proposal and Soviet Russia, Mayor Sundland told him 10 it might- have been because of that statement that he had received no 11 replies to his letter. Mr. Gondek then suggested that if the City was 12 going to be the only one to deal with the garbage hauler the Council 13 selected, it might be a good idea to include all the Councilmembers' 14 phone numbers on the bills so residents could make any complaints they 15 had about the service directly to them. Councilmember Ranallo told 16 the resident that based on the number of calls he had gotten in response 17 to the Bulletin article about recycling, which had highlighted his own 18 disappointment not to see residents at the public hearing on the same 19 issue, he was certain the Councilmembers would be the first to hear 20 from the residents who are unhappy with the new system. 21 The Councilmember indicated that the City had always had the option of 22 just letting hauler who met the County's criteria handle the recycling, 23 but having had no resident concerns expressed to them, had accepted the 24 Task Force's arguments for having only one vendor. 25 Councilmember Enrooth told the residents there's nothing to prevent any • 26 hauler who meets the County's criteria from charging any rate they 27 chose. He added that "just so you don't get surprised, you should be 28 aware that when the County's incinerator goes into operation, your 29 charges, regardless of who your hauler is, will automatically have to 30 go up by roughly $6.00 to $8.00 a month." He pointed to the Hennepin 31 County newsletter which had been sent to all county residents as the 32 source of that information. The Councilmember said he hoped the 33 residents realized that raises like that couldn't be blamed on the 34 haulers who only have to respond to the conditions imposed on them from 35 government agencies. 36 In response to a question from Councilmember Marks related to the number 37 of haulers who had responded to the City's invitation to submit a 38 proposal, Councilmember Enrooth reiterated that only three companies, 39 Waste Management, Super Cycle, Inc. , and Knutson had responded at first 40 and a fourth, Reuters, had contacted the City at the last minute in the 41 process. Even though Task Force members inspected Reuter's facilities, 42 the fact that their process concept had not been accepted by Hennepin 43 County resulted in that proposal not being seriously considered. The 44 Councilmember said several of the vendors, including BFI, the parent 45 company of Woodlake, had at first declined to submit proposals. Only 46 one, Waste Management, appeared to meet all the Task Force's 47' requirements and already picked up about 82% of the City's garbage. One 48 didn't pick up in St. Anthony at all, but did service other 14 •